Blog Post < Previous | Next >
Liz Tracy
Known Knowns, Known Unknowns, and Sleeping Dogs -- Decisions before the MVSD Board of Directors
The Mill Valley School District Board recently made the surprising announcement that they want to demolish the Mill Valley Middle School on Sycamore Avenue and replace it with a new middle school on Friends Field at the Mill Valley Community Center. This immediately set off a chorus of opposition from a cross-section of Mill Valley residents, sports organizations, and the City of Mill Valley, itself. However, despite the multitude of arguments that have been presented by city officials and respected members of the community (who have decades of experience in real estate development and construction cost analysis), the MVSD Board seems determined to double down on their intentions.
Sadly, if MVSD continues on its present course, my guess is that we will look back and say that the divisiveness and distrust it engendered and the time and money wasted could have all been avoided if the MVSD Board had just done its homework and listened to the community.
For more about community responses,
CLICK HERE to read comments by the City of Mill Valley
CLICK HERE to read comments by The Mill Valley Friends of Parks & Recreation Board
CLICK HERE to read comments by Friends of Fields
CLICK HERE to read comments by John Palmer
CLICK HERE to read comments by Community Venture Partners
Friends Field is an inseparable part of the Mill Valley Community Center vision that so many of us gave our time and money to make a reality. But most people don’t know the whole story about how the former marshlands were gradually drained and filled and transformed. Its history began more than a century ago. And that transformation is relevant to MVSD’s decisions, today.
MVSD's Plan
Mill Valley City Manager, Todd Cusimano’s letter to the MVSD Board clearly explains why MVSD cannot act without the City’s consent. And the other letters, above, lay out in detail why the course MVSD is pursuing will be a betrayal of the public’s trust that MVSD has enjoyed for decades, each time the School Board asks the community to vote for yet another bond measure. For the MVSD Board to disregard all of this or worse take the community for granted would be a huge mistake.
That aside, there are more substantive reasons why MVSD cannot pursue its current plan (called “Option C”). The MVSD Board’s recent discussions rest on faulty assumptions about the history of their relationship with and obligations to the City of Mill Valley, their legal authority to act, unilaterally, and a multitude of other unexamined facts.
MVSD believes it has 2 options: (1) to remodel and expand the existing Middle School at its present location, or (2) to build a new school on Friends Field. However, legally, they only have option one. This will be explained in detail in the next article in this series. But there are also practical and financial reasons to choose the first option.
The entire area that is east of Camino Alto Avenue, south of Blithedale Avenue, and north of Miller Avenue is a former wetland that began to be reclaimed and filled back in the early 20th century. And over that century, City Councilmembers and residents have commented on its metamorphosis from a mosquito-infested swamp to a hog farm and most notoriously to a gigantic open pit, garbage dump and burn operation that survived until the 1950s.
MVSD don’t know much about history
In 1912, an Italian immigrant named Giovanini Biggio leased most of the marshlands east of Camino Alto Avenue from the Jesse Solem family, to start a garbage dump business. Soon after, the Biggio family founded the “Mill Valley Garbage Company,” which according to the County Registry was to be,
“…engaged in the business of collecting, carrying away and disposing, for hire, of garbage and refuse in the County of Marin, California.”
For the better part of the next 50 years, “garbage” became a major topic of discussion and the source of much controversy in the City of Mill Valley, and the subject of endless city council hearings and resolutions, mostly involving noxious smells, hours of operation, and associated public hazards and nuisances.
As reported in the Mill Valley Record, the dump was finally closed in the 1950s after which,
“Mill Valley’s picturesque garbage dump gateway this week received a surprise visit from none other than His Honor, Mayor Robert Huber. The mayor gazed over the expanse of tin cans, broken sewer pipe, and assorted trash being covered. “One day,” he declared confidently, "future civic improvements will rise from this dump site.”
And thus followed a series of grandiose visions about what the dumpsite should become. Those visions have included everything from a new Mill Valley Civic Center, a new location for the Marin County Fairgrounds, a 750-berth yacht harbor with a dredged, clear channel to San Francisco Bay, a waterfront recreational area that included ballparks, tennis courts, and playgrounds, a race track, a horse riding ring, a light industrial center, a commercial office center, and even the location of a new “Marine World Aquatic Park.”
However, these visionaries overlooked an important fact. The 1948 deed that transferred the land to the City of Mill Valley stipulated that
"...the described real property shall not be used by the second party except for park and recreation purposes until otherwise determined by a vote of the electors of the City.” [Emphasis added]
That deed restriction was, in fact, superseded by a public vote on a ballot initiative in 1956 that
"... changed [the use of Friends Field] from park and recreation purposes [only] to such municipal purposes including, but not limited to the leasing of said lands, in whole or in part to any Federal, state or local public agency, as the City Council may determine."
