Commission OKs water reservoir replacement in South Laguna with aesthetic conditions
By SARA HALL
A water reservoir replacement project in South Laguna was approved this week by a city commission, as they discussed ways to mitigate the visual impact of the important infrastructure project.
After almost two hours, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 on Wednesday (Feb. 1) in support of design review and a coastal development permit for South Coast Water District’s reservoir 2B replacement project, located at the top of an unpaved access road off Ceanothus Drive.
SCWD board members unanimously agreed on November 17 to award a $564,100 contract to AKM for construction management and inspection for the reservoir 2B replacement project. The action also approved change orders up to $56,410 (10% contingency), if required.
The 77-year-old reservoir will be replaced with two new tanks that will double that site’s water capacity. The project also includes grading, retaining walls, improvements to an unpaved access road, a new underground electrical service feeder, and drainage improvements to address stormwater runoff in the open space/conservation and residential/hillside protection zones. The proposed project will provide additional operational, fire, and emergency water storage capacity and improve the safety of the existing unpaved access road for water district staff.
Ultimately, the project was approved with conditions:
–That consideration be given to a color that is appropriate for the background tonal values of the landscape.
–That an integral color or stain is utilized for all concrete surfaces, including the retaining wall.
–That there be a specification for restorative landscape treatments, consistent with the general character of the area.
The discussion focused on whether the aesthetics should be considered at all in their approval and, if so, to what extent. Overall, the majority of commissioners agreed that consideration should be given to aesthetics of the project.
“Anytime there’s a major public improvement, and it only occurs once every 70 years, we should take the opportunity to think about how to enhance and blend it into the natural landscape, to the extent that’s reasonable to do,” Kellenberg said.
Replying to a couple of commissioner comments that implied that it’s an infrastructure project and that the visual impact isn’t important and that this isn’t the time to address that aspect, Kellenberg strongly disagreed. Now is the perfect time to consider improvements because there is already work happening there, he said.
“We have one chance to make some modest enhancements so the visual aspect is improved,” Kellenberg said.
Click on photo for a larger image
Photo by Mary Hurlbut
The current reservoir 2B in South Laguna is slated for replacement
Nothing they’re suggesting is too expensive, he added.
“Nobody is suggesting we do anything special with the wall, other than maybe paint it the same color as the tanks,” he said. “And the tanks, they’re going to buy the paint anyway, why not pick a color that blends in with the landscape?”
Although not everyone on the dais was initially on board with the aesthetic-driven discussion.
While he can understand the aesthetic perspective, it’s not important for this particular project, said Commission Chair Pro Tem Ken Sadler. He has no objection to a different tank color, but it’s not necessary to include. Requesting a special texture or adding color to the retaining walls is “overkill.”
“It’s a public utility project that’s much needed. It’s an old tank, ending its useful life (and) needs to be replaced,” Sadler said. “They probably very carefully looked at this in terms of placement of these for the maximum bang for the buck and making it as functional as possible.”
It might be a different story if it was in a more visible location, he added. The new tanks might be seen from Ceanothus Drive or even Coast Highway, he noted, but they will be on the hillside, not in a more noticeable location like at the top of the ridgeline.
“It’s not highly visible unless you’re looking for it,” Sadler said.
Just because they have the opportunity to ask for it doesn’t mean they should, he added.
“It seems like sometimes we delve into these things and we feel like we’ve got to make a bigger deal out of some of it than there really should be,” Sadler said.
Sometimes they ask too much of the applicant but not for sufficient reasons, he added.
Commissioner Steve Goldman agreed 100% with Sadler’s reasons.
“This is an infrastructure project that improves the water service for us,” he said, it didn’t need a lot of comment.
Although others thought there was room for both considerations.
“It’s a necessary infrastructure project, overdue at this point, kind of pushing up to the edge of possible failure,” said Commissioner Susan McLintock Whitin. “I don’t think anyone questions the need for the project, from a water standpoint.”
She respects the engineering challenges there and agrees with Sadler that they sometimes “gild the lily,” or in this instance, “gilding the tank.” But it is visible from the road, she added, so they should try to conceal it in the landscape with color choices. None of the improvements are expensive, she added.
Click open story button to continue reading…