Mill Valley Middle School environmental impact report unveiled

After more than two years of soil and air testing, public meetings and debate, a final environmental impact report was released Friday on plans to upgrade Mill Valley Middle School.

The 1,249-page report was posted as required on the district website 10 days before trustees select a project plan at their board meeting on Dec. 15.

The report includes district responses to more than 300 public comments; answers a half-dozen letters from regulatory, municipal and environmental agencies; and analyzes the project alternatives.

In regard to one of two preferred alternatives — a proposed $95 million renovation of the middle school at 425 Sycamore Ave. — Elizabeth Kaufman, the district’s superintendent, commented Friday on mitigation measures the district plans to take if trustees select that option.

Mitigation measures are necessary because the middle school was built in 1972 on a former city landfill and burn dump. Kaufman said the district has already “committed to installing a barrier system to protect indoor air quality.”

In addition, she said, the “PEA process will continue into the new year with additional investigation and development of a long-term mitigation plan.” The PEA, or preliminary endangerment assessment, is a review being handled by the state Department of Toxic Substances Control to evaluate soil and other environment conditions at the site to make sure they are safe. The final PEA is due later this month.

“DTSC’s role is to ask hard environmental questions, and we welcome that scrutiny because it strengthens the technical work,” Kaufman said. “Our decisions will be guided by the final EIR, the PEA and our environmental experts.”

If the district chooses the renovation option, the barrier system will be placed under the school to block methane or other soil vapors from entering.

In addition to the state agency, Marin County Environmental Health Services and other regulatory agencies will handle long-term monitoring at the site.

Kaufman’s statements were, in part, a response to an Oct. 20 letter from the state agency. It criticized the draft environmental impact report for not doing enough analysis on the renovation option.

In August, the district scrapped its initial preferred alternative — demolishing the school and rebuilding at the same site — after cost estimates escalated for a soil hardening treatment. The district then tilted toward renovation instead of demolition.

By then, however, the draft environmental impact report was well underway, with most of the analysis on the initial plan and little on the renovation option.

Peter Ruttan, a project manager for the state agency, told a parent in a recent email that it “stands by its comments regarding the noted deficiencies” in the draft environmental impact report.

However, Ruttan said, it is “up to the district to decide whether to move the project forward.”

Ruttan told the parent, Sid Vanchinathan, that additional mitigation measures could include adding more soil to the 3-foot clay cap that was placed atop the landfill when the school was built. Other measures will be forthcoming in the final PEA, Ruttan said.

“The PEA recommends establishing a land use covenant to restrict the use of groundwater at the site,” Ruttan said as another example of possible mitigation measures.

Vanchinathan has submitted a petition to the district signed by 712 people who support the renovation option for the school.

“The community is not asking DTSC to compromise safety or cut corners on environmental review,” Vanchinathan said in an email to Ruttan. “We are asking for clarity about what is actually required to move this project forward responsibly.”

In addition to upgrading the main school building, the renovation option would include modernizing the gym and constructing a small building for classes in science, technology, engineering and math.

The other preferred alternative in the final environmental impact report is to build a new middle school on district property at 70 Lomita Drive next to Edna Maguire Elementary School.

That plan, however, has drawn pushback from residents in that area and who said it would exacerbate traffic congestion. Also, opponents said the Lomita Drive site, at about 4 acres, is small for a middle school and would result in a more crowded layout than the current 14-acre site.

Either the renovation option or the Lomita Drive plan would cost $95 million, which is within the amount of funds left from a $194 million Measure G bond approved by voters in 2022.

“It has taken time and a great deal of careful work to get here, but we are finally nearing key decisions for Mill Valley Middle School,” Sharon Nakatani, president of the district board, said in an email Friday. “The board expects to be in a position this December to certify the Final EIR and select both the interim and permanent campus plans — steps that move us toward delivering the modern middle school this community has asked for and supported from the beginning.”

If a plan is approved, construction could start by June, Nakatani said.

The final environmental impact report was prepared by Grassetti Engineering Consultants of Berkeley in collaboration with four other consulting firms.