Note that the definition of "municipal purposes" includes parks and recreation but excludes educational uses such as schools (more on this in the next part of this series).
Over the years, through a series of land swaps and responsibility-sharing agreements, all these ideas were distilled down to the decidedly more mundane uses that we find today, which include a sewage treatment plant, tidal wetlands for flood control and gray water treatment, a church, a middle school, a community center, and Friends Field. Most of these land uses were sorted out by the 1960s, including the School Board’s decision, in 1967, to build the new Mill Valley Middle School in its current location at the corner of Sycamore Avenue and Camino Alto Avenue.
The Middle School’s construction was completed in the early 1970s.
The story of the garbage
What was dumped in the marshlands, over the years, has always been referred to as “household waste.” 1991 and 2003 environmental assessment reports appear to affirm this. But is that true?
There appear to have been five instances when soil evaluations were done in the areas that now include the Community Center and the Middle School: some major and some cursory -- In the 1960s, when the Middle School was being planned, in 1981, in 1991, when the community center was being planned, in 1993, and again in 2003.
The 2003 Environmental “Preliminary Assessment,” undertaken by the Region IX Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), dated August 27, 2003, summarizes the facts, circumstances, and findings of the areas now occupied by the Community Center, Friends Field, the Mill Valley Middle School, and the waterfront soccer fields and Dog Park as follows:
“The Mill Valley Dump site was identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) as a potential hazardous waste site in 1989. The site was added to the EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Information System (CERCLlS) database with a discovery date of June. 18, 2003.”
The EPA goes on to report,
“MVD [Mill Valley Dump] operated at the site as a burn dump prior to 1964 (closed in the 1950's) and was owned by the Biggio family. The City of Mill Valley currently owns the site. The dump operated for approximately forty years and received household waste.
“In the early 1960's, dredged material from the Sausalito Canal was placed in the area now used as the soccer fields (previously undeveloped marshland), located to the south of Sycamore Avenue and east of the MVSSTP. The Northwestern Pacific Railroad tracks ran along the east side of the property and were removed in the early 1970's and replaced with an asphalt-paved bike path. The Bay Front Park, officially opened in March 1978, incorporates the soccer fields, the bike path, and the marshland area at the north end of the canal and east of the area where the burn dump operated.
“A scrap metal yard also operated in the immediate vicinity of the MVD. The exact location is unknown, reported to be either at the present location of the MVSSTP or closer to the intersection of Sycamore A venue and Camino Alto Drive. (2) The remaining buried refuse consisting of glass, metal, wood, paper, plastic and organics (typical household rubbish) extends from two-and-one-half feet below ground surface (bgs) to thirteen-and-one-half feet (bgs). The refuse layer is thinner to the north and thicker and deeper to the south and southeast. Underlying the fill is Bay Mud ranging from 2.5 feet to 40 feet bgs. Bedrock is found from 28-42 feet bgs.
“Mill Valley Middle School (MVMS) was built on the southwest portion of the site in 1969. In 1968, a building was transported to the northern portion site and used as the Mill Valley Community Center (MVCC). It was demolished in July 1999 to make room for the two new community center buildings. The New Mill Valley Community Center (2 buildings) was constructed on the northern portion of the site over a geotextile barrier to prevent landfill gas migration. Both buildings have a methane/ combustible gas monitoring system. The new MVCC re-opened in April 2001.
“Subsurface soil samples were taken to thirteen-and-one-half feet (bgs). Groundwater and air samples have also been taken at various times from 1981 to 2002. In soils samples, copper, lead, and zinc were the main chemicals of concern (CUC) and ranged as follows: copper up to 1000 milligrams per kilogram {mg/kg), lead up to 6,500 mg/kg, zinc up to 1,100 mg/kg, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) up to 1,200 mg/kg. US EPA Region 9 Residential Preliminary Remedial Goals (PRG) for the COCs are as follows: copper 3,100 mg/kg; lead 400 mg/kg, and zinc 23,000 mg/kg. There are no PRGs for TPHs.
“In 1981, DHS took three samples (two soil, one surface water) at the tidal creek that bisects the site, with no polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or chlorinated pesticides detected in the soil or water samples Metals in the soil samples resulted in iron up to 44,700 micrograms per gram (ug/g), zinc up to 294 ug/g, lead up to 140 ug/g, barium up to 567 ug/g. US EPA Region 9 Residential Preliminary Remedial Goals (PRG) are as follows: iron 23,000 mg/kg, zinc 23,000 mg/kg, lead 400 mg/kg and barium 5,400 mg/kg. The surface water had high iron at 13 micrograms per milliliter (ug/ml). The secondary maximum contaminant level (MCL) from the Drinking Water Standards for iron is 0.3 mg/I. DTSC has conducted two site screenings of the site in 1989 and in 1993.”
