Building News Archive
Update
Following a holiday hiatus, the building committee met on January 5. Some membershad walked an area covering the few blocks surrounding the churcha nd foundabout a dozen parking lots that might serve as alternative or backup to thehospital garage. The owners will be contacted.
Our topographic survey has been completed, identifying setback lines, existingtrees slopes, and other features. The architect has been developing the openarea, or plaza, between the buildings on 17th Street as the focal point andmain design opportunity for the property.
With design progressing well, albeit the city progressing slowly, we look forwardto a presentation in the congregation on March 23, followed by an event forthe neighbors.
-- Barbara Kernochan
Parking and Building Code Requirements
The building committee reports it is pleased with the progress of our architect,Ralph Mechur, and has signed a "Phase 1" letter contract for the conceptual,schematic, and detail design necessary to obtain acceptance by the Santa Monicaplanning commission, architectural review board and building department. Criticalissues are parking and building code requirements. This phase represents about15% of the architectural work. Our timing in this phase is determined largelyby the city.
A definite contract for the remainder of the architect's work is being negotiated.A preliminary services agreement with a building contractor (Dreyfuss) is alsobeing negotiated.
Three proposals for a topographic survey of the 17th Street property have beenreceived. The committee has selected the low bidder, subject to the architect'scomments.
Sufficient and assured Sunday parking continues to be a concern. The committeewill investigate the possibility of obtaining offsite parking near 18th andArizona. Suggestions from the congregation are welcome.
Pre-Application Review
On September 26, members of the church's building committee met with representativesof various Santa Monica city departments for a pre-aplication review meeting.Each city staff member reviewed the potential issues from their department'spoint of view. It is still too early in the process to evaluate the city's potentialresponse to our proposed project, but there were some hopeful signs.
The big issue is, of course, parking. One hopeful sign is their indicationthat no new parking spaces would be required for the new classrooms since weare building the same number of classrooms we have now, even though they arelarger. So their initial take on this is that parking will be required onlyfor the increase in office space and the increase in the number of seats inthe sanctuary. They have asked for additional documentation on the exact increasewe anticipate. The committee, with the architect, will be working on this information.
The other good news is that the city staff feels we will not be required toprepare an Enviornmental Impact Report, which would have been time-consumingand expensive. The other items discussed with the city were about various buildingcode and fire department issues, all of which can probably be solved.
There was a brief discussion about the Religious Land Use and InstitutionalizedPersons Act (RLUIPA) laws and the possible effect on our project. The RLUIPApassed by Congress in 2000 benefits churches in their rights to expand facilitiesregarding local zoning restrictions. We have received nothing definitive fromthe city but have gotten some indication that this law may be beneficial inour case, and that it could help us obtain some concessions on the parking demand.
The committee is working with the architect to resolve his contract to completethe design phase through approval by the city. The architect, Ralph Mechur,was once a member of the Santa Monica planning commission and has been veryhelpful in maneuvering through City Hall. The attorney, Chris Harding, is wellknown in the development community of Santa Monica, and has been very generouswith his time in advising the building committee and attending the meeting withthe city. It will still be many months before getting to the planning commission,and knowing just how much or what we will be able to build, but everyone remainshopeful and enthusiastic.
-- David Denton
Cost-Saving Changes
In our capital campaign, we raised a lot of money, and interest in our buildingprogram continues to run high. At our June 30 congregational meeting, the focusof discussion was seeking ways to live within our means while holding true toour aspirations. To realize both of these goals, we found, will require a newarchitectural direction and a continuing hard look at our bottom line.
Construction estimates for the building design we have been considering thesepast months came in at or near $1.5 million, as anticipated. Adding permit costs,professional fees, insurance, contingency and other indirect costs, we wouldneed close to $2 million to fund the project. Having raised under $1.1 millionand recognizing the imprudence of taking on a large debt burden, we had to acknowledgethat this scope of work is simply beyond our means.
As a result, the building committee began to look for ways to significantlyreduce the program costs. We looked at several possibilities, from selling theexisting 17th Street building on the alley in order to rebuild Forbes Hall,to scaling back plans on both properties. We decided that our most promisingpath was to devise a more affordable design concept for 17th Street, perhapsusing the existing building on the alley.
