Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
No. Even though the rebuild plan has been discarded, 87% of the Draft EIR focuses on this infeasible project (242 pages), while allocating relatively few pages to the alternatives now under consideration (5.5 pages for Dual Schools at Edna and 3.5 pages for Renovation option). The District is hoping you give them credit for having a document called an EIR, while hoping you don’t actually read or notice that this is absurd.
Q: Does the EIR adequately explain the remaining options?
Q: In its 3.5 page discussion of the Renovation Option, does the EIR explain what will be done to ensure seismic safety? Does it clarify what will happen to the existing foundation? Does it explain whether that work is financially feasible?
No, it does not answer any of those questions. It hedges with a single sentence, saying only, “This alternative would renovate the existing building and possibly the foundations to meet current building code seismic requirements.” (EIR pdf page 266). It does not say whether foundation improvements are required or feasible, and it does not analyze anything about the safety of retaining the 1970s foundation remains as-is.
Q: What does the EIR say should be done to address seismic concerns?
The EIR says the District should implement “all recommendations outlined in Ninyo and Moore’s Geotechnical Evaluation and Geologic Hazard Assessment Report, including but not limited to seismic design criteria, soils mixing measures, construction monitoring recommendations, excavation and earthwork recommendations, retaining walls, drainage, and foundation recommendations.” (EIR pdf page 142-43).
The District cannot afford to do that, as the cost of soil-mixing and soil removal killed the rebuild option. Absent this crucial seismic mitigation, the EIR describes the severity of the seismic hazards, “Results of the geotechnical investigation performed by Ninyo & Moore in 2024 indicate that settlement under new loads is a consideration due to the undocumented fill and soft bay mud encountered at the Site. Portions of the Site are susceptible to liquefaction, lateral spreading, and settlement under new loads.” (EIR pdf page 52).
The EIR goes on to describe liquefaction: “Earthquake-related ground shaking can trigger a rapid loss of shear strength in saturated, loose, granular soil of low plasticity (liquefaction) or in wet, sensitive, cohesive soil (cyclic softening). Liquefaction and cyclic softening can result in a loss of foundation bearing capacity or lateral spreading of sloping or unconfined ground. Liquefaction can also generate sand boils leading to subsidence at the ground surface…. The Marin Countywide Plan (MCCDA) notes that the campus is in area considered to have very high susceptibility to liquefaction (Figure 7) based on regional studies (Knudsen et al., 2000; Witter et al., 2006).” (EIR, pdf page 137).
Q: Does the California Building Code (CBC), “promulgated to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum standards related to structural strength” (EIR, pdf page 140) apply to a mere renovation?
Yes, the EIR notes, “the provisions of the [California Building Code] apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, location, and demolition of every building or structure, or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California (DGS, 2020).” (EIR pdf page 140).
Q: After describing the severity of the liquefaction risk, does the EIR discuss the feasibility and safety impact of leaving the 1970s foundation as-is under the Renovation option?
Not at all. Not a single sentence about this.
Q: In its 3.5 pages about the Renovation plan, does the EIR discuss to what extent the Renovation plan would disrupt the current soil cap?
Not really. It simply says, “This alternative would involve some construction within the former landfill underlying portions of the existing school, although less disturbance would occur than under the Proposed Project. The interim campus would be exposed to some potential dust and emissions hazards, but these would be reduced compared with the proposed Project due to the substantial reduction in earth disturbing activities.” (EIR pdf page 267).
Of course “some” is not a very specific or reassuring amount. What soil cap disruption would be necessary? The EIR does not have enough information to answer that, as it doesn’t even commit to whether a new foundation would be required. Would the new STEM building require soil cap disruption? How about the new shade structures? How about the permanent foundations for the leased portables?
Q: What does the EIR say about noise disruption for students trying to learn near the construction site?
It shrugs. “[E]ven with the implementation of these measures, construction noise levels reaching the interim campus would exceed the exterior noise threshold of 5 dB, Leq (1-hour) threshold, which would likely disrupt outdoor activities and result in annoyance to on-site students, teachers, and staff. This would be a Significant and Unavoidable impact of the Project.” (EIR, PDF page 28).
Under the proposed Dual-Schools at Edna option, the noise annoyance would shift to the Enda students and staff, which isn’t good either! But, there is another version of an Edna solution that avoids any students having to learn amid construction noise.
Q: What does the EIR say about the sewer stench?
Again, a shrug, but with an acknowledgment that the interim campus would be way worse for students than the current campus is. “Using general dilution estimates (as a function of distance from source), the outdoor concentrations of pollutants which cause odors such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S)27 would be expected to be approximately 70 percent higher at the interim campus than at the existing school. This would be potentially significant and unavoidable.” (EIR, pdf page 102).
Q: If we imagine an interim campus next door to the current site during renovation, what does the EIR say about that? What mitigation measures would be required? Here is a sampling, among others:
If wind speeds are high enough to result in dust emissions crossing the Project site boundary or the boundary between the permanent campus and the interim campus, grading operations will be suspended until wind speeds recede.” (EIR pdf page 18).
“If air monitoring stations detect levels of airborne dust above the action level, on-site work shall be suspended until such time that the reported levels have declined below action levels.” (EIR pdf page 18).
Q: Would students be sent home on these windy days? Is there an evacuation plan if toxic dust levels are above the allowable limits? What about an evacuation plan if methane monitors register methane in the explosive range? Does the EIR talk about that?
The EIR does not discuss specific evacuation plans. It defers to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), noting that the “Project Site shall be subject to mitigation as required by DTSC and the [Local Enforcement Agency] in the Response Plan and/or the Post Closure Land Use Plan (PCLUP). The PCLUP shall include construction safety protocols and requirements, including preparation of a Health and Safety Plan, a Community Air Monitoring Plan, and measures for safe excavated waste handling.” (EIR pdf page 23).
Deferring to DTSC is fine, but the DTSC review process is not complete yet. The District thus does not know what the Response Plan and/or the Post Closure Land Use Plan will entail or how much they will cost. This is why it is customary, and advisable, to finish that Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) work before completing the EIR. The District is trying to rush them on a parallel track, which leaves us with major information gaps.
Q: What does the EIR say about students potentially interfacing with contaminated surface waters in Ryan Creek?
“Potential exposure to contaminated surface waters in Ryan Creek would be reduced to less than significant levels by the existing fencing off of the creek.” (EIR, pdf page 174).
Oh really? Here is a photo of that existing fence, not quite doing its job.
Q: In practice, does the District have a spotless track record in separating children from toxic substances?
No, see above photo. Also, 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.” Images of the surfacing waste are on our Soils Risk Page.
Q: Does the Renovation option meet all of the District’s own stated goals, according to the EIR?
No. The EIR notes that:
X Renovation would not “upgrade MVMS to current educational, safety, security, and accessibility standards”
X Renovation would not “address concerns related to projected future sea-level rise, odors, and site conditions.”
X Renovation would not “allow the District to construct climate resilient and sustainable facilities and implement “green building” practices.
Q: How many of the District’s own goals does the Dual-Schools at Edna option meet?
The EIR says the Dual-Schools at Edna solution would meet ALL of the District’s goals. (EIR pdf page 271). Although not discussed in the EIR, there are variations on that Edna solution that are event better and which ameliorate the traffic concerns substantially.
Q: The Dual-Schools at Edna option still has challenges, though. How does the EIR ultimately balance all of these competing considerations? What does it recommend?
Here is the last sentence of the EIR, summing things up:
“The Dual Schools at Edna Maguire option…would substantially reduce impacts compared with the [rebuild] Project, but would achieve more of the project’s goals.” (EIR pdf page 271).