The development of the new Mill Valley Community Center, which was completed in 2001, required remediation of the site but the soils testing for that did not include any soils coring testing of the landfill in what is now Friends Field (See Figure 1, below)
Figure 1
When the new Community Center and Friends Field were built, the whole area was “capped” (2-3 feet of sandy clay soil) to eliminate potential contamination. (These and other remediation techniques were also used for the construction of the Mill Valley Middle School.)
The remediation requirements for Friends Field are referenced in an earlier Preliminary Report done in 1991. However, there is no record of soils coring samples being taken at that time on Friends Field. The Report discusses potential issues of concern in the event of future development on Friends Field, extrapolating from the earlier 1989 study done for the construction of the Community Center.
For example, in that Report, regarding the “Softball Field Site,” it notes,
“Due to its former use as part of the household refuse dump, toxic materials in soils/debris at the softball site are considered likely. As a result, Herzog Associates recommended the subsurface investigation described below at the site. The dump reportedly received refuse consisting primarily of household waste from homes in the City of Mill Valley and surrounding towns. There were reportedly no factories or other generators of substantial amounts of toxic materials that were allowed to dump at the facility. However, the facility was opened to the public, and it is possible that some toxic materials were dumped there. In addition, there was a scrap metal yard located on the southern part of the dump site. This scrap metal yard was reportedly historically outside of the area of the softball field site, but poses an additional environmental concern. [Emphasis added]
“There has been little regulatory action regarding the former dump at the softball field site. It is possible that a rank fourteen listing in the SWAT ranking and reporting is the dump on the subject site. We have been unable to confirm this with the Board or the CIWMB, as their records are very incomplete, regarding rank fourteen and fifteen SWAT sites.” [Emphasis added]
Under “Subsurface Investigation – Conclusions and Recommendations,” regarding the “Softball Field Site,” it goes on to say,
“The dump that was operated for some 50 years in the vicinity of the softball field site resulted in toxic and hazardous materials being deposited at the property. The dump reportedly received mainly household refuse and waste. However, there was also a scrap metal yard located at the dump. As a result of the dumping and metal scraping operations, elevated concentrations of heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons exist in the soil/debris at the property. …It is likely that these contaminants are relatively widespread in the refuse at the site. The refuse extends from depths of 2 to 3 feet to depths of 7 1/2 feet to 11 ½ feet at the softball field site. [Emphasis added]
“The refuse is thinner towards the north and thicker towards the south and southeast. The 2 to 3 feet of sandy clay cover soils over the refuse have generally prevented the toxic materials from entering the air. Harding Lawson Associates' (HLA's) 1989 exposure evaluation indicated that there do not appear to be health risks posed to the students at the Mill Valley Middle School from the chemicals detected in the near surface soils at the property. In addition, HLA's gas survey of the buildings at the Mill Valley Middle School did not indicate the presence of organic vapors as a result of gas seeping from soil under the buildings.
“Although there is a 2 to 3 foot capping layer over the soil containing the toxic debris at the site, excavation for proposed utilities and/ or subsurface vaults will probably extend into the debris-laden soil. Soil containing debris that is excavated during / construction will need to be handled as a hazardous waste. The workers performing grading operations including the handling of these toxic materials will be required to have the proper training, and the contractor who handles and disposes of these materials will need to be licensed, appropriately. The materials will need to be treated, and / possibly disposed of at a Class I landfill. In order to evaluate whether the materials are a hazardous waste in accordance with current regulations, the toxic characteristics leachate potential (TCLP) test will need to be performed on the debris laden soil once it is excavated during construction. In addition, dust mitigation will be required to / prevent the migration of toxic materials in the air. [Emphasis added]
“The high concentrations of motor oil, lead, zinc, and copper, and the elevated concentrations of other constituents …in site soils will be of concern to the regulatory agencies. If the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board) reaches the point where they are implementing the regulations for the rank fourteen landfills, the subject site may require characterization (this is scheduled for the late 1990's). The SWAT characterization generally consists of installing groundwater monitoring wells and monitoring off-site migration of toxics in groundwater. However, regardless of whether the subject site it the fourteen listing in the SWAT guidelines, it would be pertinent to install and monitor groundwater monitoring wells to evaluate whether the toxic materials in site soils are affecting groundwater. If groundwater impairment is occurring, mitigation may be required. Groundwater mitigation could be very costly and time consuming.” [Emphasis added]
All this considered, the history of dump operations in the former marshlands that are now Friends Field raises questions about the veracity of the assumptions about "household waste."
So, what’s in the old dump?
According to the Mill Valley Record of October 1942….
