SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
November 5, 2026
Prepared by Mark Dolson for FSLVW
NOTE: Provided purely as a public service — NOT the official SLVWD Meeting Minutes.
Highlights:
Redwood Park Water Storage Tank Project Information Update
Compact Track Loader Purchase
Next Board meeting will be at 6:30 PM on December 3, 2026
Preliminaries
Director Layng was absent.
President Russ announced that the Board took no reportable actions in the just-concluded Closed Session.
There were no changes to the agenda.
There was no public comment on non-agendized topics.
Unfinished Business
None.
New Business
Redwood Park Water Storage Tank Project Information Update
General Manager Jason Lillion introduced this agenda item. His memo detailed a complicated history:
The Redwood Park Water Storage Tank project replaces one of the last remaining and very degraded redwood tanks in the system while also increasing storage by five times with a 125,000-gallon bolted steel water storage tank. The tank serves the Swim Zone and provides potable, fire flow, and emergency storage for approximately 167 connections. The tank is part of the Department of Water Resources’ 2022 Urban Community Drought Relief funding which awarded the District $4,500,000 of which $1,500,000 is earmarked for this project.
Key project milestones to date include:
December 2020 – The Board adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) / Notice of Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
November 24, 2025 – Mesiti-Miller Engineering completed stamped construction plans and specifications.
February 19, 2026 – The Board awarded the construction contract to Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction for $3,524,524 in combination with the Echo Water Storage Tank Project.
March 6, 2026 – Construction began. The project is currently 50% complete, with substantial completion expected by December 31, 2026.
At the October 1, 2026 Board meeting, residents near the site raised concerns about the height of the tank, increased stormwater runoff from new impervious surfaces, and the tank's seismic safety. The Board asked staff to return with a report. This item responds to those concerns.
Construction continued to the point of erecting the actual tank while Staff compiled this information. As of October 28, 2026 erection of the actual tank is paused awaiting this meeting, while construction around the tank site continues.
The following background information is relevant:
1. Tank Height and Design Freeboard
The engineered construction plans have shown a tank height of approximately 32 feet since November 24, 2025. The added height above the operating water level provides freeboard: empty space at the top of the tank that the water uses when it sloshes during an earthquake. AWWA Standard [D100 / D103] requires tanks to be designed for this seismic sloshing wave. Without enough freeboard, the wave strikes the roof and can damage the roof, the upper shell, and the vents, and can release water from the tank. Freeboard therefore protects both the tank and the surrounding properties. It also allows for overflow capacity and air gaps required by the State Water Resources Control Board.
2. Environmental Review (CEQA)
The CEQA document adopted in November 2020 described a 24-foot tank. The construction plans show 32 feet. Staff has not identified when the two documents diverged; all current staff joined the District after the CEQA document was adopted.
Staff has asked District Counsel to advise whether the existing CEQA document adequately covers a 32-foot tank. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, a lead agency may adopt an addendum when changes to a project do not create new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of effects already identified. The primary topic for that analysis is visual and aesthetic impact to nearby residences. District’s legal Counsel Gage Marchini advised the District to add an addendum to address the aesthetic changes to the site. This addendum has been included in the packet for this evening’s Board meeting.
3. Stormwater Drainage
The project adds approximately 2,500 sq ft of new impervious surface: the tank roof, foundation ring, and paved access/apron. The design manages runoff by collecting surface water from the impervious area and ground water from behind the site retaining walls to the new storm drains. Tank overflow and drain water discharge to Dundee Ave through the new storm drain tee outlets and gabion rock bed. The project complies with the Redwood Park Tank Project Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration section 10 Hydrology and Water Quality part C:
“Upon completion of construction, the pipeline alignment would be restored to its original condition, and any drainage pattern would be the same as it was prior to project construction activities. However, project implementation would alter the existing drainage pattern of the water tank site through the addition of impervious surfaces, including the water tank roof, pump station roof, and paved driveway surface. Per the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-1, concentrated surface runoff from the project site would not be allowed to flow onto the slopes below the tank site so as to protect against soil erosion. Instead, roof and surface runoff would be directed away from foundations via buried plastic pipes and conveyed to the paved road downslope of the project site.” During construction, the contractor maintains erosion and sediment controls under the erosion control plan.
