Archived Information about Discarded Plan

The following is archived information about the District’s original plan to demolish and rebuild the Mill Valley Middle School at its current site, while temporarily housing students next door.

That plan is no longer financially feasible, so the District has discarded it from further consideration. This is great news, as that plan had serious flaws, as described below. This is a small victory on the road to a better solution!

The information below has not been updated since April 2025. Lots has happened since then! Please see the new main page for updates. The following is preserved for reference, but please know this is not the current plan (thank goodness!).

Summary of Original Rebuild Plan — The original proposed plan would have put our students on a temporary campus for two years in the parking lot by Harrison Skate Park, with the smelly sewage treatment plant across the street. The campus would have crossed the creek, which has old landfill material already surfacing. It would have extended across the MVMS basketball courts, which are bordered by a power substation. The campus would be in a seismic liquefaction zone prone to flooding. Worst of all, the interim site would sit atop a former burn dump. The suggested mitigation was inadequate. This was not exactly what most of us envisioned for our children in this otherwise beautiful community. We wanted an alternative site.

  • Dangerous

    The proposed site is on top of an old burn dump.

    It contains hazardous levels of lead and potentially explosive methane gas, all of which is presently capped by just 2-3 feet of clay soil that would, of course, be disrupted during construction. It’s also in a flood plain and seismic liquefaction zone.  

    Toxic Site Details

  • Disgusting

    The temporary campus is planned to be on the lot by the skate park, adjacent to the sewer treatment plant.

    Everyone knows this is the worst and smelliest part of campus. This is the air our kids will be asked to breathe ALL day. Gross.

    Sewer Smell Report

  • Distracting

    The temporary campus is slated to be right next to the main demolition and construction zone, separated only by a chain link fence. The District Office even plans to relocate, leaving our kids in the dust.  

    Loud Noise Low Down

  • Demoralizing

    The same children who launched into elementary school with Zoom Kindergarten and 1st Grade are now being asked to once again begin a new phase of schooling amid difficult circumstances. This will only compound the challenges confronting this cohort of students.

    Compounding COVID Harms

  • Disregards Climate Science

    The planned temporary site is in a flood plain, which will periodically become inaccessible when the single-access road floods.

    Rising groundwater will cause the toxic substances from the former burn dump to surface.

    Climate Change Consequences

  • Grades are in...and this plan needs improvement!

    Surely a community with our resources and creativity can work together to devise a better solution, one that builds a Middle School to last, one that does not sacrifice the education and safety of the students during construction, and one that can serve as a role model to other communities struggling with similar challenges.

    Take Action to Help!
Follow on Instagram

District Proposed Plan

Temporary Campus – The temporary portables are estimated to cost $15M and will be bordered on one side by a large demolition and construction site, on another side by the smelly sewage treatment plant, and on the two remaining sides by drainage channels that are prone to chronic flooding and which are the subject of an existing Notice of Violation for exposed hazardous dump materials. Just what every parent looks for in a school, right?!

Permanent Campus – The current MVMS will be demolished, and a new permanent building will be constructed on top of roughly that same area with a projected overall budget: $130M Hard Cost + $60M Soft Cost + $20M Hard & Soft Cost for Modernizations = $210M ($7M budgeted to to remove toxic soils) out of the total $194M bonds. See page 10 of the February 7, 2024 Board Meeting. The full plan is further counting on $20M of state funding from proposition 51 that is not currently available. At the July 18th, 2024 Board Meeting the District explained that they did not have the budget to support the Steering Committee Recommendations and would have to downsize the scope to not include the renovation of the Multi Purpose room and elimination of the arts buildings and further value engineering is continuing (see slides 23 and 25).

You can see the proximity of the construction site and temporary campus in the aerial image.

Financial planning to date indicates ~$36 million shortfall - maybe more?

Since passing the Bond, the District has learned of significant issues with the current site from a budget, environmental risk, and permitting standpoint. Despite this, it has:

  • Already spent or committed over $4.3M to the current Middle School site plan as was disclosed during the June 17, 2024 Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC) meeting (pg. 48). There has still been no annual audit done by the CBOC or detailed disclosure on where these funds were committed.

  • Decided to pursue a risky construction site without the necessary funds. The Mill Valley taxpayers and bond rating could be severely impacted if the project runs over budget or has trouble finding insurance with all the potential liabilities at the site. The projected overall budget for the current plan is: $130M Hard Cost + $60M Soft Cost + $20M Hard & Soft Cost for Modernizations = $210M ($7M budgeted to to remove toxic soils) out of the total $194M bonds intended to support the middle school AND five elementary school modernizations (See page 10 of the February 7, 2024 Board Meeting).

