The SHGA Gazebo Renovation Project is open for Comment

Look here for ongoing projects and volunteer opportunities the SHGA is working on. Members may also submit any ideas they have.

From John Hoehn

Post by JT » Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:03 pm

How many have seen the shed/pavilion at Crestline Soaring Society? It is big enough, and allows for space to cook in and still march a couple of hundred hungry people through. What we had was nice, but what we could have would also be nice. I will support whatever decision is made, but I think we should build a bigger one this time.

John Hoehn

User avatar
skygeek AKA Seabass
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:34 pm
Location: Newhall

Post by skygeek AKA Seabass » Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:30 pm

The systems I am talking about are not just for music & watching TV, they would be utilized for viewing the counltess amount of hours of flying video both in HD & non HD, that most club members do not get to see, the system would have the capability to act as a PA for club meetings & to be used to monitor the club frequency. There was talk of renting out the new facilities, a PA/sound system with a video monitor would be more accomidating to the renter, & bring in more revenue.

Steve Clark
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 2:17 am

Post by Steve Clark » Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:28 am

I'll open this post by saying that plan "C" seems to me to be the best idea. Being able to expand in the future opens up a lot of options such as, real bathrooms, a small kitchenette, or a nice club house where members can go and sit and "BS" about the days activities. I do have a couple of thoughts on the building plan though. First the positioning of the structure. Thinking of privacy of members and privacy of neighbors, that the pavilion might be built in sort of an "L" shape in the corner of the LZ providing an attractive barrier between lounging members and our very tolerant (for now) neighbors. Or, perhaps keep the pavilion facing North but extend a decorative wall several feet on the west side along the the edge of the LZ to create this privacy barrier.I know that most members would like to use vegetation on the hillside along the street to create this effect but no matter what is planted it will take years to achieve this.

I also have a suggestion on what we might plant on the hillside, my dad (Buddy Clark) used to have these very attractive plants growing in our front yard they were primarily green leaves with pretty orange flowers on them. They promoted pollination and humming birds, which are also pretty. These plants quickly became bushes which need to be trimmed now and then and created a very nice barrier between the house and the street. They are low water low maintenance plants. They are a form of "Honey Suckle".

Anyway, talk amongst yourselves.



Number One Project

Post by JT » Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:27 pm

Time is running out for comment. The Board will be looking here until Tuesday, 4/17 and then will decide what needs to be modified if anything. Say it now, if it is worth saying.

User avatar
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:40 pm

Post by BudRob » Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:57 pm

C C, me me. I'm in! Clear enough?

User avatar
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:52 pm

Post by Vrezh » Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:42 pm

My vote goes for Option A.

I’d like to make some suggestions though.
Get rid of an elevated circle on the right, make all flooring level. Also eliminate the pole from the center of it.
Concrete or other flooring, other than wood is preferable.
The roof, I think, is better to make slanted only to one side (N side lower, S side higher), without the hump in the middle; simpler and chipper.
The shade on the west side should be extended all the way to the end of a S wall of a main structure.
There should be another partial wall on the E side, where there is a railing on the design, extending northward, seems like 1/3 or halfway. This will create a corner for much discussed board/communications box/power supply/phone etc. needs.
In my opinion, the whole structure should be built of metal, may be the roof could be corrugated green or white plastic. If so, I understand, there should be some design adjustments made (this presentation is not final anyway).

Why Option A? (When looks like Option C is favored by many club members).

1. Circumstances (permit, zoning and such) are not favorable for ambitious projects.
We can vote for the most ambitious design, no harm is done. But chances of getting it approved are next to none. Let’s face it, even if the club can lobby it now trough influential politicians, the next guy in the office can simply crush it like a sand castle. Too much unjustified risk is involved.
Get real!

2. Options A and B are aesthetically and functionally better connected to the landscape.
They blend perfectly, and for sure won’t irritate or propagate authorities and neighbors.
Option A is roomy, wide open, takes up less of a precious area from LZ compared to Option C, which, despite taking a huge chunk of an LZ, still consists of a somewhat divided small sections. The angular S wall just swallows unused real estate between its angular sections.