We began working with a new architect, Ralph Mechur, who came to us with extensiveexperience with non-profit organizations, as well as eight years of serviceon the Santa Monica Planning Commission. He rose to the challenge and designeda plan that brings savings in construction costs and additional reductions insome soft costs. Approximate costs for the new design, including sanctuary expansion,are $1,450,000.
This new plan does not give us quite the cost reduction we had looked for,but it puts us in the ballpark of what we might afford. If we cannot borrowor raise the shortfall, we might still have to build in phases. Nevertheless,there is real confidence that our new plan is the right direction for us. Judgingby the reaction of participants in our meeting, the congregation is pleasedwith Mr. Mechur's response to his challenge. (Early drawings are posted on theForbes Hall kiosk.)
Much remains to be done. With our new plan under development, the buildingcommittee is turning its attention to parking and city requirements. A businessmeeting, perhaps in late fall, will allow the congregation to decide our course.How grand it would be to break ground next summer!
Pledge Milestone!
We're nowcelebrating the $1 million mark in pledges for our building and capitalcampaign! Thanks to all who helped us get to this point...and if you haven'tpledged yet, it's not too late. Ofelia Lachtman and Carol Kerr will be in AndersonCourtyard after every service in May to discuss with you how best to contributeto the capital campaign.
Congregation Discusses Choir Location;
New Building Brochure Available
In a town hall meeting on Sunday, March 17, the congregation met inresponse to a request from many members who suggested that the choir in thenew sanctuary not be placed behind the minister and in front of the greenery.
The meeting was led by President Jerry Gates and Building CommitteeChair Barbara Kernochan. Architect Aleks Istanbullu was thereto hear the congregation's concerns and to answer questions regarding the currentconfiguration. Steve Wight explained that the choir has to be near thepiano, so the choir director can be seen by the singers and the pianist, andthat they must face into the audience.
Most people thought the choir in the back was not a solution. A number of considerationsregarding the placement of the choir were fully discussed, including a locationon the side rather than along the back behind the minister, having the choirturn to face the congregation when they sing, or move a few feet from theirseats to stand facing the congregation. Another idea was to have the choir onthe left next to the green area instead of in front of it. Most people thoughtit was more important to have a deep green area than to have it shallow andalong the entire chancel. The current plans show the green area as narrowedand twice its current length.
This process was said to have been worth while, and the hope was expressedthat future major decisions about the building will be brought to the congregation.President Jerry Gates agreed, and urged people to be active participants inthe process. He summarized the discussion, saying that those present wantedchancel greenery similar to what we now have, fine acoustics, and flexibilityof use. Further, he said that it was agreed that the design should permit maximumseating for the congregation. The builsding committee will work with the architectto meet these desires.
Also in March, we published a new brochure, "Buildingon our Future: Capital Campaign 2002," which presents all the details ofour new building and capital campaign. It contains quotesfrom church members on what the campaign and the church mean to them, detailedbuilding plans, and optionsfor donating to the campaign. You can readthe full text of the brochure here (be sure to zoom in on various sectionsafter the image appears in your browser window), or obtain a hard copy fromthe church office.
Design Suggestions from the Congregation
Following presentations to the congregation earlier this year, the BuildingCommittee received valuable suggestions from members of the congregation. Allquestions and suggestions have been reviewed by the committee and brought tothe architect as well. Although not all suggestions are feasible, because ofcity codes, costs, or other considerations, it is wonderful that the congregationis taking such an active role in the building program. Here below are the suggestions,followed by a feasibility assessment of each:
Use the storage space adjacent to left side of chancel as a bathroom.
Although this space is already plumbed, we are concerned that a bathroom directlyadjacent to the chancel would pose potential noise problems. We do provide thetwo bathrooms just inside the Arizona entrance. Perhaps most importantly, thischancel-adjacent location is critically needed for the audio and electricalequipment and wiring, and for storage.
A short wall or partial glass wall would create a more welcoming administrationoffice upstairs.
This will costs a little more, but can be done and would create an attractiveentry. Marie will be asked to assist in the layout of this area.
Keep foyer bathrooms on the east wall at the sanctuary entrance, as farremoved from sanctuary seating as possible.