  • It is extremely rare for a school to be built atop a former burn dump Superfund site and our district is likely way underbudgeting what the likely cost for soil removal will be. Let’s see how things have gone for other landfill-based schools. Ninyo and Moore, the consultants the District hired, list the following schools on their “Landfill Experience” client list:

    o Bell Jr. High – This is a San Diego Unified school built on top of a former landfill in 1967. In 1989, the school had to abruptly close its playground because of leaking methane gas. The SDUSD Safety Coordinator admitted, “If the levels become high enough, yes, it can explode.” In 2010, SDUSD paid $155,000 to wrap up a complaint about its failure to monitor groundwater near the landfill. In 2022, SDUSD sued two cities seeking financial contributions for ongoing clean up and monitoring of the landfill.

    o Noah Webster Elementary – Another SDUSD school built on top of a burn dump in 1955. This site is actually easier than the one proposed for MVMS, because this site is not in a seismic liquefaction zone nor in a flood plain with shallow groundwater. In 2023, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSE”) disapproved of Ninyo & Moore’s excavation and drilling plan, as this intrusive work “may pose risk to school and surrounding community.” Then, in February 2024, DTSE disapproved Ninyo & Moore’s Removal Action Workplan saying the District must either retain the existing soil cap or must remove all of the contaminated soil from the site. The estimated cost for removal is over $33 million…in 2013 dollars.

    o Our District has only budgeted $7.8 million for soil mitigation. If our District, like SDUSD, has to remove all the toxic soils at the current site, it will likely be much more than $33 million. This is a material budget concern, and the District needs to do soil samples and talk to DTSE about this as soon as possible, to avoid wasting bond funds in furtherance of a project that may not be economically viable as presently planned. The District received the following from DTSE on July 25, 2024, DTSE Comments on NOP. The DTSE warns, “we recommend the District consider that conservative remedial option may be necessary for evaluation in the EIR.” Also sobering to read, “DTSE believes that piers were likely used to support the current school building foundations. These foundation piers…[create] a preferential pathway for landfill leachate to infiltrate the groundwater.”  The statement about a “conservative remedial option” is telling because DTSE recently insisted on complete soil removal at Noah Webster in San Diego.  DTSE said that SDUSD could either leave the soil cap intact and put in place monitoring of the landfill materials, or it would have to remove all the soil. The situation at SDUSD is still unfolding, but here’s the latest DTSE letter about it, from Feb 13, 2024, where they say the soil has to come out. The environmental consultant managing that project is the same one our District has hired (Ninyo and Moore). 

  • The District is looking to solve the shortfall with “Value Engineering,” which further disadvantages students at the temporary site and will mean the permanent site can’t afford all the desired upgrades (see slide 23 and 25 of the July 18, 2024 Board Meeting)

Dangerous

Updated with New Soil Sample Results - April 2025

On April 8, 2025, the District released its draft Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (“PEA”), presenting data from soil samples collected in Fall 2024. The PEA evaluates two scenarios:

  1. Current site conditions with the protective soil cap intact, and

  2. Future site conditions if the soil cap were compromised, exposing hypothetical residential users to contaminated soil, groundwater, and vapors.

Many of us have children attending MVMS, so we are glad the current site conditions are considered safe. The recent article in the Marin IJ focused solely on the site’s present-day safety. However, that has never been our primary concern.

Our concern is what happens when construction inevitably breaches the protective soil cap—unleashing a Pandora’s box of contaminants—while our children breathe and learn next door.

For that reason, we are focusing on the second scenario: the risks posed if the soil cap is disrupted, as that is what is relevant during construction. Here are the key findings from the recent soil tests:

Extent of Toxic Waste

  • The site is a former burn dump (EPA ID: CAN000905996).

  • The hazardous waste extends across the entire site (PEA, p. 37).

Lead

Safe Screening Level

  •  80 mg/kg is the screening level for lead. Anything over that is potentially hazardous (PEA, p. 45). 

 We Knew it Would be Bad

  •  The Community Center’s 2003 soil tests listed lead levels at 6,500 mg/kg (p. 4). That’s already 81 times the allowable level.

But the MVMS Results are Way Worse 

  •  37 soil samples had elevated lead, ranging from 92 mg/kg to 23,000 mg/kg (PEA, p. 45).  Yes, you read that right. 23,000!!! That is up to 288 times the allowable level.

Arsenic

Safe Screening Level

  •  0.0082 μg/L is the screening level for arsenic. Anything over that is potentially hazardous.

Groundwater Results Shockingly High

  • “Arsenic was detected in all of the grab-groundwater samples at concentrations ranging from 11 μg/L in GW-1 to 190 μg/L in GW-4.” (PEA, p. 28).  That is up to 23,171 times the allowable level.

Methane

Safe Screening Level

  • The lower explosive limit for methane is 5% and the upper explosive limit is 15% (PEA, p. 32).

Methane Greatly Exceeded the Upper Explosive Limit

  • Methane was detected in all soil vapor samples except for one, at concentrations ranging from 0.0051% to 77% (PEA, p. 32). 77% is up to 5 times higher than the upper explosive limit of 15%. The alarming 77% reading came from the East side of campus (PEA, p. 40), where the District plans to install the temporary campus.

Methane Explosions from Landfill Gas Happen

Other Contaminants of Potential Concern

  • Alphabet Soup. “The analytical results indicate that [contaminants of potential concern] in soil include antimony, arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, thallium, zinc, TPHg, TPHd, benzo(b)fluoranthene, BaP, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and dioxins. COPCs in groundwater and surface water include arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, mercury, vanadium, zinc, TPHg, and TPHd. [Contaminants of potential concern] in soil vapor include PCE, TCE, vinyl chloride, chloroform, and methane.” (PEA, p. 36-37).

  • Hexavalent Chromium.  The PEA analyzed samples to differentiate between trivalent and hexavalent chromium. Of the 21 samples analyzed, 7 had detections above the Department of Toxic Substances Control screening level for hexavalent chromium. “Hexavalent chromium is a more toxic form of chromium” (PEA, p. 25).

