Mill Valley board certifies final EIR, approves renovation of middle school with on‑site interim classrooms

The Mill Valley School District board voted unanimously on Dec. 15 to certify the final environmental impact report (EIR) and approve the renovation‑focused plan for Mill Valley Middle School, adopting CEQA findings, a mitigation monitoring program and a statement of overriding considerations.

Superintendent (speaking as superintendent) recommended the board approve the renovation alternative — identified as Alternative 5 in the EIR — citing programmatic benefits of keeping sixth through eighth grades together and the feasibility of implementing mitigation. Richard Grissetti, the environmental consultant who managed preparation of the EIR, told trustees the final EIR contains extensive public and agency comment responses and that two impacts remain significant and unavoidable (construction noise and wastewater odors) even after mitigation. "There is no new or exacerbated significant environmental effects, and there's no new significant information in the final EIR," Grissetti said.

The board adopted resolution 11‑25‑26 as amended, with roll call recorded in the transcript as President Nakatani: Yes; Trustee Abdullah: Aye; Trustee Yule: Aye; Trustee Cernicich Hodge: Yes; Trustee Katz: Aye. The motion included the supplemental findings referenced at the meeting and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program described in the EIR.

Public commenters were largely supportive of renovating the existing middle school and placing temporary classrooms on site, citing cost, program continuity, and DTSC's review of the technical work. Parent Sid Vanchanathan, representing a coalition of families, said the community has waited four years and that delays have a real cost: "Four years have passed since Measure G…our community has spent those years in analysis, debate, and delay at a cost of $8,000,000 per year," he said, urging the board to move forward. Other parents said the EIR and peer reviews provide the regulatory path forward and emphasized the conservatism built into human health risk assessments.

Trustees asked staff for additional breakdowns of mitigation responsibilities, cost assumptions for interim housing, and clarifications on long‑term phasing; staff agreed to provide more detail at upcoming board briefings and during final design. As part of the same facilities item, the board also approved supplemental consulting and preconstruction increases tied to interim housing procurement.

The board's approval starts the next phase of design and mitigation coordination with responsible agencies; staff said implementation timelines and specific mitigation assignments will be included in follow‑up materials and future board reports.