design lineThe Newsletter of Michael Rainforth ■■ Jeffrey Grau ■■ Architects

Fall 1998 Issue #17

The new Galt High School Gymnasium, completed in late 1997, isintended not only to support high school sport programs, but also

to act as a community resource for all of Galt.

The gymnasium is the third significant phase of a four phase

master plan of expansion and improvements. Prior phases included

site development and infrastructure improvements, and areorganization/replacement of 16 relocatable classrooms. While notas highly visible as the gymnasium, the earlier projects made significantimprovements to the organization and useability of the campus.

Situated on the north-west corner of the campus, along the main streetfrontage, the gymnasium project accomplishes a number of goals:

1) provides a modern gymnasium for P.E., team sports andstudent gatherings;

2) provides a facility for community activities, sportingevents and gatherings;

3) provides much needed relief for staff and special event

parking;4) helps redefine the swimming pool area by enclosing and

re-fencing the pool area; and5) completes the school site frontage by developing the

vacant property.

inside

a lo

ok ■ Bid Report Page 2

■ Architects Can Be Disciplined For Improper“Over-Stamping” Page 3

■ Galt High School Gymnasium continued Pages 4-5

■ Agency News Page 6

■ Editor’s Comments Page 7

A Center of ActivityGalt High School Gymnasium

(Continued on page 4)

3

A years-old practice of “over-stamping” documentsfor DSA approval has recently been confirmed to bein conflict with the Architect’s Practice Act.

“Over-stamping” is the practice of applying anarchitect’s (or engineer’s) professional license stampto documents prepared under the supervision ofother professionals; i.e., not prepared under thedirect supervision and control of the stampinglicense holder. DSA has long required such

over-stamping on all “deferred approval”

items (i.e., shop drawings, diagrams andcalculations for fire alarm systems, bleachers,handicap lifts, etc., prepared by the subcontractorand requiring DSA review and approval afterbidding). Most architects have routinelyperformed such over-stamping (and assumptionof professional responsibility) while renderingservices on school projects.

The practice is, however, in conflict with Section 5581.2

of the Business and Professions Code. The code section requires “disciplinary actions” on anyarchitect over-stamping.

A middle ground has been negotiated among the Board of Architectural Examiners, the AIA, California Council and the Division of theState Architect. The architect may, at will, sign a statement applied to these particular documents, which clarifies the record as to themeaning of the stamp and signature. Rainforth ■■ Grau ■■ Architects has adopted a policy of cooperation with DSA and will

be applying the illustrated notice to DSA-deferred approval submittals.

Architects Can Be Disciplined For Improper “Over-Stamping”

Office NewsWelcome...Congratulations...and Thanks

Welcome...Mark Curtis has re-joined the firm after an absence of four years, during which time he was working for the State Architect’sOffice in Utah. He has recently returned to California, and the firm, ready to resume public school facilities planning and design.

Mark is currently working on a design-build Multi-Purpose building for Lodi Unified and Class Size Reductions and Modernization forTracy Joint Unified. He is a licensed architect with registration in both California and Utah.

Congratulations...Stephen Henry has observed his 10th anniversary with RGA in June, 1998. His long-term dedication, and ever-growingexperience, is a valuable asset to both our firm and clients. We are fortunate to maintain stability and longevity with our personnel andlook forward to the next 10 years!

And thank you...Rainforth ■■ Grau ■■ Architects has received the Floyd Gates Memorial Design Award from the Sacramento ValleyBureau for Lath and Plaster. The award is for (A High Degree of Professionalism & Creativity in the Use of Lath & Plaster) Folsom HighSchool.

We appreciate the recognition provided to us from the Bureau and are particularly proud that the firm was nominated and selected notby a jury of architects, but by the contractors involved in lath and plaster.

NOTICEThese drawings and/or specifications and/or calculations for the items listed below have

been prepared by other design professionals who are licensed and authorized to prepare

such drawings in this state. These documents have been examined by me and have

been found to be in general conformance with the appropriate requirements of Title 24,

California Code of Regulations and the project specifications prepared by me.The items listed below are acceptable for incorporation into the construction of this project

for which I am the individual designated to be in general responsible charge (or for which I

have been delegated responsibility for this portion of the work).