  • PEA Table 4-1 (below) summarizes the concerning metals. The “SL” column refers to the “screening level,” which is the relevant safety threshold. All of the measured levels greatly exceed the applicable screening level.

Human Health Risk Assessment

  • Cancer and Health Risk.  “Exposure to maximum concentrations of [contaminants of potential concern] detected in soil within the landfill waste could, if not mitigated, pose a cancer risk and/or health hazard to the hypothetical residential receptor” (PEA, p. 70). The hypothetical receptors here are students and staff present during construction.

  • Quantifying the Risk.  The PEA health assessment culminates in a Hazard Index number. The greater the number is above 1, the greater the potential hazard (PEA, p. 55).

    • The current site’s risk, with the soil cap securely in place, is 0.1 for staff and 0.2 for students, which as noted, is safe.

    • But what about our uncapped scenario? That figure leaps up to 60!  That is, of course, 60 times higher than the safe level of 1 (PEA, p. 55).

Common Sense Advisable, Even with the Current Soil Cap

Even though current conditions at the site are safe, please use common sense when interacting with any water present on campus:

  • Keep your children out of the creek that runs through campus. It is fenced off for a reason, so please make sure your children know not to climb that fence to explore.

  • Avoid dermal contact with any floodwater on campus. If your children must wade through water to get to class during a King Tide, send them with high rubber boots and warn them not to jump or splash in the water.

Why this note of caution?

  • Landfill waste is already surfacing in the Creek. That is why it is fenced off. In March 2024, CalRecyle issued a Notice of Violation to the District, observing: “Old landfill waste was observed in basin and along the banks of the drainage south of the portable classrooms…Site is not being maintained in a manner which protects public health and safety or prevents public contact with waste. Waste drainage is readily accessible to the public. Need to restrict access to the location of the waste with a physical barrier.” The District enhanced the fencing around the creek in response. Images of the surfacing waste are below.

  • Surface water at the site contains elevated lead. One reading registered 22-μg/L, which exceeds the surface water lead screening level of 10 μg/L (PEA 31).

  • Groundwater at the site also contains elevated lead. Lead was detected in all of the grab-groundwater samples at concentrations ranging from 30 μg/L to 5,300 μg/L, all of which exceeds the groundwater lead safety level of 10 μg/L (PEA, p. 29).

Photo Taken October 18, 2024: Note that this is the creek that the County required the District to fence off to prevent people from having any contact with the water that is known to be contaminated from the landfill (see above letter from County about this). At high tide, in the dry season of October, the water is already seeping past the fence, so kids could puddle-jump in this water. Note as well that this is another lovely view of the proposed temporary campus, with its toxic creek and nearby high voltage power station.

With all of these concerns, there is a clear need for robust mitigation plans.  The PEA reaches that same conclusion. Unfortunately, mitigation plans were not carefully considered before the School Board narrowed in on the current site plan. 

Disgusting

The proposed temporary campus will be on the lot by the skate park, across from the waste treatment plant that often smells of sewage due to hydrogen sulfide. This is the air our kids will be asked to breathe all day. Gross. 

It is also potentially a health risk, depending on how much our kids breathe and for how long. It’s unlikely to rise to the level of a health risk, but even well short of that line, it can certainly impact morale and quality of life.  The Measure G bond language provides that the funds are to be used to create a “healthy educational environment” but this smelly site on top of a dump does not fit the bill.

The District notes that the portables will have air conditioning, so the doors can remain closed to block out the smell.  That’s helpful, if a little sad, but it is not sufficient to address time spent outdoors between classes, at recess, and at lunch.

Temporary Site Aerial Overlay.png
Sewage Machinery.jpg
Sewage Plant Aerial.png
Creek Pump Pipes.jpg

Distracting

Imagine trying to learn math here!

The proposed temporary campus will sit directly adjacent to the demolition and construction zone for the new Middle School, separated only by a chain-link fence. Construction will inevitably be loud — with jackhammers, crashing debris, beeping trucks, and constant hammering.

This environment will disproportionately burden children with existing learning and behavioral challenges.

The Measure G Bond promised to “improve accessibility for students with disabilities,” but placing students next to an active construction site does exactly the opposite.

The District claims it will mitigate noise by scheduling loud construction outside of school hours. However, the project is massive, and there isn’t enough time during summer to complete all the noisy phases. In addition, local noise ordinances prohibit construction from starting early in the morning or continuing late into the evening. In reality, school hours will inevitably become prime construction time.

Demoralizing

This generation has struggled enough with unstable learning environments.

The temporary campus will also be exceedingly cramped. Indeed, the proposed site is too small to meet Department of Education minimum site size requirements (unless MVSD counts Friends Field). Moreover, the Department of Education provides that school districts cannot count as “usable space” any land that is in a flood plain. The entire temporary site is in a flood plain.

The same children who launched into elementary school with Zoom Kindergarten, Zoom 1st Grade, and masked 2nd Grade, are now being asked to once again begin a new phase of formative schooling amid terrible circumstances that will only compound the challenges confronting this cohort of students.

COVID was beyond our control. This is not. We can still protect our kids from this demoralizing Middle School experience.

