Fate of Building No. 300 narrowed to three options

Angelique Flores

FOUNTAIN VALLEY -- With news that Building No. 300 must be demolished

in order to keep state funding, the task force at Fountain Valley High

School is down to three options as to what to do to replace the sinking

structure.

Structural engineers and state architects have determined the

building, which sits on unstable ground and is not up to modern state

safety codes, needs to be rebuilt, said Ed Baker, the district’s

assistant superintendent of facilities.

The building cannot be repaired because the cost to repair it would be

more than 50% of what it would be to replace the building. Under state

guidelines, state money -- in this case the the $11.4 million earmarked

for the project -- cannot be used under those conditions.

That is why the building must be torn down, Baker said.

Now the task force needs to determine the best way to replace the

space.

The task force has established three options on how to replace the

building, using different combinations of modular buildings -- or

permanent relocatables -- and permanent buildings.

This week, the group is writing up a detailed statement of the pros

and cons of each option to be presented to the Huntington Beach Union

High School board of trustees, Fountain Valley High School Principal

Connie Mayhugh said.

Here are some of the pros and cons for the three options the task

force plans to bring in front of the school board, in order of

preference:

OPTION ONE: All modular buildings

PROS

* Provides enough space for all existing classes without infringing on

other programs

* Leaves about $3 million to enhance new modulars and/or existing

school structures. A portion of the money could also provide options for

future changes such as class size reduction

* Fiscally responsible

* Reduces construction time, enabling students and their programs to

be moved into the new buildings sooner

* Could be constructed architecturally compatible with existing

buildings

* With proper maintenance, the buildings will be as durable as on-site

constructed buildings

* Minimize the impact on the surrounding community

CONS

* Modular buildings do not have the longevity of buildings constructed

on site

* Once the buildings are in, any modifications to the structures would

be limited

OPTION TWO: Combination of modular buildings and on-site

constructed buildings to house all programs

PROS

* Maintains all programs

* A portion of the new buildings would be constructed on campus

* Buildings constructed on site have more longevity than modular

buildings

* Once the buildings are in, modifications to the structures could be

made later

CONS

* Exceeds budget

* Needs district support for additional funds to provide enough space

to maintain all programs at existing levels

* Takes longer to complete, requiring students and their programs to

stay in temporary housing longer

* Does not provide for future needs

OPTION THREE: Combination of on-site and off-site constructed

buildings with some Building No. 300 programs absorbed into existing

buildings

PROS

* A portion of the new buildings would be constructed on campus

* Buildings constructed on site have more longevity than modular

buildings

* Once the buildings are in, modifications to the structures could be

made later

CONS

* Any extension of the new on-site building will depend on the passing

of a bond, extending the ultimate completion indefinitely

* Most infringement on existing programs, requiring classes to move to

a more restrictive situation

* Will take longer to complete, similar to option two, requiring

students and their programs to stay in temporary housing longer

* Provides the most restrictive number of options for the future