3. Extra storage space is a good idea. Let’s put the numbers together. The estimated cost difference between Option A and Option C is $30,000.
We already do have a pad for an additional storage container between existing 2 containers.
Empty containers cost $2500. Everything else that goes inside the container or under the Gazebo/Pavilion (shelving and tubes) is the same. We could use some extra $27,000.
Plus, the container is much more fire and water safe. It has already been done, so it’s easy to duplicate.

4. Thoughts of future expansions make sense. Option A is more flexible from that point of view. Less to deal with in future designs. Just fill up empty spaces with whatever is in demand at the time of remodeling.

Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:40 pm

Post by ericbrown » Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:34 pm

i'm with vrezh. option a with additional storage somewhere else.

my first response was "c" until i saw this rendering:

it seems way over-complicated and the flow seems really broken with all those beams. is there any way to chill it out a bit?


Post by JT » Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:05 pm

I have already asked the architect if fewer supports than shown can be engineered. My opinion is that the lattice should be a cantilever design to eliminate all supports beyond the roof structure.

The architect has indicated that fewer uprights is possible but I'm not asking him or the designer of plans "A" and "B" to put anymore time into this until the BOD sees all the comments and comes to some consensus for changes to all the options for a final offering to the membership.

I need to also make clear to everyone that "A" and "B" are less flexible than "C" because they were not designed to be flexible. Once built, they would be demolished if we decide in the furture to build something else in their place; a clubhouse for example. Either can be re-designed with future flexiblilty but that will cost more to construct.

Considering the view from Santiago Estates, as is, I don't think we should be considering corrugated steel or plastic panel roofs. We've been trying to hide the Port-o-san since I came back to flying.

Metal doesn't seem to me to be an aesthetically pleasing medium for the framing, for that matter. I thought the point being made for "A" was to blend into the landscape better.

User avatar
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:32 am
Location: Pacific Palisades

Post by Christian » Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:39 am

The three options prompt members to consider whether they want a clubhouse, rather than just a shelter, in the future.

It;s a question everybody has to answer for themselves, and I'm not sure we are confronting it.

Shelter: Shade, open, inviting, park-like, informal, with adjacent well-planned BBQ use. LZ faciity area cleaned up and planned out, unlike current hodgepodge evolved over the years.

Clubhouse: The above plus eventual flush toilets and presumably an enclosed common room large enough for X number of people to congregate when its blowy or rainy.

Anybody care to make the case for the clubhouse? I could use some convincing.

Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:22 am

Post by greblo » Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:31 am

My answer to Christian;
Option C gives us the most bang for the buck. Very importantly, it answers the most number of requests by members and it puts us in the highest possible standings with the community of Sylmar (neighbors, civic groups, government agencies, and our the politicians), all who have taken positions in the past to preserve the future of our flight park.
Option C provides us the greatest flexibility to grow in the future (should club members ever desire). Part of C's develpment cost lies in it's expandability (as discussed in previous posts). I've been with the club since the beginning and I have noticed one thing that has remained constant over the years. All of our L/Z improvements were resisted by some, and for the most part, greatly appreciated later on. This includes the addition of our lawn, our shade trees, our paved parking, our portable toilet, our picnic tables, etc. These additions have been welcomed by club members, nearby home owners, and the organizations that we have called on to support us in some of our battles to preserve our site. I've heard no one say. "I wish we could get rid of the grass and go back to the days when this field was dirt." It's natural to enjoy convenience and comfort and beauty, and it's likely we will come to want more of it as years go by.
Our club will never be forced by anyone to build a club room or a clubhouse. But one should come if a majority of members later decide they want one. As time passes, our vision tends to change. Would you welcome a dry warm room to move into during brief showers, wind or rain; a place without flies to prepare the food for club events; a quiet spot for club business or a Hungary Joe weather clinic.
Our club will likely be forced to build sanitary restrooms at some point in the future. This was a condition of the SIBL use permit and would be considered standard for a use such as ours. Whether this happens in one year, or ten, we don't know; but it's unlikely that we can hold it off forever. I personally view sanitary restrooms as a real plus for our club's future. Not having one is a limiting factor to member and visitor comfort and a impediment to our club's growth.
Finally, on the subject of cost. Most of us would have to think twice about spending $30,000 dollars on improving our home. For each of us, that's a lot of money. However, for a club of 200 members, it becomes immensely affordable. By sharing the cost among 200 people, even large projects become small.


