The Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica

Featured Articles - June, 2004

Building Committee Provides Building Options Overview

The recent purchase of the property at 1248 18th Street, adjacent to the existing sanctuary, has opened up new and exciting possibilities for expanding and upgrading our facilities. Unfortunately, at a cost of $1.265 million, it has also absorbed most of the capital improvement fund which had been built up to begin construction of new religious education classrooms on the 17th Street lot, to expand the sanctuary, and to make access and code-related improvements to Forbes Hall.

Ironically, the purchase of the new parcel could move us further away from urgently needed improvements to our facilities, unless we move quickly to make some key choices and find a substantial amount of additional money to fund construction. This article summarizes the major options, provides preliminary cost comparisons, and explores the advantages and disadvantages of the options to be discussed at upcoming meetings June 2 and 19.

Options based on March meeting explored

Since the church closed escrow on March 31, the Building Committee has been studying options for use of the newly acquired property, upgrading the sanctuary and Forbes Hall, and use or sale of 17th Street lot. The tour of the house and town hall meeting held March 21 generated a wealth of ideas; more ideas have emerged as members explore the back yard now accessible from Forbes Hall and post their ideas on the alcove bulletin board. Building Committee members are considering these suggestions and drawing on their collective expertise in real estate, development, planning, and landscape and architectural design, as they explore options for all of the church properties with our architect, Ralph Mechur.

Building program priorities defined

Over the past four years, the congregation has defined three major priorities building priorities. All three remain urgent:

1) Expand the sanctuary to provide less crowded seating for Sunday services by relocating the administrative offices and nursery space.

2) Address accessibility and other code issues in Forbes Hall by providing wheelchair accessible restrooms, elevators, and fire exits.

3) Provide adequate classroom space for the religious education program, including nursery facilities, outdoor play space, and appropriately-sized classrooms not provided in the current cramped second-floor facilities above Forbes Hall.

Planning Commission approved 17th Street

We currently have Planning Commission approval to expand the sanctuary, to remodel into administrative offices the space upstairs from Forbes Hall, and to build a new RE facility on 17th Street. Commission approval includes measures to reduce church impacts on street parking. To actually build upon the 17th Street lot and make the changes to Forbes and the sanctuary we would have to obtain Architectural Review Board approval, prepare construction drawings, develop a parking management plan, and obtain building permits.

The church could decide to launch a new capital campaign to proceed with the approved 17th Street RE building project and essentially “land bank” 1248 18th Street until additional capital funding makes development on that site possible. In the interim, we can enjoy the open space behind the house and repair the house for storage or offices. The approved RE facilities on 17th Street pose safety issues and logistical challenges. The acquisition of the new parcel opens the opportunity of locating the RE classrooms next door to the sanctuary, avoiding the need for children to cross the alley, and creating a more compact campus that will be easier to operate.

Estimated cost: $1,258,640.

Options for 18th Street properties are studied

In addition to the “17th Street option” approved by the Planning Commission on March 3, the committee has developed three basic options focusing primarily on the two 18th Street properties, to see how our current space needs can be accommodated without using the 17th Street property. Each of these options would allow the 17th Street property to be sold or leased to help finance construction and upgrade on the 18th Street properties.

While elements of these options can be combined or modified in many ways, the committee feels these three options represent a range of basic choices. Options are intended to explore a range of construction costs and physical changes. We have provided general “order of magnitude” cost estimates for renovation and new construction. These estimates are very preliminary and do not reflect detailed estimates of the cost of renovating the house or major alteration of Forbes Hall, which will require further study once a preferred option is identified.

Options for reusing the 1248 18th Street house

There are two basic building options for the newly acquired lot: keep it to be reused as offices or classrooms, or remove it to be replaced by new construction. In order to maximize the area behind the house for use as open space and RE classroom space, the committee recommends that if the house is retained, it be moved about fourteen feet toward 18th Street. Renovating the house may cost almost as much as building new space, and will limit options for new construction. But preserving the house would win support from both neighbors and city officials, and might allow us to obtain some flexibility on other requirements.

If the old house were removed, more extensive new construction would be possible, including the possibility of both new RE facilities and even a new social hall, along with up to 17 spaces per level in an underground parking garage. Removing the house would require approval from the Landmarks Commission, which may find the house eligible for protection as a historic resource, making removal difficult. It may be possible to donate the house to be moved to another site, or to sell its architectural features for reuse.

The floor plans on the following pages illustrate three land use options for the campus. The text below summarizes the major options, their advantages, disadvantages, and cost estimates. These costs do not purport to show what the actual costs will be. They serve as a basis of comparing the various options.

Option M-1:Use house for offices

Phase 1: Move bungalow closer to 18th Street and renovate for administrative offices.

Phase 2: Renovate and expand first floor of Forbes to the north, adding a new kitchen. Build a two story, L-shaped building containing RE classrooms above parking and ground floor nursery, classrooms, and play area

Phase 3: Renovate second floor of Forbes Hall for RE classrooms and other uses, and connect to new RE classrooms to the north.

Phase 4: Expand sanctuary seating area, relocating nursery and offices.

