Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mvms Modernization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents clash over Mill Valley Middle School modernization as EIR debate continues
Summary
Dozens of public commenters urged the Mill Valley School Board either to renovate the current middle‑school site or pursue relocation, citing seismic risk, sea‑level rise and toxic soils. Several speakers asked the board to pause and complete technical analyses; others urged the district to move forward with Alternative 1.
Dozens of parents and residents used the board’s public‑comment period on Nov. 16 to press competing views about the Mill Valley Middle School modernization and the district’s draft environmental impact report (EIR).
Andrew Dawson, who identified himself as a parent of an Old Mill elementary student and a Mill Valley middle‑school student, said the district should consider moving the school off the current site rather than ‘‘using tens of millions of dollars to renovate a flawed site’’ that, he said, exposes future generations of students to soil toxins, flooding and seismic risk. ‘‘We shouldn’t be using tens of millions of dollars to renovate a flawed site that doesn’t fix the big solutions,’’ Dawson said.
Other speakers urged caution. Susan Dawson asked the board to wait for regulators’ reviews and to complete the preliminary endangerment analysis and mitigation work plan before advancing a revised EIR. ‘‘Get all the data. Get all the costs. Explain your plan in detail, and only then bring a revised EIR back to us,’’ she said, urging the district to ‘‘address the request in the MVMS modernization mess letter.’’
Resident Boriana Fackler raised technical concerns about the draft EIR, saying it primarily analyzed a now‑discarded rebuild and does not adequately describe the preferred remodel alternative. She pointed to seismic risk and sea‑level rise, asking the board, ‘‘Are you comfortable with this approach? I am not.’’
Chris Bailey, who said he has professional experience in large infrastructure projects, urged the board to withdraw and recirculate the draft EIR to comply with CEQA. Bailey cited site contamination figures discussed in the district’s documents, stating that lead concentrations cited in the PEA were ‘‘288 times the allowable level’’ and warned that renovation work could disturb contaminated caps.
Other public commenters took the opposite view. Sid Banchnathan reported a petition signed by nearly 700 people supporting Alternative 1 (renovation at the current site) and urged the board to trust agency mitigation plans and move forward. Anita Sparks and several other speakers said they support renovating the existing campus if professional reports show mitigation is feasible and fiscally responsible.
At least one parent, Tracy Arcart, asked the board to convene neutral mediation to reduce online misinformation and community division. ‘‘I implore the community to work together and not against each other,’’ she said.
Board members did not make a final decision during the meeting. Staff reminded the public that comments made that night would not be part of the EIR administrative record and that the EIR comment period runs through Oct. 20; the board noted it expects to make a final project decision in December when EIR certification and project selection are scheduled.
What’s next: The board will consider certification of the EIR and project selection in December; the public was told that formal EIR comments should be submitted through the established EIR public‑comment process.