____________________________________________ __________________Michael Rainforth, C5289

DateJeffrey A. Grau, C14648

List completely items reviewed and accepted:

2

Where are costs going these days? Apparently only one way...up!Increased activity in all sectors of construction are creating laborshortages, driving costs higher with less competition. While thereappears to be some slowing, there is no shortage of projects for1999. Costs, therefore, will probably continue to rise faster thannormal.

SCOE Building Alterations

Sacramento County Office of Education

Bid in August, 1998, with completion scheduled for November,this alterations project at Mather Field for SCOE is well under way.

The scope of work includes remodeling two former USAF buildingsfor reuse as a financial/administrative and computer center forthe County Office of Education. The buildings were vacated bythe Air Force in 1994 when the base was closed. SCOE was giventhe opportunity to purchase the buildings and, needing additionalspace, took advantage of the vacant buildings.

Project statistics:

Architect’s estimate: $739,078Accepted bid: $721,000Difference: 2.5% below estimateCost per SF: $29.07/sq. ft. (24,800 SF)Bid date: August 1998

Rocklin Alternative Center

Rocklin Unified School District

This project provides a permanent home for Rocklin Unified’salternative education programs, including continuation high school,independent study and adult education.

A separate site development contract, completed in October, 1998,rough graded the site and constructed 1,000 ft. of frontage street.The building contract includes construction of three permanentbuildings (administration/multi-purpose, media center andclassrooms), one relocatable classroom building and finish sitework.

The project is scheduled to complete by September, 1999.

Project statistics:

Architect’s estimate: $2,825,000Low bid: $3,179,000Difference: 12.5% over estimateCost per SF: $213/sq. ft. (14,911 SF)Site area: 7 acresBid date: October 1998(Low bid withdrawn by contractor. Award uncertain at this time.)

McKee Elementary School Fire Replacement

Elk Grove Unified School District

In 1996, an existing classroom building at McKee ElementarySchool in Elk Grove was irreparably destroyed by fire. The districttook the time to re-think the plan in terms of current classroomuse and loading, and redesigned the building footprint.

A new classroom building, incorporating nine class-size-reductionclassrooms in lieu of the original six standard-size classrooms,will take its place. Support spaces for work, prep, toilets andstudent activities are included in the new plan.

Awarded in January, 1998, to H.K. Merron of Rancho Cordova, theproject will be occupied this month.

Project statistics:

Architect’s estimate: $968,089Accepted bid: $894,849Difference: 7.6% below estimateCost per SF: $111.00/sq. ft. (8,060 SF)Capacity: 180 studentsBid date: October 1997

Bid Report:

4 5

A Center of ActivityGalt High School Gymnasium (from page 1)

The key to the gymnasium itself is flexibility. Features to support flexibility includemultiple court arrangement with built-in equipment for maximum activities; divider

curtain to allow different uses within the gym; second floor wrestling/dance room

which opens to the main floor below for viewing and control; retractable bleachers for

2,000; a vertical wall lift to store wrestling mats off the main floor and reduce handling.

Support spaces include a public lobby area with ticket booth and toilets; full food servicesfor special events and fund raising; locker rooms and support spaces for P.E. and teams.

The exterior design of the structure incorporates strong, durable materials,

primarily concrete block inter-mixed with brick, and metal roofing to compliment existing

buildings. The large volume of the gymnasium is screened and the overall scale is

reduced by the use of lower volume spaces and a masonry screen wall on the northand south elevations. These elements help relate the size of the building to the

residential neighbors and smaller surrounding structures.

The final phase of the master plan, construction of a math-science-technology quad, willcomplete the planned build-out of the campus. The realization of these four phases willhave transformed this campus from a disorganized collection of relocatables which“grew” on the site, to a well-organized and structured campus which provides the

needed facilities for a comprehensive high school.