Advantages: Seven new RE classrooms built behind house in early phases. Good outdoor access for RE classrooms. Some of Forbes Hall converted to music room. Administrative offices in house provide homelike setting and provide security to campus.

Disadvantages: Only three parking spaces provided, one accessible. Three classrooms above Forbes remain very small and narrow.

Estimated cost: $1,814,000.

Option M-2:Use house for RE classrooms

Phase 1: Move house toward 18th Street and renovate for use as RE classrooms. Build single-story nursery and two classrooms with adjacent play yards, plus two parking spaces.

Phase 2: Renovate and expand Forbes Hall, including the kitchen. Renovate second floor above Forbes for administrative offices.

Phase 3: Expand sanctuary seating area, relocating nursery and offices.

Advantages: Fewest construction phases, minimal relocation of uses. Three classrooms open directly to play yards. Lower construction cost for one-story RE facilities. Lower costs for minor remodel of second floor above Forbes.

Disadvantages: Classrooms in house and back of lot are very small. Administrative offices on second floor are hard to find, don’t improve campus security, less pleasant. Only two parking spaces provided, one accessible.

Estimated cost: $1,472,500.

Option R-1: Remove house

Phase 1: Remove bungalow and excavate site for underground parking. Construct about 17 spaces per level of underground parking on new lot. Construct two stories of RE classrooms on rear of new lot above parking. Construct new social hall, kitchen and meeting rooms above parking.

Phase 2: Renovate and expand Forbes Hall for administration.

Phase 3: Major structural renovation of the second floor above Forbes for larger RE classrooms, connect to new building.

Phase 4: Expand and renovate sanctuary.

Advantages: More attractive social hall with direct open space access and modern kitchen, increased event rental revenue. RE classrooms in Forbes are reconfigured. New, large RE classrooms with direct outdoor access. Administrative offices on first floor are practical. Provides 17 parking spaces per level in secure garage. Accommodates most growth in membership and programs

Disadvantages: Requires obtaining Landmarks Commission approval for removal of bungalow. Underground parking is costly and disruptive to construct, may be difficult to manage. Additional cost of constructing new social hall and major renovation of second floor of Forbes Hall. More expensive and more difficult to phase.

Estimated cost: $2,807,400.

Options for 17th Street

On March 3 the Planning Commission approved the construction of a new building for RE classrooms and meeting rooms on the 17th Street lot. With 1248 18th Street purchased just a few days later, RE programs housed adjacent to the sanctuary and Forbes Hall would eliminate the dangers of children crossing the alley. But to provide better space for the RE program without a long delay, we could move ahead to build the approved RE facility on 17th Street. This option would include expanding the sanctuary and could also include moving the offices to the second floor above Forbes Hall.

At the March town hall meeting, a number of other options for the 17th Street site were suggested:

• Sell the lot to help finance construction on the newly acquired parcel and renovation of Forbes Hall and the sanctuary. Recent parcels of similar size in the area suggest that the lot could be sold for about $800,000- 900,000, most likely to a developer who could build five housing units on it under the R-2 zoning.

• Build affordable housing on the site, perhaps a kind of Sunset Hall West for seniors. Affordable and senior housing can be built at higher densities, with lower parking requirements. However, the small, narrow lot (50 feet by 150 feet deep) makes sufficient parking extremely difficult to provide cost-efficiently. The City of Santa Monica recently developed such a site with a lower land price, and has said that it would not be interested in such project here.

• Hold onto the lot for future expansion needs. This is not feasible given the cost of renovating the other facilities unless we can find a way to generate income from the parcel with relatively low improvement costs.

Financial realities

The $1.265 million purchase price, including closing costs and broker’s commission, came predominantly from about $770,000 raised from the capital campaign held 2001 to 2003, and $473,000 from the Morgan bequest. Even with about $284,000 in outstanding pledges to the capital campaign, we don’t have enough money for the new construction we need to accommodate the building program goals.

Even the most modest reuse proposal – upgrades to the old house, new construction behind it, and accessibility upgrades – is estimated to cost over $1.47 million in improvements alone. This implies some combination of another major capital campaign, a major loan, and sale or lease of the 17th Street lot. Sale of 17th Street would substantially close the funding gap and allow us to move ahead with options M1 or M2. Option R1 would require additional financing. In order to move ahead to realize our dreams of better facilities, we need to engage in an open discussion about these financial realities and choices.

Some evaluation criteria

These options represent a range of choices, and could be combined in various ways to yield a “master plan” for our building program. Here are a few of the key criteria for making our final selection:

• Net cost per square foot of new space including land purchase and sale after 2004.

• Net cost for renovation of existing space.

• Quality, proximity and practicality of administrative office space for staff, ministers and volunteers.

• Quality of social hall and kitchen space, including adjacent outdoor space.

• Quality of religious education space: number of classrooms, shape/size, access to play-yard, safety/access, toilet and changing facilities for infant/toddlers.

• Phasing options for capital campaigns and minimizing construction disruption.

• Options to preserve future flexibility or allow future growth.