After an initial site inspection, the Engineer of Record, MME, determined that the most economical way to manage stormwater from the site is a drainage berm along the downslope side of the access road. The berm will intercept runoff from the tank site and road and direct it to an existing natural drainage channel, approximately 400’ away from neighboring properties. The berm's estimated cost is $20,000. It can be built as a change order to the existing contract during tank construction.
4. Seismic Design
The tank is designed to AWWA D100 / D103 and the 2022 California Building Code seismic provisions for a site with Seismic Design Category / Risk Category IV – essential facility. The design accounts for:
Ground shaking from nearby faults, including the [San Andreas and Zayante-Vergeles] faults;
Sloshing of the stored water (see Section 1);
Anchorage of the tank shell to the foundation; and
Flexible pipe connections so piping does not break when the tank moves.
A geotechnical investigation by Haro Kasunich Associates, dated March 5, 2026 and addendum letter dated October 14, 2026, evaluated slope stability and foundation conditions at the site. District tanks built to current AWWA seismic standards are designed to remain in service after a major earthquake so that water is available for firefighting and recovery.
The ensuing Board discussion was principally devoted to a wide-ranging exchange with local resident Nicholas Naccari who lives at 1180 Dundee Avenue. President Russ opened the discussion by noting that this tank is a big-ticket item that the District has been wanting to complete for six years. The construction is now more than half complete, and the tank should be in service by the end of this year. He suggested that aesthetic concerns might be addressed with suitable tree planting.
Mr. Naccari said he appreciated the attention that he has received from Jason and Garrett. However, he had a number of concerns and questions. His two main requests were: (1) that aesthetic issues be addressed, preferably by returning to the original 24’ tank height, and (2) that something better than a berm be provided to adequately handle runoff, potentially within the current $20,000 cost estimate.
Garrett and the Board made it pretty clear that the 32’ tank height was essential. The required 125,000 gallons won’t fit into a 24’ tank when earthquake risks are properly accounted for. The Directors suggested that there was still potential for successful mitigation of aesthetic issues. They suggested that some visualizations be developed to help address the community’s concern.
Over the course of the next hour, several more things became clear. First, the Board did not want to introduce a significant delay in completion of the construction. Garrett said the parts have been delivered to the staging yard, and equipment is on site. The tank will be fully assembled with two more weeks of effort. The District issued a stop-work order last week. The contractor is filling this time with masonry work. The District is incurring some costs for the rental equipment. However, if work resumes immediately, the added cost will be minimal (maybe $1500). In contrast, reopening the engineering design will introduce a succession of delays totaling many, many months.
Second, the Board wanted further in-house Staff scrutiny of the runoff issue. Director Largay asked if the current design was adequate with respect to erosion control, stormwater runoff, and tank drainage water management. Garrett said it was. The water discharges on to Dundee Avenue. He said the project adds 2500 square feet of impervious area. There is drainage behind the retaining walls with perforated pipe. This is to avoid hydrostatic pressure behind the walls. President Russ commented that one inch per hour at 2500 square feet is 30 gallons per minute, or three garden hoses. Garrett said the ISMND addresses the drainage. The finding is that it won't change the general characteristics of the runoff. Director Smolley said the addendum highlighted the proposed berm, but he wasn’t yet confident that there had been a sufficiently cohesive evaluation of storm water runoff. Director Fultz agreed.
Third, Directors generally agreed that the District could have done a better job of being a “good neighbor.” The change in tank height didn’t technically affect the District’s CEQA approval. Chris explained that CEQA considers “aesthetic issues” in terms of four separate considerations: (1) substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (this does not apply), (2) substantially damage to scenic resources along a state scenic highway (this also doesn't apply), (3) substantially degrading existing public views (this was deemed less than significant), (4) new source of substantial light or glare (not relevant). However, the site is visible from nearby homes and from a publicly accessible private road. The key concern was that there was a disconnect (in terms of public engagement) between the 2020 ISMND submittal and the more recent engineering analysis. President Russ apologized for this.