Project Statistics:

Building Area: 29,372 sq. ft.Construction Cost: $5,300,000. (Including change orders)Cost per SF: $180.44/sq. ft.Occupancy Date: December 1997Contractor: Carter/Kelly Inc.

Partial Site PlanMain Public Corridor

Entry Lobby

Gymnasium

7

With Proposition 224 behind us, our firm, and many architects around the state, havebreathed a sigh of relief. The strong support from organizations and individuals aroundthe state, and country, led to a decisive defeat of the special interest initiative which wouldhave radically changed the school facilities business. We were encouraged by many of ourclients and friends through the long process and we thank all of you for your support.

Yet the victory took a heavy toll and we will never quite look at politics the same way.This particular proposition brought to our attention some very disturbing facts about theproposition process and ballot initiatives:

1) anyone can place a proposition on the ballot with enough money;2) a proposition need not be fair, reasonable or even honest in its

presentation; and3) the politically inactive make good targets for special interest groups.

Historically, most architects have been politically inactive. We tend to be interested inplanning and design; spaces and structures; light and color. We tend not to be interestedin policy and politics. This has always been reflected in individual attitudes and in thepolitical weakness of our professional organization, the AIA.

We believe that, if nothing else, Proposition 224 has inspired us as individuals, andhopefully as a professional organization, to become more interested and active in the

politics surrounding us. For if we had not joined together to defeat the initiative, ourpassion for public school planning and design, and our ability to practice as we choose(and how our clients expect us to perform), would be lost.

Your support in defeating Proposition 224 was not only a vote against government control,but also a vote of confidence in our profession and abilities. We thank you for

both.

With our sincere thanks,

Editor’s CommentsProposition 224 - Politics and Architects

Jeffrey A. Grau Michael Rainforth

6

Local Plans Checking? Beware!Rainforth ■■ Grau ■■ Architects has recently been exposed to plans checking by local building departments on projects in twoschool districts. These experiences have simply confirmed the advantages of a single, statewide plans check authority

for public schools and other essential service facilities.

Local plans checking has exposed the following:

➣ A “web” of approval processes through planning, fire, police, parks, building development and other departments.

➣ A significant variation in process between the lead agencies (one, a county; the other, a city).

➣ A significant variation in construction requirements through inconsistent interpretation of code and local modifications to the uniform code.

➣ Public service departments that don’t communicate well with each other and don’t volunteer even critical processinformation until the project has already lost time, continuity and momentum (i.e., more frequent “hold periods”for more frequent “public reviews”). This adds time to the project schedule.

➣ Application of variations of local planning development standards that increases construction costs.

➣ Increased costs to the district for multiple agency review and approval fees.

➣ Increased fees for the additional effort by the architect and consultants involved in planning agency approvalprocesses and coordination for multiple agencies concurrently.

➣ Public agencies with little desire to assist each other.

These experiences contrast greatly with those at the Division of the State Architect:

➣ Single agency for approval of access compliance, fire and life safety, and structural safety.

➣ Personnel familiar with the specialties of school construction, because that’s almost all they do.

➣ Personnel with whom the architects, engineers and school district personnel are familiar, since we meet them regularly over many years. A professional relationship develops.

➣ A general uniform interpretation and application of codes among the four DSA offices.

➣ An accessible management group willing to assist districts and architects with special circumstances.

Agency News

Editor: Jeffrey Grau

Articles contributed by: Michael Rainforth and Jeffrey Grau

Photography by:Bob Van Noy Photography

design line

Michael Jeffrey

RAINFORTH GRAUA R C H I T E C T S3250 Ramos CircleSacramento, California 95827-2513(916) 368-7990 Fax: (916) 368-7996E-Mail: rgaarch@aol.com

design line is a publication of Michael Rainforth ■■ Jeffrey Grau ■■ Architects

design line is the property of Michael Rainforth ■■ Jeffrey Grau ■■ Architects and may not be reproduced orreprinted without express written permission. The information presented within this publication is deemed to bereliable, however, Michael Rainforth ■■ Jeffrey Grau ■■ Architects must disclaim any liability whatsoever for theaccuracy of any information set forth in this publication.