Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press district on flooding, hazardous materials and safety of temporary campus while CEQA testing continues
Summary
At the June 10 meeting, residents challenged the district about sea‑level and contamination risks at the middle‑school site; officials said DTSC testing and a CEQA environmental review will guide mitigation and that children will not be placed at risk during construction.
Neighbors pressing the Mill Valley School District on June 10 raised concerns about flooding, contaminated soils and the safety of the planned temporary campus while the permanent middle school is rebuilt.
"This is what our kids are going to be living with," said Juliet Hart, a resident who showed photos she said document flooding and groundwater issues at the site. Community members repeatedly asked how the district will protect students during construction and whether the site should be reconsidered.
District officials and consultants responded that the district has launched the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process and that an environmental consultant has submitted a work plan to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Sandrina, the environmental lead on the project, said the EIR and subsequent mitigation and monitoring plan will analyze soil and air quality, and that sampling and borings are planned for the summer to confirm conditions and mitigation needs.
Officials told the meeting they intend to set finished floor elevations for the new campus above the modeled flood levels and that they have erected fencing and signage around the creek to limit access while a work plan is prepared for creek cleanup and debris mitigation. The district said county inspectors perform quarterly monitoring and that methane sensors are in place at the site; the district also said it has not received any methane violations.
Superintendent Kaufman emphasized the district's safety threshold: "We cannot build if it's not safe for kids," they said, adding that the district would pause or reassess plans if testing identifies unmitigable hazards.
Public participation and timing: Officials said a Notice of Preparation for the draft EIR would be issued at the end of the week and that the district plans a community meeting on July 18 to solicit comments; the initial comment window for the draft materials was summarized as closing around July 19 with the draft EIR to follow and a standard public review period thereafter.
Other clarifications included a summary of mitigation budgeting and contingency planning: meeting remarks referenced approximately $7.5 million set aside as an environmental mitigation contingency and noted that Measure G is the bond funding the overall program. The district also described plans for an interim campus of portables — designed to current code and intended to be occupied for the 2025–26 and 2026–27 school years — with controlled access points and fencing to separate students from active construction zones.
Why this matters: The site has a documented history as a former dump/burn area and sits near a creek and wastewater treatment facility. Those conditions increase the importance of DTSC oversight, thorough borings and a public CEQA process to define mitigations and to determine whether the interim campus and final design are feasible and safe.
What’s next: The district will publish environmental findings as they become available and seek public comment during the CEQA review; any mitigation measures, permit approvals and monitoring plans required by DTSC and other agencies will determine next steps for construction sequencing and occupancy.