“In addition to the presence of the anti-garbage dump delegation there were [petitions] presented to the council petitions of 297 residents from outside the incorporation requesting the officials’ support in opposing the hauling of garbage from outside towns “to a dump in our area"; and from 174 residents of Mill Valley protesting “the hauling of garbage from Corte Madera, Sausalito, Belvedere, Tiburon, and Marin City to a dump at our doorstep.”
Oversight of operations, at that time, was also essentially non-existent so, as the assessment reports have indicated, no one really knows what was dumped there in addition to “household waste,” nor has there ever been any legal or operational definition of the term “household waste.” It was, essentially, whatever anyone brought to the site that was not, clearly, industrial, or commercial waste.
Unfortunately, up until the late 1960s, when environmental consciousness emerged, pretty much anything was called household waste: car batteries, appliances, motor oil, auto parts, toxic cleaners, solvents, paints, organic waste, and more.
However, in the 1960s, other types of “waste” began to arrive at the dump. Dredging tailings from what was called the “Sausalito Canal” included landfill from Marin City and the Marinship, the former naval base that built Liberty Ships during World War II. This may be significant because even today there is evidence of toxic contamination in the soils in parts of the Marnship. But there was another source of the “waste” dumped at the Biggio marshlands that is even more concerning.
Also, long before that, in October of 1942, the Mill Valley Record reported the following:
“DESPITE [sic] a county ordinance prohibiting the “importation” of garbage from outside Marin, the rule is being violated… And the Adolph Biggio hog ranch near the Mill Valley dump is on the receiving end of “shipments.” [The] “Offender” appears to be the U. S. government, according to Stephen Anderson, sanitarian of the County Health Unit, who told the County Board of Supervisors this week that he had made an investigation of the complaint. The offending [commercial/industrial/military] “garbage” is being hauled here from the Presidio in San Francisco over the Golden Gate Bridge.” [Emphasis added]
Further investigation indicates that this was an accommodation that many of the dumps in the San Francisco Bay area offered to the U.S. government as part of the war effort during WW II. In fact, the main dump in San Rafael was rezoned to “heavy industrial” during this time.
At the time, the MV Record reported that other cities condoned and accepted this type of unclassified waste “due to the war conditions.” And since the history of the dump/landfill tells us that it began the dumping from the west side, proceeding east from Camino Alto Avenue, it is logical to conclude that in the dump’s latter years, that “commercial/industrial/military” waste was deposited under what is now Friends Field.
As such, the assumption that the only thing in the marshland landfills is “household waste” is challenged by historical accounts. So, today, Friends Field is a sleeping dog.
Conclusions
What's curious about the types of pollutants and the levels of toxicity in the soils assessment reports is that it’s unusual to have readings that high from just “household waste.” The only other place I’ve seen readings like these is at the old Army dump site (now baseball fields) at Hamilton in Novato.
As it stands, the existing Middle School is a “known known.” We know what is in the soils there so we can more accurately assess the time/costs to do remediation issues that would result from renovating and adding on to the existing structures. Building an entirely new school on Friends Field is a “known unknown.” We don’t really know what future soil corings (to engineer foundations) will discover or how much it might cost to remediate what we find.
Renovating the interiors and exterior of the existing Middle School, by expanding it toward Camino Alto Avenue (+20,000 square feet at 2 stories) or between the existing school and the gymnasium (+ 25,000 square feet at 2 stories) or both, is certainly feasible without having to close the school if construction staging is done correctly (no need for many more portable classrooms, the ones on site now can be moved and repurposed). Building up and adding third floors is also an option. And, since remediation would only be required for areas disturbed by new construction, the total redevelopment costs would be less per square foot for the renovation of the existing Middle School than for an entirely new building(s). And from an environmental standpoint, as the saying goes, the greenest building ever built is already standing.
On the other hand, the potential for cost overruns by building on Friends Field, include significant site redevelopment costs that will be required to raise and reconfigure the Sycamore Avenue access road to mitigate flooding, plus a two-lane vehicular bridge over the creek from Terwilliger Marsh, for fire trucks, construction equipment, and semi-tractor trailer container hauling, and the additional years needed to receive approvals and required sign-offs from a host of local, regional, state, and federal agencies, such as the SF Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board, BCDC, the Region IX office of the EPA, the Army Corps, and others, must also be considered.
In reality, development on Friends Field is likely to take twice as long and cost more than MVSD is planning for.
A word of caution: Let sleeping dogs lie.
Next in this series: Does the MVSD have the legal right to build on Friends Field?
Bob Silvestri is a long-time Mill Valley resident, the Editor of the Marin Post, and the founder and president of Community Venture Partners, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit community organization funded by individuals
and nonprofit donors.