Disregards Climate Science

Updated with New Sea Level Rise Analysis - April 2025

On April 8, 2025, the District released its draft Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (“PEA”), which contained data from the recent soil samples, as well as data about the impacts of sea level rise. This is what the report said about both the near-term (2020-2050) and mid-term (2060-2100) sea level rise risks:

Relevant Time Period

The current MVMS facility was built in 1969, so it has been in use for 56 years. Let’s assume this new building will need to last at least 50 years too.  If it is completed in 2027, then it will need to last until at least 2077. Given this, the PEA’s near-term (2020-2050) and mid-term (2060-2100) analyses are both relevant planning factors.

Bay Area Sea Level Rise Projections

The PEA provides the following chart of Bay Area sea level rise scenarios (PEA, p. 66). The State of California requires public entities to plan for at least the Intermediate scenario (considered to be the most likely outcome), which means we must evaluate the impact of at least 1.4 feet of rise by 2070.

For reference, below is what 1.4 feet of sea level rise looks like. During King Tides and large rain events (like this 10-year storm on Dec. 13, 2024), Mill Valley already experiences about 1.5 feet of rise, as you can see from this marker here. This would be the new baseline, and King Tides and storms would be much deeper.

What does the Preliminary Endangerment Report Say About This?

  • This is how the PEA describes a 2050 scenario with just 1 foot of sea level rise: “A projected SLR of 1.0 foot would start overtopping the creek banks on the east side of the Site and minor flooding may occur on the eastern Site boundary adjacent to Pickleweed Inlet (Figure 18). Additionally, this would raise the groundwater elevation by approximately 1 foot and [contaminants of potential concern] that were previously only saturated during high tide and storm surge events, may now be permanently submerged and potentially increase the leaching of chemicals into groundwater and subsequently mobilizing contaminants.” (PEA 67).

  • This is how the PEA describes a 2060 scenario with 1.5 feet of sea level rise: “A projected SLR of 1.5 feet would increase the length of bank creek that would be overtopped and would begin overtopping the eastern Site boundary. Flooding would extend further west onto the Site and may begin to impact some school buildings that are located at lower elevations. The flood gate at the east side of the creek would likely no longer be sufficient and would be overtopped. Groundwater would rise approximately 1.5 feet and would be as shallow as 1.5 feet [below ground surface] in some places on-Site, nearly saturating all [contaminants of potential concern]-impacted waste in that area. The northeastern corner of the parking lot on the east side of the school would be permanently inundated with water. Any shallow contaminants may become saturated and mobile.” (PEA 67).

Where might this possibly leave our new school?

  • On an Island.  The PEA explains, “Mid-term projections expect the perimeter of the Site to be inundated with water, essentially creating an island of the higher elevations at the center of the Site by 2100.” (PEA, p. 69)

  •  A Potentially Toxic Island. “Impacts of groundwater rise associated with [sea level rise] could include submerging [contaminants of potential concern]-impacted waste that was previously above the water table and potentially increasing the concentration of contaminants that could leach to groundwater, and increasing the mobilization of contaminants. Groundwater rise would result in a reduction of the vadose zone, potentially pushing [contaminants of potential concern]-impacted soil vapor closer to the surface” (PEA, p. 69).

  • Picture This. The PEA discussed sea level rise, but did not specifically focus on the impact of storm surges, which can raise the total water level significantly, as we saw this winter. The following is a map showing the MVMS site using the assumption of 24” of sea level rise (plausible by 2070), plus a 5-year storm surge. You can explore the various scenarios with the ART Bay Shoreline Flood Explorer tool.

What about flooding at the temporary campus? How bad could that be?

  • The proposed temporary site is on the eastern portion of MVMS’s campus, which is the most subject to flooding, as evidenced by the flood warning signs posted there. There is only one access road to this portion of the property. Even if the District raises the portables, it would, at best, create an inaccessible island for multiple days per year.

How many days a year might there be flooding at the temporary site?  According to the nonprofit organization, One Tam, tidal flooding happens around 30 times a year currently. With only 1-foot of sea level rise, “flooding could occur over 220 days a year, drowning the marsh and making the bike pathway impassable!” Even under the current scenario, 30 days of flooding at the temporary campus could make life difficult for students, staff, and families, even if the portables are raised. There is the pesky matter of getting there…

Video taken from the bike path by the Sewer Treatment Plant, looking toward the Skate Park, the proposed site for the temporary campus. The single access road to campus would be hard for cars to navigate safely, and the flooded bike path would be hard for students to traverse safely, whether on foot or bike.

Collaboration is Key

We need an all-hands-on-deck approach to planning for sea level rise. Building MVMS on elevated pylons is not going to solve this problem. Assuming that the problem is someone else’s responsibility is not going to solve this problem either. The District needs to be an active partner in the ongoing work with the City of Mill Valley and the County of Marin, to help create a multi-jurisdictional plan to address sea level rise flooding. That is the best path toward a sustainable place for our students to learn.

Inadequate Mitigation

Soil Mitigation: What MVSD Wrote (Deck presented 9/11/23)

  • “Possible land fill such as refuse, rubble, or man-made debris at Mill Valley MS site

  • Presence of groundwater and bay mud

  • Preliminary investigation has identified potential for Liquefaction and corrosion at Mill Valley MS site (Based on 2018 Geotechnical Report)

  • Possible soil improvements and/or deep foundations required

  • Detailed Geotechnical investigation will be done once site is selected.”