In conclusion, Director Largay said he would like to encourage Staff to restart construction immediately. In parallel, he encouraged Staff to address the additional concerns about aesthetics and drainage. President Russ said the Board was in unanimous agreement about this. Director Smolley said Staff can bring the Addendum back to the Board for formal approval, preferably at the next meeting so that this matter can be resolved before the pending Board turnover in December.
Compact Track Loader Purchase
Operations Manager Jesse Guiver introduced this agenda item. He said Staff is requesting authorization to purchase a compact track loader to improve the District’s ability to safely and efficiently complete maintenance activities and Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs).
The District currently has no operable equipment available to load and unload materials at its Quail Facility. This centrally located facility serves as a main hub for the Operations and Customer Service departments and stores commonly used materials, including base rock, drain rock, sand, and cold mix asphalt. Staff currently load these materials by hand into trash cans for transport, increasing manual labor and delaying project completion.
The Quail Facility also stores the majority of the District’s meter boxes and lids. Without operable loading equipment, staff must manually unload and handle these items, creating additional inefficiencies and physical demands.
Historically, a skip loader and forklift supported material handling at the Quail Facility. Both pieces of equipment are approximately over 30 years old, are currently inoperable, and would require extensive repairs to return to service. Given their age and condition, staff does not consider further investment in repairs to be financially prudent.
Purchasing a compact track loader will replace both the forklift and skip loader, addressing immediate material-handling needs at the Quail Facility. The loader can also accommodate multiple attachments, including a combination bucket and pallet forks, both of which are included in the proposed purchase. Additional attachments, such as an auger, hydraulic breaker, sweeper, and brush cutter, could be purchased in the future to expand the loader’s capabilities and support a broader range of maintenance and construction activities throughout the District’s service area.
District staff spent several months evaluating compact track loaders to identify the best value while meeting the District’s operational needs. Staff initially focused on used equipment, contacting multiple rental and construction companies and conducting nationwide online searches. However, staff was unable to locate a suitable used loader that met both the District’s weight restrictions for transporting equipment and its requirement for high-flow auxiliary hydraulics. High-flow capability supports the use of several attachments and is important to the District’s goal of replacing multiple pieces of equipment with one versatile machine.
After exhausting efforts to locate suitable used equipment, Staff began evaluating new track loaders. A notice inviting price quotes was sent to ten equipment dealerships serving the Watsonville, Salinas, San Jose, Gilroy, Modesto, Turlock, Stockton, Sacramento, and Woodland areas. The District received four quotes for new equipment from Iconic Machinery in Fremont, Belkorp AG in Stockton, Pape Machinery in Fremont, and C&N Tractors in Salinas. The lowest quote that met the District’s specifications was for $84,165.36 from Iconic Machinery. The other quotes were for $88,208.16, $94,996.05, and $99,832.60. Staff determined that the Bobcat T66-2 T4 compact track loader offered by Iconic Machinery provides the best value while meeting the District’s specifications and operational needs.
President Russ opened the discussion by inquiring about further details. Jesse said the capacity was about half a cubic yard, and the weight was around 9000 pounds. He said he expected the equipment to be used daily. Rental would cost about $3700/month ($400/day). The two retired pieces of equipment will be surplused.
Director Fultz had a question about a detail in the quote that failed to account for sales tax. Jesse said his team caught this and confirmed that this was a mistake on the sellers’ part. He said the seller agreed to stick to their quote, effectively giving the District a 10% discount. Director Fultz said he supported any purchase that improves safety and productivity.
Director Smolley asked if this equipment could be transported throughout the District’s service area to support additional activities. Jesse said this would be possible. A trailer would cost around $5000. Director Smolley said he support any purchase that can reduce the chance of Staff injury.
President Russ asked about the warranty, and Jesse said it was a standard three-year warranty. He said the seller will also provide free training to Staff. Director Smolley recommended that this training be captured on video.
Director Smolley moved to authorize the General Manager to purchase the compact track loader and approve a corresponding budget amendment. President Russ seconded. The motion passed 4-0.
Consent Agenda
There was one item on the Consent Agenda:
a. Board Meeting Minutes from 10.15.26
There were no pulled items, and there was no public comment. The Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 PM. Jason announced that this was the final Board meeting for District Counsel Gage Marchini, and he thanked Gage for this work with the District.