Only Two Days

Post by JT » Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:31 pm

I hope everyone who wishes to comment has had their say. The Board will discuss everything that has been posted here or sent directly to any officer and decide what course to take at the next meeting (4/19). If you have anything to say, now is the time.

User avatar
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:31 pm

Board to Put Gazebo Project to a Vote

Post by Joseph » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:32 am

At last nights board meeting the following was agreed. Our local representative Mr. Alarcon will be approached to start the process of gaining the required permits as needed. Jim Thompson and the Gazebo Action Committe will modify the Gazebo plans to include comments from the membership. A document will be created to answer questions on the the reason for the design features in the plans in preparation for a vote to the membership in the first weeks of May. Based on the outcome of the vote, the Board will act.

User avatar
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:22 am
Location: Westchester

design of gazebo

Post by gregangsten » Wed May 02, 2007 7:37 am

There is one other thing we were talking about the other day that I would like to submit for comment. I thought it would be great to put a fireplace into the design. Think about all those cold days in the winter that we are hanging around there. It would be a great focal point. As it is now, we sometimes build a fire in that old boiler bottom but it is technically illegal unless you are barbecuing something. With a fireplace it would be legal and very pleasant.

Also, not to be a wet blanket, but I find the C design rather uninviting. ...all those posts and dividing walls makes it seem smaller even though it is bigger. I think one or two rooms and more openess is better, with better views of the field. Maybe a layout more like B, but first class, like option C? I know it is rather late in the game to be posting this, but heck, what's the rush?

User avatar
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 8:58 am


Post by Don » Wed May 02, 2007 10:30 am

IF, a fireplace is to be seriously considered, consideration should be given to a wood burning stove. They are certainly safer and give out a lot more heat. Many homes in the mountain states use them as the sole source of heat.

Just a thought / alternative.

User avatar
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:22 am
Location: Westchester


Post by gregangsten » Wed May 02, 2007 1:21 pm

A stove might give more heat but I don't think it is safer with kids around.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:20 pm
Location: Sylmar, CA


Post by Chip » Wed May 02, 2007 9:46 pm

Keep those Chipman piro's, err.... I mean boys away.

Posts: 182
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 9:19 am

Post by JBBenson » Thu May 03, 2007 6:38 am

Chasing away the bitter cold of Sylmar. What's best?

In the 100+ degrees that is typical of Sylmar, I dream of sitting in front of a fire, wrapped in my warm blanky. Brrrr.

The only thing better would be a jacuzzi. With a cup of hot cocoa.

User avatar
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:31 pm

Saturday May 19th - Club meeting and the Gazebo Project

Post by Joseph » Wed May 16, 2007 10:02 pm

The May Club Meeting is this Saturday May 19th at the L/Z - 5:00pm. The materials sent out to members for the Gazebo ballot will be available and I will be there to answer questions for interested members. We all owe a ton of thanks to Jim Thompson, Jesse Benson, Joe Greblo, Hiro Matsunaga, and everyone involved in getting a solid set of plans in place for the membership to consider.

So with that in mind, lets all pay attention to this issue and participate. As a club, I believe that we must realize that we are part of a growing neighborhood and that fact puts opportunities and challenges in front of us.

We have development right on the border of our property and our neighbors have been very considerate in telling the developer to speak with us. We cannot ignore our neighbors interests and expect that they will continue to consider ours in the future.