• Possibility of upgraded facilities providing increased rental revenue. Next steps: Over the next two months, the following key meetings are scheduled to discuss building options. • Special town hall meeting on Wednesday, June 2, at 7 p.m. in the sanctuary.

• Workshop on Saturday, June 19, from 1 to 3 p.m. at de Benneville Pines.

• Town hall meeting on Sunday, July 25, at 11:30 a.m. in the sanctuary.

— Alison Kendall, Building Committee

Peace and Civil Liberties Chair Speaks Out on Banner Issue

As the chair of the Peace and Civil Liberties Committee, I’d like to weigh in on some of the issues that were brought up during the congregational meeting of May 16 regarding the display of a banner saying “Civil Marriage Is a Civil Right.”

To bring non-attenders up to speed, this debate took place near the end of the meeting, immediately following the unanimous vote putting UUCCSM on record as favoring same sex marriage rights. A second Interweave proposal authorizing a banner outside of the church was then discussed and ultimately tabled until the issue could be more fully aired at meetings this summer.

I will begin by stating my forthright support for the banner. I am led to this position by the basic tenants of our denomination, my activism as part of Faith in Action, and the courageous lead that UUA has shown in displaying an identical banner in Boston across from the Massachusetts State House.

What I would now like to do is discuss each of the counter arguments that were raised, the first being that those who do not agree with same sex marriage will be disinclined from visiting our church. The rejoinder to this is why would someone who opposes civil rights for marriage want to attend a UU church? I believe that such a banner could actually spur attendance. Could there be a more public way of demonstrating that we are indeed a welcoming congregation?

Another more activist argument was Why this issue? and Why not a banner favoring women’s reproductive rights? I, for one, would support that banner as well. A year ago I would have welcomed a banner opposing the Iraqi war. The issue is that civil rights for marriage is a battle being fought today. Many states will have referenda this year seeking to ban same-sex marriage. If George Bush were to propose an anti-abortion activist for the Supreme Court, then obviously this struggle would require both our vocal and public support.

Finally, fears were voiced that a “Civil Marriage is a Civil Right” banner could inspire vandalism. My answer to this is twofold. One, our church is located in what is frequently called the Peoples’ Republic of Santa Monica, and two, if we can not display our support for marriage equality now, then when shall we do so?

Should we display a banner once an issue has been settled, perhaps one calling for voting rights regardless of sex or racial equality? Our role is, I believe, to lead. Of what value is our unanimous vote in favor of marriage equality if it is to remain unspoken for fear of reprisal? Our church’s history of activism beginning with Thoreau and continuing through our support of Martin Luther King compels us to publicly proclaim a unanimously held stance on what has become a critical civil rights issue of our time.

— S. J. Guidotti

Congregation Elects New Board Including a Youth Member

At the 77th annual congregational meeting held May 16, 95 church members heard about the past year and voted on leadership for the church’s future.

The congregation elected officers for next year’s board of directors, members at large, and nominating committee. They also voted on bylaw changes and heard reports from leaders in the congregation.

Both the Rev. Judith Meyer and board of directors President Carol Kerr spoke on the historic drama of the past year and the need to keep looking forward. They acknowledged the amazing convergence of acceptance of building plans by Santa Monica for the 17th Street lot and the purchase of the 18th Street property. (The purchase was ratified by vote at this meeting.) Both also acknowledged the generous gift to the church by Earl Morgan. The great work by Catherine Farmer as the new RE director was also recognized. Kathy Cook thanked and recognized the Rev. Stefanie Etzbach-Dale with a gift of a beautiful amethyst.

Officers were elected to the board of directors: Carol Kerr, president; Pat Wright, first vice president; Charles Haskell, second vice president; Ron Crane secretary; and Carol Agate, treasurer. Jerry Gates will continue in the position of immediate past president.

Rebecca Deal Crawford, Warren Mathews, and Dan Teplitz were elected to two-year terms as members at large on the board of directors. Dan is a member of YRUU. Melinda Ewen and Peter Van den Beemt were elected to one-year terms to fill vacated positions. Pat Parkerton continues serving for one more year.

Nominating Committee members elected were Linda Van Ligten, John Fels, and Audrey Lyness. Continuing committee members are Kathy Cook, S. J. Guidotti, and Shawn Kerr.

Eight proposed amendments to the bylaws were put before the congregation and all but one passed without discussion. The one bylaw change that garnered discussion lessened the board’s influence on the filling of midterm board vacancies. The bylaw change was passed without amendment.

In new business, the congregation voted to affirm the church’s position that every adult has the right to marry the person of his or her choice without regard to gender. A motion to hang a banner on the church that states “Civil Marriage is a Civil Right” was discussed and then tabled for a future meeting.

Carol Agate and Warren Mathews presented reports on the church’s finances. They both noted that pledge receipts did not meet expectations. It is anticipated that the church will have an operating surplus at the end of this fiscal year in June but that is because some anticipated expenses did not materialize. The congregation voted to accept the proposed budget for 2004-2005 that includes an anticipated $17,189 shortfall.

—Nels Hanson

Back to Features Index