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 this Fall. 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 was recently pushed back. At the October 10, 2024 Board meeting, the School Board presented a revised timeline that pushes the Draft EIR Public Review Period back from October 2024 to February 2025, the EIR Notice of Determination back from January 2025 to July 2025, and the start of construction back from June 2025 to September / October 2025. 

• Prior School Board decks showed 7 months for construction of the temporary campus. Construction of the temporary campus cannot start until the EIR is final and CEQA complete (now July 2025 at the earliest). Can the temporary campus be built in under a month to be ready for the start of school in August 2025? Will everything be pushed back a year with an actual move into portables and start on the permanent campus to February 2026? This timeline needs further clarification. Stay tuned for updates! 

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 is already in the process of evicting Terra Marin, the current lessee.  Terra Marin has sued the District, saying that occupying the space for District Offices is not a public education purpose as the lease contemplates. Housing the temporary campus there would be, which could help end that lawsuit. Moreover, this plan would not displace any Edna students. It would be temporary and workable with staggered start times.  We are seeking to include this within the alternatives the EIR is examining.

• 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?

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.