Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Acquisition And Remediation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central Unified advances environmental review for Dakota Hays site; soil‑removal bid to follow
Summary
District staff reported June 10 that environmental review for the 32‑acre Dakota Hays property remains active under DTSC oversight; the board was told amendment 3 to the consultant contract covers planning for a planned removal operation, and staff will bring a soil‑removal bid and contract to the board for action.
Central Unified administration reported June 10 that it has completed additional soil sampling at the 32‑acre Dakota Hays property and is proceeding under the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) review process. The board was told the district will soon issue a bid package for the removal of impacted soil.
Director Rodriguez explained the amendment (Amendment No. 3) to the existing contract with Padre Associates increases the consultant scope to support the state review and to plan the planned removal operation. The district described the site as large and with a complex history; the DTSC’s phased review determines whether soil remediation is necessary and, if so, the scope of removal.
Why it matters: The Dakota Hays parcel is 32 acres and the district has targeted it for a future school site. If soil remediation is required, the district will need to contract for excavation, export and disposal — actions that carry significant cost and schedule implications for the site’s development.
District staff said the most recent sampling and review indicate the need to remove contaminated soil and that the next step will be a public contract to perform removal. Director Rodriguez told trustees that the amendment covers planning and coordination for the removal operation and that she will return to the board with a bid schedule and recommended contract award for the export of soil.
The board asked about the site’s current use; Rodriguez said portions were formerly vineyards and a couple of parcels had residential structures; most of the acreage is vacant. The administration said the removal‑contract request will be presented to the board once DTSC’s requirements and removal plan are finalized and a contractor is identified.
Administration recommended the item return to the June 24 meeting for board action on the necessary contracting steps.