Soils Mitigation: Our Lingering Concerns

  • MVSD is minimizing the extent of the soil hazard by referring to it as “Possible land fill” when it is undeniably landfill with elevated toxic substances, as documented by various historical records, photos, and even MVSD reports going back decades!

  • The workers will be wearing hazmat gear, but the kids will not. Moreover, the kids will not have training, or a clear path, to evacuate fast enough in the event a methane or other toxic substance alarm sounds. Methane accidents happen quickly and can be tragic.

  • Deep foundations will certainly be required due to marshland and seismic liquefaction zone, but placing deep foundations will necessarily penetrate the soil cap and bring hazardous materials to the surface and into the air, while our children will be located next door. 

  • Our District has only budgeted $7.8 million for soil mitigation. If our District, like SDUSD, has to remove all the toxic soils at the current site, it will likely be much more than $33 million. This is a material budget concern, and the District needs to do soil samples and talk to DTSC about this as soon as possible, to avoid wasting bond funds in furtherance of a project that may not be economically viable as presently planned. The District received the following from DTSC on July 25, 2024, DTSC Comments on NOP. The DTSC warns, “we recommend the District consider that conservative remedial option may be necessary for evaluation in the EIR.” Also sobering to read, “DTSC believes that piers were likely used to support the current school building foundations. These foundation piers…[create] a preferential pathway for landfill leachate to infiltrate the groundwater.”  The statement about a “conservative remedial option” is telling because DTSC recently insisted on complete soil removal at Noah Webster in San Diego.  DTSC said that SDUSD could either leave the soil cap intact and put in place monitoring of the landfill materials, or it would have to remove all the soil. The situation at SDUSD is still unfolding, but here’s the latest DTSC letter about it, from Feb 13, 2024, where they say the soil has to come out. The environmental consultant managing that project is the same one our District has hired (Ninyo and Moore). 

Sewer Smell: What MVSD Wrote (Deck presented 9/11/23)

  • “Smells from Sewer Plant are Unpleasant.

  • [Considering] Indoor Air Circulation”

Sewer Smell: Our Lingering Concerns:

  • Indoor air circulation is helpful, but not sufficient to address time spent outdoors, in the stench, between classes, at recess, and at lunch.

  • At the December 2023 Community Forum, a District consultant explained that the portables will have “mechanical ventilation that takes advantage of outside air, but has some controls on it for Smoke Days, or in the case of this location, Smell Days from the sewer treatment plant.” Every day is a Smell Day at the proposed temporary site. The temporary site is far more pungent than the current MVMS site, due to more direct proximity to the sewer plant and the direction of prevailing winds.

Sea Level Rise Mitigation: What MVSD Wrote (Deck presented 9/11/23)

  • “One of the highest priority concerns for the Mill Valley MS Site.

  • Grade / Elevation changes

  • Shore up Wetlands

  • Levees or Sea Walls

  • Building & Site Resiliency”

Sea Level Rise Mitigation: Our Lingering Concerns

  • Grading and elevation changes can help at the site itself, but access to the site will likely be compromised during rainy winters. Grading changes also risk disrupting the soil cap currently keeping the hazardous soils from becoming airborne. As groundwater rises, soil contaminants will continue to surface, as they are already doing, per the Notice of Violation that MVSD received in March 2024. MVSD has no budget, ability, or intention to build a new levee or sea wall, as that would need to be coordinated and funded by the City. “Building and site resiliency” is vague and meaningless.

  • The flooding is at its worst at the temporary site (see existing signage there about parking at your own risk due to flooding). The District plans to elevate the portables, but it has no solution for accessing the campus during flood days. At the June 10, 2024 Community Forum, the District consultant conceded, “You might not have an easy way to get to the school because all the streets will be flooded, but the school will be above that.”  Not a great solution for parents trying to get their kids to school. Moreover, wading through that water could itself be dangerous, given the underlying toxic soil.

  • In an effort to cut costs the district is now looking to further eliminate decks between the temporary site trailers which were intended to keep the kids out of flood waters and reduce seawalls by 50% (see slide see slide 25 of the July 18, 2024 Board Meeting

For more perspective on mitigation measures, let’s look to a report from the 1980s that described the remedial plan for the construction of the Ryan Creek pump station (behind MVMS, along the creek, near proposed temporary campus). Key excerpts:

“[B]ased on previous testing of soil…much of the removed soil will be hazardous waste due to levels of lead and zinc above Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (TTLC).” 

  • “The possible hazards on this job are expected to be: Physical hazards including broken glass and scrap metal that may be present in the soil. Chemical hazards from elevated levels of lead and zinc in the soil….All personnel participating in the field must be trained in the general and specific hazards unique to the job and, if applicable, meet recommended medical requirements.”  

  • Workers are advised to “Wash hands before eating or drinking.” and “Keep dust to a minimum, avoid breathing dust as much as possible.”  

  • Under “Personnel Decontamination” the mitigation plan advises: “Wash boots. Launder coveralls at commercial laundry. Dispose of work gloves daily. Wash hands and face as soon as possible after stopping work.”

None of those mitigation measures are feasible at a school!