Doors would have to open towards the sanctuary to afford wheelchair access.As drawn, there is a thick wall between sanctuary and bathrooms, and sound-proofingcan be added. Doors (with glass panels) could replace the curtains, furtherinsulating the sanctuary from foyer noise.
Is there enough storage space? A basement in the West Building would provideadditional storage space.
A task force is analyzing our storage needs now, and we know that inexpensiveoff-site storage is available for items used only infrequently. However, a basementor partial basement would be great if we can afford it. We would have to addan elevator stop, thus necessitating a more expensive three-stop elevator, andof course excavate and ventilate. As we look at possible construction companies,we are asking specifically for a cost estimate on a basement. With numbers inhand we can decide if the additional storage is worth the additional cost.
Remove the bit of wall that descends from the roof to separate the centralarea from the north seating area of the sanctuary.
This is a structural requirement to support the central clerestory. It willbe repeated on the south side when the wall is removed.
Video wiring would allow for remote viewing in the foyer and/or Forbes Hall.
Yes, we would like to provide some remote viewing options for services andother events, so this would be a practical and welcome addition. We have notyet reached the stage of mechanical details, but we need to find out what isin place now and make sure that additional wiring is included during renovation.Then the cameras and monitors can be added as funds become available.
Let's reconsider a ramp up to the chancel.
We are required to provide wheelchair access to the chancel. Our initial architecturaldrawings tried several possible ramp configurations, but a ramp uses up a greatdeal of space, no matter how it is placed. Although a lift can look awkward,we can work to make the lift look more attractive rather than sacrificing floorspace. To increase seating space in the sanctuary has always been a primaryconsiderations for the whole building program and we are working hard to maximizethat space.
Reconfigure the Forbes Hall hallway into table and chair storage to streamlineForbes Hall.
There are certain code restrictions regarding lengths of dead-end hallways,but this idea is a real possibility and may indeed be a better use for thislittle-used space. However, certain built-in areas on the south wall of ForbesHall must remain, as they contain a video monitor, wiring, the new phone system,and storage areas. Further study is needed here.
Relocate the choir, preferably to the back of the sanctuary.
Our first sanctuary task force suggested this placement, but when presentedin the early architectural drawings, many people objected. The primary considerationis space. To make room for the choir, conductor, piano and organ in the back,rows of seating would have to be removed. In order to retrieve that seatingspace, we would need to shrink the chancel, making it far less desirable forweddings, concerts, and other events. All input from the music program indicatedthat the piano should be on the chancel, that the piano and organ must be onthe same side, and that for reasons of acoustics the choir should face towardsthe congregation. Furthermore, by utilizing the recessed area, we actually gainchancel space without sacrificing sanctuary seating. In the current design,the choir sits behind and to the left of the minister and, of course, will beseated except when performing.
Reserve the library in the West Building as sacred space.
While there will be no sinks, and surfaces will be more formally finished thanin the other classrooms, the library may sometimes be needed as a classroomfor our young people. It will not be used in ways that could easily mar or stainwalls and flooring.
There could be a lot of disturbance from street activity and noise throughthe French doors to the Memory Garden.
Bamboo or other greenery will help screen street activity. The glass will bedual glazed for maximum sound insulation, and the doors will usually remainclosed during services.
We want to keep the plantings behind the chancel.
That wall of green is very popular. It will remain, but in a different form.With the choir seated in front of the lower portions, the planting area willnot be as deep as it is now. However, it will extend all the way to the currentsouth wall, thus almost doubling in length. Also, the memory garden greenerywill be visible through the new doors on the south side of the sanctuary.
Why isn't the West Building designed in Mission Style?
While we all love the styling of the sanctuary, the new West Building is notadjacent to it, but rather to Forbes Hall. Although less traditional than missionstyle, a clean-lined modern building can be equally beautiful and uplifting.It is clear that we do not all have the same architectural or aesthetic sense,since we are hearing a lot of differing ideas on design details. But there isbroad consensus that the design must serve to unify the campus. The architectand Building Committee are exploring a number of ways to accomplish this, suchas recreating some sanctuary design elements in the new building, selectingcoordinating colors and materials, and/or creating a stepping-stone pathwaylinking the buildings. We continue to welcome your ideas.
