Parents and consultants press Mill Valley School District to study landfill risks as EIR scoping opens

Julio Arroyo, the district’s director of maintenance operations and safety, opened the July 18 scoping meeting for the Mill Valley Middle School facilities modernization project and described the session as the public opportunity to shape the scope of the Notice of Preparation for the environmental impact report (EIR).

The meeting centered on two parallel environmental processes: the district-led CEQA EIR and a DTSC-led Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA). Richard Grassetti of Grassetti Environmental Consulting explained that “CEQA’s purpose is to identify potentially significant impacts, inform the public, inform agencies…and reduce or avoid potentially significant adverse impacts to the physical environment,” and that an EIR was selected because the project may have significant environmental effects. Ryan Bass of Nino and Moore said the PEA is a separate, concurrent DTSC process to investigate site conditions and guide any necessary cleanup or mitigation.

Why it matters: parents and nearby residents asked for specific, enforceable study requirements before the district advances design work. Susan Dawson, a parent who spoke in the meeting, urged the district to make the EIR analyze “all existing hazards on the site” and to study alternatives for both the permanent and the temporary campus, including whether a temporary campus can safely be located on or near the current site.

The core concerns raised

- Contamination and historical landfill use: Multiple commenters asked the EIR and PEA to analyze the site’s history as a landfill and former burn dump and to disclose any chemicals of concern, exposure pathways and risks to students and staff. Marina, a meeting participant, said the community needs clear disclosure: “we are sitting on a toxic waste dump,” and urged the district to be transparent about historical uses and whether temporary housing would be safe. Ryan Bass responded that the PEA’s field investigations (soil, groundwater and soil vapor sampling) are designed to determine what contaminants, if any, are present and the extent of potential exposure.

- Temporary campus logistics and access: Parents pressed for a focused analysis of ingress and egress to any temporary campus, noting that the site currently has a single small access road. District staff said the existing Sycamore street access would remain and that temporary-campus logistics (including off-site options) are being evaluated; Grassetti noted that CEQA will examine traffic-related health and safety impacts and vehicle-miles-traveled rather than older level-of-service metrics.

- Alternatives and feasibility: Commenters asked the district to include a full range of alternatives for both permanent and temporary sites and not to dismiss options prematurely. The team said they had reviewed district properties and off-site candidates (including the Ed McGuire site, modernization of existing buildings, and other district properties) and narrowed the EIR alternatives to those that fit the program and had strong public interest; cost data exists at a high level for feasibility but CEQA’s environmental analysis is separate from financial decisions.

Process and next steps

Panelists reiterated timelines and submission windows: the scoping period follows the Notice of Preparation (minimum 30 days), the draft EIR will be out for a 45-day review (the team is looking toward a fall public draft), and the draft PEA report is expected in fall 2024 with DTSC-led public comment opportunities. The panel asked for written comments by 5 p.m. tomorrow to the communications email listed on the district website and said the presentation and supporting documents will be posted online.

What officials said about safety and oversight

District Superintendent Elizabeth Kaufman encouraged the community to read the executive summary of an earlier, 318-page analysis and said the district will continue community engagement. “We won’t be doing things that harm kids,” Kaufman said, emphasizing that DTSC and Marin County Environmental Health Services will review proposed investigation and response actions and that any subsurface work at a landfill will require local agency concurrence.

What remains unresolved

Speakers asked for clarity about specific contaminants, the feasibility of building a temporary campus on the site and whether DTSC would allow temporary student housing on or adjacent to formerly dumped areas. Consultants said those questions will be addressed only after PEA field data are analyzed and summarized in the hazards chapter of the EIR. No approvals or final decisions were made at the meeting.

Documents, comments and contact

The district said the Notice of Preparation materials and an executive summary of prior studies are available on its website; written comments should be submitted to the district communications address by 5 p.m. tomorrow. The panel also encouraged commenters to provide any historical documents that could help locate previous site uses or inform sampling plans.

Next procedural step: the district and responsible agencies will compile scoping comments, refine the EIR scope as necessary, and publish a public draft EIR and draft PEA for formal review when those documents are ready.