Kids lack training or even awareness of the risks. They will inevitably eat and touch their faces without perfect hand washing. They will exercise and eat without OSHA masks. Parents are surely not going to wash all those shoes and clothes regularly in a commercial laundry! If this is what was required for this site in the 1980s, imagine what extra mitigation steps will be required today. It is just not possible for children to protect themselves without training and personal protective equipment, which is, of course, absurdly unrealistic. 

It’s sure hard to feel reassured by these cursory and obviously inadequate mitigation plans!

The Bond Language

The following is an excerpt of the full Measure G bond language. 

BOND PROJECT LIST 

Scope of Projects.  Bond proceeds will be expended on the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities of the Mill Valley School District, including furnish and equipping, and the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries or other school operating expenses, in compliance with California Constitution Article XIIIA, Section 1(b)(3).  This measure authorizes bond projects to be undertaken at all current and future District properties, sites and campuses.

Specific School Facility Project List.  The items presented on the following list provide the types of school facilities projects authorized to be financed with voter-approved bond proceeds.  Specific examples included on this list are not intended to limit the types of projects described and authorized by this measure.  The following types of projects are authorized:

  • Upgrade and modernize classrooms and related school facilities to create modern, efficient and healthy educational environments, including reconstruction, reconfiguring and rebuilding of middle school facilities.  Authorized projects include:…

  • Reconfiguration and reconstruction of facilities at the middle school site, including all related demolition, storage and temporary facilities during reconstruction…

  • Replace aging portable buildings with more permanent facilities including modular buildings…

  • Modernizing, constructing and upgrading classrooms and other facilities such as libraries, multi-purpose rooms, learning centers, food prep/storage and/or food service and eating areas, portable structures and other support facilities to provide improved and modern facilities. 

The School Board has occasionally expressed concern that the bond language requires that any new Middle School must be on the existing Middle School site, as the bond language authorizes “Reconfiguration and reconstruction of facilities at the middle school site.”

  • However, when read in full, it’s clear that is but one example among many examples that are “not intended to limit the types of projects described…” 

  • Moreover, the rest of the non-exclusive list contains language that would support placing a temporary campus elsewhere. It does not have to be next to the construction site. This could be covered under replacing aging portables or constructing and upgrading classrooms and other facilities.  

  • All of these specific projects must be in service of the overarching goal to “create modern, efficient and healthy educational environments.”  Locating the temporary campus on top a toxic dump by a waste treatment plant does not meet the “healthy educational environment” goal, so MVSD can (and should!) consider alternatives.

  • As recently as February 2024, the Board was fully supportive of moving the new middle school to a different location when the proposed site was Friends Field, noting that such a move could provide the following benefits:

    “Coherence of Instructional Program & Mill Valley Middle School Student, Experience Student & Staff Safety, Locates student and staff further away from roadways and vehicular access points, Greater distance between existing buildings and construction site, Fiscal Stewardship - Fiduciary Responsibility: Anticipated savings of $6-8M by removing need for temporary student classrooms., Environmental Stewardship: Reduces construction waste and resources by eliminating temporary classroom campus, reduces smell distraction by locating students further away from sewage agency.”

Site Selection Criteria - We Clearly Need a Better Alternative!

When selecting a school site, whether permanent or temporary, the California Department of Education requires Districts to consider, among other things, the following criteria:

  • Safety - “These factors MUST be avoided”

  • Environment - Sites should be free from:

    • Sources of noise that may impede the instructional process.

    • Air, water, and soil pollution.

    • Dust and odors.

  • Soils

    • Sites shouldn’t have danger of liquefaction.

  • Size and Shape

    • Net acreage should be consisted with standards from California Department of Education.

  • Public Acceptance of the Proposed Site is also a factor

    The proposed temporary site FAILS on every single measure listed here. Why is this still the plan?! We clearly need to explore the alternatives, so let’s do that.

Alternatives

Temporary Campus Option: Repurpose Terra Marin for the Temporary Campus 

  • The facility near Edna, previously occupied by Terra Marin School, is now vacant and available for District use. The District is, in fact, exploring the site for their own offices and spending ~$56k to study that option (see the June 12, 2024 Board Meeting and further mentioned the District’s FAQ about this).

  • The current proposal for the temporary campus at the MVMS site calls for 35,040 sq ft of space. By comparison, Terra Marin’s rentable area is 54,944 sq ft, including a school building and a parking lot and playing field that could accommodate portables. The entire planned temporary campus could thus fit at Terra Marin in some form. 

  •  The Terra Marin option for the temporary site would not displace any Edna students. Ingress and egress would be a challenge, but it is a challenge at the current site too (with its single access road prone to flooding that will be shared between the construction crew and families trying to get to school). Start times could be staggered and it would only be temporary. This sounds far more manageable (and cost effective) than dealing with the landfill gasses, elevated lead, stench, and distracting noise at the current temporary site.

  • This option would give the permanent site construction team more flexibility too. They wouldn't have to work around school hours and daily school traffic. The project could perhaps be completed faster. Mitigation measures (restoring the soil cap and installing methane monitors) at the permanent site could be done safely without kids next door, which reduces the District's risk profile on this project.

  • This option seems to have enough promise to merit a good hard look.

