Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Valencia topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews two options to expand Valencia High kitchen; one preserves historic cafeteria
Summary
Staff presented two approaches to address Valencia High Schools undersized kitchen: a $5.2 million demolish‑and‑rebuild or a $2.8 million revitalization of the historic cafeteria and relocation of cooking facilities; trustees directed staff to bring architect designs and potential funding sources back to a future meeting.
At the Dec. 10 meeting, district staff presented options to expand or repurpose facilities to increase meal service capacity at Valencia High School. Director Gary Stein told trustees Valencias enrollment is about 2,410 students and that the site serves roughly 1,253 meals on an average weekday (about 52% daily participation), figures he used to justify a facilities upgrade.
Stein outlined two primary options: (1) demolish and rebuild a larger, modern kitchen in the current footprint — an architect estimate in the presentation placed that cost at about $5,200,000 with a construction timeline likely exceeding two to three years and notable campus impacts during work; or (2) revitalize the historic cafeteria building, restore original layout for new cooking operations and reconfigure the existing kitchen as serving lines — estimated at $2,800,000 with a shorter construction timeline and the potential to create a student meeting space and campus beautification benefits.
Stein said the district would likely fund the project using braided funding streams such as developer fees, redevelopment agency funding and Fund 40. Trustees and staff discussed timing to minimize service disruption (strategy to use summer construction windows and to stage work so food distribution continues) and the need to involve site leadership, including Principal Chris Hertzfeld, to plan temporary food service logistics.
No formal action or contract award occurred; trustees asked staff to return with architect proposals, refined cost estimates and a funding plan. Trustees expressed support for preserving the historic building where feasible, noting the revitalization option is less costly and offers short‑term benefits for campus character and student space.
Next steps: staff will solicit architectural designs and return to the board with a recommended scope, detailed cost estimates and proposed funding sources for board consideration.
