The following letter has been sent to the Mill Valley School District Board and Superintendent, listing the many flaws in there comparative analysis to determine what site is more suitable for the development of the Mill Valley Middle School.
To the Mill Valley School District Board of Trustees and Superintendent Kaufman:
The Analysis of Criteria presented in your Supporting Document for the February 26 Study Session is not an objective analysis of the two sites under consideration. This analysis has been cooked to support using the Friends Field site. The analysis scores benefits and drawbacks in a way to devalue the Middle School site and promote the Friends Field site. This is not an objective evaluation. On page 13 of the document it states that the Friends Field site is “unoccupied”. This is a false statement as Friends Field is a vital part of the Mill Valley Community Center and is certainly NOT unoccupied.
To help with your analysis, I request that the following benefits and drawbacks be added to the supporting document. Here are a few of the missing benefits to using the existing Middle School site:
- According to your estimates, you can build the new middle school on the existing site within your budget.
- Permitting and CEQA will be MUCH simpler on the existing MVMS site resulting in a significant savings in soft costs. No BCDC permit needed.
- Structural design is likely less expensive due to bedrock being much closer to the surface and depth of bay mud being much less (or not present).
- The MVMS site is accessible by emergency vehicles and accessible parking and drop-off can be located within distances prescribed by Title 24 accessibility and State Fire Code.
- Less opposition will equal less potential for litigation and the likelihood of staying on your proposed timeline and budget is much greater.
- Significantly higher likelihood of overall project success.
Also missing from the analysis are the following drawbacks to using the Friends Field site:
- Unknown soil, depth to bedrock, and thickness of bay mud layer mean you are taking on unacceptable risk that can impact project budget and timeline.
- It can be assumed that depth to bedrock and thickness of bay mud layer are significantly greater than the MVMS site resulting in significantly more expensive structural and seismic costs.
- Requires a BCDC permit, a potentially costly and time-consuming process.
- The Friends Field site cannot be adequately reached by emergency vehicles per State Fire Code. Accessible parking and drop-off will be difficult to be located close enough to main building entrances per Title 24 accessibility requirements. The Friends Field site is not large enough to accommodate your building program and the required vehicle and pedestrian circulation features.
- Development of the Friends Field site is contrary to the language of Measure G and a breach of trust with the citizens that supported it.
- The extreme level of opposition from Mill Valley residents will permanently impact the credibility of the Mill Valley School District Board of Trustees.
- The likelihood of litigation will likely be very costly and significantly impact your timeline. Page 17 of your Supporting Document says that litigation will increase costs by $7 million per year. This guarantees that any projected savings from the Friends Field site will be lost. Litigation can likely increase your budget and timeline to the point of total project failure.
- Unacceptable and permanent impacts to the operation and fiscal sustainability of the Mill Valley Community Center.
- Too many unknowns, potential litigation, and other issues can result in project failure.
Now a word about CEQA. Your process is backwards. The whole purpose of CEQA is to provide an objective analysis of alternatives to allow you to choose the best alternative. Your plan seems to be to select an alternative on March 7, and then cook the CEQA analysis to meet your need. It does not work that way and this can be another avenue of potential litigation. If you drop the Friends Field site as an alternative on March 7, you can proceed with your two MVMS site alternatives and a no project alternative. This would allow you to have a legal CEQA process.
It is critical that the Trustees have the correct information on the benefits and drawbacks. The document you have been provided for the February 27 meeting does not provide that. With the points noted above, I have attempted to provide you with some of the missing benefits and drawbacks. In my opinion, if you are basing your decision on your fiscal responsibility and on a path for the best chance of a successful project, I ask you to drop the Friends Field alternative and proceed with the existing MVMS site, or seek another alternative.