Plans Revealed; Vote Scheduled for Dec. 9
The preliminary building plans shown to the congregation on November 4 describea remodeled sanctuary, and administrative offices for the second floor, aboveForbes Hall.
The new building has six classrooms, which can also serve as meeting rooms.There will be a library or multi-purpose room on the second floor, accessibleby stairs and elevator. There will be outdoor play areas for the children.
The sanctury will be expanded by removing the wall between it and the existingoffices. The piano and organ will be on the same side, so the organist willno longer have to cross in front of the chancel. The choir will sit along theback of the chancel. French doors along Arizona Avenue will let in the lightand provide access to a memory garden. There will also be a second restroomin the south annex.
Instead of an elevator, Forbes Hall will have a lift allowing access to thesecond floor, and to the sanctuary. The second floor above Forbes Hall willinclude offices for the minister, the director of religious education, the churchadministrator and administrative assistants. There will also be a room for volunteersand one room to serve as a choir room, music director's office and musicians'green room.
We will have four parking spaces on the alley side of the 17th Street property,replacing the garages that are there now, but never used for cars.
During the meeting, members of the congregation gave their feedback on theplans. The building committee will review all suggestions and take them backto the architect. A final decision on whether to go ahead with the buildingand the capital campaign will be made at the congregational meeting at 12:30on Sunday, December 9.
Everyone Invited to Unveiling of Latest Building Plans
On Sunday, November 4, at 12:30 p.m. in the Sanctuary, membersof our church's building committee will present the latest renderings of thearchitectural plans for our new building program.
These latest and more detailed plans are the culmination of several years ofgathering member input on what we want for our church. The building projecthad its genesis in the "visioning" process. Small neighborhood meetings wereheld about four years ago. Members discussed their wishes for the church andthe dominant theme was the need for more space.
A subsequent meeting has been referred to as "the one with dots." Members brainstormedideas for what we all wanted to build. After lengthy discussions, we voted byplacing sticky dots on large sheets of newsprint listing the ideas. The runawaywinners were an enlarged sanctuary and enhanced classroom space.
A facility development committee was formed to further explore the ideas fromthe congregation. They presented the ideas to an architect, Aleks Istanbullu,who developed three rough plans, based on different levels of funding. On February29, 2000, about 75 members met all afternoon with the architect to tell himwhat we wanted. He presented the design concepts to the entire group, and thensmall groups met at tables set up in Forbes Hall to look at the plans and discussthe concepts.
Each group reported back, and the consensus was remarkable. The conclusionwas that the most important improvements were an expanded sanctuary, a new classroombuilding, and administrative offices were the classrooms now are. We did notwant our social hall relocated across the alley. Armed with those ideas, thearchitect proceeded. He met with many groups from the congregation, focusingon people whose volunteer or staff activities would be most affected by theproject. At a January 28, 2001 meeting, the congregation voted to proceed withthe capital fundraising campaign.
This March, a building project committee was formed, and in June, the committeepublished a comprehensive update on the status of the planning. To summarize:the city planning department had been encouraging; we are unlikely to be ableto build all that we would like to, but we may be able to do the most importantparts; the architect was about to start on the schematic drawings, better definingthe scope of the project.
Our November presentation will be an important step as we prepare to go intothe final stages of our planning process. This is your opportunity to see wherewe are, ask questions, get clarifications, let your thoughts be known, and ingeneral get excited about our building prospects. Copies of the latest designwill be distributed. The building committee will gather any additional inputand pass it on to the architect for review. We encourage members, friends andvisitors to attend this meeting. A light snack, for a modest charge, will beavailable after the 11 a.m. service.
Capital Campaign Plans Coming Together
At the June meeting of the church board, capital campaign chair Jim Cadwellreported that the architect for the building program has been instructed todraft a revised budget for preparing the building plans. Also, 54 people attendedtwo capital campaign orientation meetings held in May by UUA consultant JerryKing. November 4 is our scheduled kickoff date for the capital campaign.The Steering Committee met on June 19 to start filling key management positionsin the campaign. Pledge campaign co-chair Anita Brenner attended themeeting to help coordinate the Pledge and Capital campaigns. Also, a telephoneconference was held on June 14 with Jerry King to discuss a start date for solicitations.