Other Ideas and Options

  • The Mayor and other Mill Valley city officials opposed the Friends Field plan, thus limiting the School Board’s options, which led to the proposed temporary site. The City is responsible for ensuring that Mill Valley remains a vibrant community able to offer excellent schools, which our property values depend upon to a significant degree. Moreover, the issues of sea level rise and climate change impact the entire community, and planning to address these things requires a collective and coordinated effort, not just isolated decisions. So, given all of that, would the City consider working creatively with MVSD to identify an alternative site for the temporary campus? Is there City land available that could be temporarily allocated for this civic purpose to avoid exposing hundreds of our young people to these awful hazards? 

  • Would the Marin County Office of Education consider helping MVSD with alternate student placements, on a temporary basis, at other schools throughout the County? If not for all students, how about for those that wish to opt-out of the temporary housing next to the construction site?  What about for those with special needs who will be particularly impacted by the construction distraction?  At the June 10, 2024 Community Forum, Superintendent Kaufman floated the idea of an online school option for families who remain concerned over the health impacts at the current site. This is not a workable solution for these kids, who already suffered through years of COVID-related Zoom school. Hard pass. We need better solutions.

The District has not Disclosed any Rigorous Study of the Alternative Sites, for either the Temporary or Permanent Campus

  • An alternative site could save taxpayers significant money during construction and over time, lower the permitting risk, and keep our children safer. The only detail provided on alternative sites to the public was during the September 13, 2023 Board Meeting. This meeting looks at alternative sites with simple bullets on “Pros” and “Cons” but it did not seriously look at the health, permitting, and budget considerations that should be considered for an investment of this size that should last for 50+ years. You can read more about that presented Pro and Con List HERE.

  • The Board also was fully supportive of moving to a different location when it was considering Friends Field as recently as the February 2024 Board meeting since it could provide the following benefits:

    “Coherence of Instructional Program & Mill Valley Middle School Student, Experience Student & Staff Safety, Locates student and staff further away from roadways and vehicular access points, Greater distance between existing buildings and construction site, Fiscal Stewardship - Fiduciary Responsibility: Anticipated savings of $6-8M by removing need for temporary student classrooms, Environmental Stewardship: Reduces construction waste and resources by eliminating temporary classroom campus, reduces smell distraction by locating students further away from sewage agency.”

Frequently Asked Questions

I thought the School Board already approved the MVMS plan, after extensive consultation with various experts.

  • The School Board has repeatedly asserted that the current proposal (to rebuild MVMS at its same location and to house students next door during construction) is the final approved plan, so there is understandable confusion about this! The District has not completed the required CEQA process yet, so it should not be making statements that lead people to conclude this is already approved. It is not.  Indeed, the District has only just started the CEQA process. See July 18, 2024 District Slide deck. CEQA requires the District to substantively consider alternative sites, so nothing is final yet.  

Got it, CEQA just began in Fall 2024. How is it going? What’s the latest?

  • As the CEQA process commences, various independent experts are starting to weigh in with serious concerns.

  • The Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) sent the District a letter, dated July 25, 2024, reciting the site’s history as a burn dump with previous soil tests reveling “elevated concentrations of metals (copper, lead, and zinc) and total petroleum hydrocarbons.” Given this history, DTSC warned, “we recommend the District consider that a conservative remedial option may be necessary for evaluation in the EIR.” The agency also included a sobering warning that the existing school’s support piers “extend though the former landfill and deep into the bay mud, creating a preferential pathway for landfill leachate to infiltrate to groundwater,” so DTSC wants that evaluated in the EIR as well. 

  • The Marin County Environmental Health Services division also sent the District a letter, dated August 5, 2024, which advises, “Radiation monitoring should be performed as radioactive waste has been found at other burn dump sites.”

  • In short, parents are not the only ones who are concerned about this plan! Regulators are increasingly concerned too.

What does that mean for the project timeline?

  • Given heightened DTSC and County Environment Health Services concerns and additional requested changes to the scope of the EIR, the project timeline has been pushed back twice so far. Updates about the new timelines can be found on the page with The Latest.  

All construction projects have things to mitigate. We don’t see you objecting to all the other construction projects around town.  This kind of project happens all the time in California. The experts will handle it.

  • There is only one former burn dump site in Mill Valley. It is directly under the current and proposed temporary site. No other construction project in the area has anything approaching this risk profile. 

  • It is extremely rare for a school to be built atop a former landfill. But, for the sake of comparison, let’s see how things have gone for other landfill-based schools. Ninyo and Moore, the consultants the District hired, lists the following schools on their Landfill Experience client list, so let’s examine those:

  • Bell Jr. High – This is a San Diego Unified school built on top of a former landfill in 1967. In 1989, the school had to abruptly close its playground because of leaking methane gas. The SDUSD Safety Coordinator admitted, “If the levels become high enough, yes, it can explode.” In 2010, SDUSD paid $155,000 to wrap up a complaint about its failure to monitor groundwater near the landfill. In 2022, SDUSD sued two cities seeking financial contributions for ongoing clean up and monitoring of the landfill.

