Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and consultants press Mill Valley board on middle‑school site safety and CEQA timeline
Summary
District staff and environmental consultants updated trustees on the Mill Valley Middle School modernization, saying DTSC and the county LEA are reviewing the PEA and that a draft EIR is anticipated in early 2025; public commenters urged the board to study alternatives and warned about potential high remediation costs and interim housing next to a capped landfill.
District facilities staff and consultants told the school board that environmental review for the Mill Valley Middle School modernization is ongoing and that recent regulatory feedback has delayed the schedule.
Julio Royal, the district’s director of maintenance, said consultants Nino & Moore have submitted multiple revisions of a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) and that the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Marin County Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) are reviewing the latest work plan. A consultant said: "Once they give their approval, then we are good to go ahead and implement our scope of work that we proposed," which includes field testing and samples to inform next steps.
Consultants and staff described an updated timeline that anticipates a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in early 2025 and a final EIR later in 2025. They told the board the sequence of regulatory reviews — and separate technical requirements from DTSC and the LEA (which regulates closed landfills locally) — required multiple resubmissions of the work plan and have slowed the schedule.
Public commenters urged the board to consider alternatives for interim housing and for the permanent middle‑school site. "We continue to urge you to reject any plan that includes interim housing of middle school students next to the construction project, on top of a toxic site," said Juliet Hart, who said a petition with more than 200 signatories urged the district to seek alternative properties. Susan Dawson highlighted DTSC's earlier comments and asked the district to discuss the possibility that DTSC could require soil removal rather than rely on a capped cover, noting a 2013 San Diego example where removal costs were large.
Consultants said the PEA will provide site‑specific contamination data — including soil, groundwater and soil‑vapor sampling — that DTSC and the LEA will review before the district can define mitigation measures. The district’s representatives emphasized that DTSC, as the lead regulatory agency for schools’ hazardous‑materials matters, and the county LEA for landfill oversight, both must be satisfied before construction proceeds.
Board members asked whether the regulatory process and any conservative remedial options could materially change project costs and timelines; staff said the PEA's results will clarify options and that the EIR should examine alternatives and mitigation scenarios. The district scheduled a community meeting with more technical detail and promised to post PEA materials and public‑comment opportunities once DTSC clears the work plan.