Our membership is diverse and the L/Z, the place where we come together as a group is very important to everyone. In order to preserve our ability to live freely, to continue to experience the joy of flying in the air we must plan a bit.

I believe that we will need to get a Conditional Use Permit in the near future. Our infrastructure in the L/Z would serve us best if it brought us closer to compliance with the permit. This means real bathrooms, changes to the parking lot, potentially rules that affect the activities that we do in the L/Z. We cannot change the fact that this change is coming, but what we can do is act to control it as much as possible, rather than being controlled by it.

When you consider the various plans that are out there for the Gazebo, consider these things as well. The Gazebo is not only for the club, but is also how we communicate to the neighborhood the quality of our organization. It will be a structure that is here for many years and is therefore a long term investment in our club.

I flew a few weeks ago at Crestline. Had a great flight. The flight part was very clean. The gazebo was very simple but in good shape. Our website claims that we are the "World Capitol of Hang Gliding". Let's treat the L/Z like the World Capitol of Hang Gliding should be treated.

User avatar
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 10:02 pm
Location: N.Hollywood

ground level version of option 3.

Post by cgemme » Fri May 25, 2007 12:58 am

I'm for option #3 for sure.

However, not that I'm against glider storage, but that extra 3 feet makes the gazebo look kinda clunky and taller than necessary, sorta to big looking for the area.

So how about having it be ground level and all one level (flat), (also eliminating the need for a wheel chair ramp), and have a 3 foot high viewing deck attached with glider storage below it. This would lower the whole roof by 3 feet. it would probably look wider too without taking up any more space. Then we could replace the wheelchair ramp with a garden or even use that additional space as more floor space.

All of those vertical beams make it look kinda busy and obstructed. They can certainly be replaced by thicker and/or more horizontal beams.

I like the suggestion about using that composit artificial wood-like material. No splinters!!

And why don't we all just pitch in $200 a piece and be done with it. Our GPSs cost more than that and you can't even roast a wiener with it!!
Corey G. >jjj<0

User avatar
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Palmdale, CA

Post by stebbins » Fri May 25, 2007 7:46 pm

Vrezh wrote:
1. Circumstances (permit, zoning and such) are not favorable for ambitious projects.
We can vote for the most ambitious design, no harm is done. But chances of getting it approved are next to none. Let’s face it, even if the club can lobby it now trough influential politicians, the next guy in the office can simply crush it like a sand castle. Too much unjustified risk is involved.
Get real!

3. Extra storage space is a good idea. Let’s put the numbers together. The estimated cost difference between Option A and Option C is $30,000.
We already do have a pad for an additional storage container between existing 2 containers.
Empty containers cost $2500. Everything else that goes inside the container or under the Gazebo/Pavilion (shelving and tubes) is the same. We could use some extra $27,000.
I disagree with much of what Vrezh says, but most of it is opinion, or differences in taste, so I'll not comment. However:

I was involved in the storage container construction. There is no way in hell it will get built for $3000. Even with vast amounts of volunteer labor. Try closer to $10k, and that's with volunteer labor. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be done for $7k, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was more than $10k. Costs have gone up. Especially for tubes, which are made from petroleum. You know, the stuff that is twice (or more) as expensive as when we bought the tubes last time.

Vrezh's estimate of the building climate is his opinion. In mine, and in that of much of the BOD, now is as good a time as we are ever likely to get. That's been true for about three years now. Maybe a bit longer. If we assume that we'll never get anything through because the next politician will "squash it like a bug", then we might as well just go back to a dirt landing zone. That kind of thinking is where we were before the club was formed. It almost cost us our site. We MUST work with them, and right now, they love us. Let's not waste it. Let's get our CUP and a nice pavillion. Then we will be set. The next politician will have to bend over backwards if he wants us out once we have that CUP!!! Let's make it easier for them to keep us than to get rid of us!

By the way, I heard similar comments to Vrezh's from the folks at Elsinore for years. And they are now deciding that they need to emulate the folks at Kagel if they want to keep their site. Amazing. :-)
Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George

Post Reply