  • Noah Webster Elementary – Another SDUSD school built on top of a burn dump in 1955. On August 24, 2023, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) disapproved of Ninyo & Moore’s excavation and drilling plan, as this intrusive work “may pose risk to school and surrounding community.” Then, on August 31, 2023, DTSC disapproved the Removal Action Workplan saying the District must either record a Land Use Covenant (LUC) “to prevent potential exposure to students, staff, and the surrounding community from any disturbance of below ground contaminated soil on the school property now and in the future” (i.e. retain the soil cap) or it should evaluate “alternative remedies that do not include leaving waste in place.” On February 13, 2024, DTSC disapproved the revised Removal Action Workplan and noted that it plans to proceed with enforcement action against the District. You can read the restrictions proposed for the LUC here. You can also see the proposed cost for soil removal on page 34, Table 3, of the Revised Final Removal Action Workplan (April 25, 2014, revised November 17, 2023).  That Table 3 shows that, in 2013 dollars, the cost for soil removal is listed at $33,305,000! 

  • Our District has only budgeted $7.8 million for soil mitigation (January 2024 Board Deck, page 32). If our District, like SDUSD, has to remove all the toxic soils at the current site, it will likely be much more than $33 million. This is a material budget concern, and the District needs to do soil samples and talk to DTSC about this as soon as possible, to avoid wasting bond funds in furtherance of a project that may not be economically viable as presently planned.

I heard that we could lose the bond funds if the District is prevented from moving forward with its current plan. I want a new Middle School building, so I don’t want the bond funds to disappear.

  • We want a new and improved Middle School building too! We want one that will stand the test of time for the benefit of future generations.  We don’t want the bond funds to disappear either.  Thankfully, there is no deadline by which the bond funds must be used. Rather, these are general obligation bonds, already approved by voters, and issued by the District, payable from property taxes.  The County annually levies these property taxes for the payment of principal of and interest on the bonds. The net proceeds can be used for any of the purposes set forth in Measure G. Rest assured, the bond funds are not going to suddenly disappear.  The District often cites concerns about escalating costs of construction with inflation, but it is far more costly to not prudently scope the project and its risks versus the alternatives.

Even if the bond funds won’t disappear, I still want to make sure we make efficient use of these taxpayer dollars. If we insist on examining alternatives, I worry this will waste bond funds.

  • We also want to make efficient use of taxpayer dollars. This is why we want the District to do a full financial analysis of the expected soil mitigation costs, in consultation with DTSC, as soon as possible, which can be concluded prior to a full CEQA. Knowing whether the soil removal cost is $7 million versus more than $33 million will help chart an efficient path forward. Until we have that answer, effort and money could be wasted.

  • Examining alternatives is a legal requirement under CEQA, and it is not a waste of bond funds. It is always good advice to “measure twice and cut once.” Being careful, by thoroughly examining alternatives, will save money in the long run and yield a more durable result for the future. No one wants to encounter the long-term troubles that Bell Junior High experienced with its landfill school (see above).

Can’t your concerns be mitigated?

  • No, the proposed mitigation, especially for the temporary site, is inadequate. We need a safer interim campus.

Are there any feasible alternatives for the interim campus?

  • Yes, Terra Marin for the temporary campus. The District has already concluded the process of evicting Terra Marin, the prior lessee. Moreover, this plan would not displace any Edna students. It would be temporary and workable with staggered start times.  The District is examining this alternative in the forthcoming EIR.

  • Or maybe the City or County can offer some land on a temporary basis?

  • Or could the current Middle School be renovated without necessitating excavation into the existing soil cap? The forthcoming EIR will examine this option too.

What is the full story with the Superfund site?

  • This is a bit complicated, so bear with us. We are learning as we go too! First, MVMS and the Mill Valley Dump are included on the EPA’s Superfund Site Information list and the site has an assigned EPA ID Number (CAN0000905996).

  • That website then labels it an NFRAP-Site that does not qualify for the NPL based on existing information. Let’s unpack those acronyms and the Superfund process.

  • First, a concerned agency can petition the EPA for an assessment.  In this case, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) identified the Mill Valley Dump as a hazardous waste site due to hazardous substances and landfill gasses. The EPA then requested a Preliminary Assessment, which DTSC completed for the Mill Valley Dump on March 25, 2003.

  • The Preliminary Assessment evaluates the Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) factors. If a site’s HRS factors warrant it, the site will be added to the National Priorities List (NPL). Sites that are not added to the NPL are added to the No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) list. That is the designation the Mill Valley Dump received. But, it’s important to understand why the site was placed in that category.

  • The Preliminary Assessment, which DTSC completed for the Mill Valley Dump on March 25, 2003, acknowledges the presence of heavy metals, other chemicals of concern, and landfill gases. Nevertheless, the EPA determined that the following pertinent Hazardous Ranking System factors are associated with the MVMS site: “The entire surface is covered with pavement, buildings or soil cap of 2-3 feet of sandy-clay. The metal contamination is below 2 feet, found at dept 7.5 to 13.5 bgs.” The Remedial Site Assessment Decision included in the report describes the rationale for the NFRAP listing as, “The site is covered by pavement, buildings and 2-3 feet cap of sandy-clayey soil. The high concentrations of metals (lead, copper, zinc) are buried 7.5 to 13.5 feet below ground surface.”

  • So, if construction disrupts the soil cap, as it is expected to do, the entire basis for the NFRAP listing disappears and the EPA may need to reconsider how the site is categorized under the Superfund program.

  • Regardless of how this site is classified, it needs to be closely monitored via the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This is why DTSC is monitoring this site and paying such close attention. Whatever you call it, there is a hazardous amount of lead in the soil due to the burn dump materials, which will be exposed and disrupted once construction begins.