Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board gives early feedback on Vic Trace reservoir replacement; asks for sections, softened landscaping and visibility studies
Summary
In a pre‑application review, the board provided detailed design guidance on the Vic Trace reservoir replacement, requesting cross‑sections showing existing vs. proposed grades, alternative building orientations, refined planting plans mindful of fire fuel‑mod zones, and clearer material/color palettes.
City water staff and consultants presented a pre‑application concept for the Vic Trace Reservoir replacement — a project to replace the existing single buried 10 million‑gallon drinking water reservoir with two new 5 million‑gallon buried tanks, two valve vaults, a roughly 1,400‑square‑foot pump station and a 400‑square‑foot communications/IT building, plus associated sitework and off‑site pipeline relocations.
Matt Ward (Water Assistant Manager) and Kelly Bork (senior project engineer) described the site as a critical storage hub (the existing reservoir dates to 1956) that serves roughly 60,000 residents — about 70 percent of the city’s population delivered via gravity from the Cater Water Treatment Plant. The project is planned for construction in 2028; applicants said the facility must meet modern seismic and security standards and continue to host public‑safety communications equipment at the site.
Architect Jan Hakkaiser and landscape architect Paul Jordan presented concept drawings showing two buried tanks, terraced retaining walls, valve vaults and an access and maintenance network. The landscape approach follows required fuel‑modification zones for a Coastal Interior high‑fire‑hazard area: a narrow Zone 1 of low, low‑growing groundcovers and gravel immediately around tanks and structures, with progressively larger shrubs and trees in outer zones. The team said it anticipates removing and replacing several lower‑quality coast live oaks and will plant replacements in mitigation.
Board members broadly supported the objective of replacing aging infrastructure but asked for several clarifications and refinements before a formal application: clear site sections comparing existing and proposed grades and showing neighboring backyards and sightlines; photographic studies from the highest‑impact vantage points (neighbors’ backyards and the top of the reservoir); alternative building orientations or strategies to reduce direct sightlines into service buildings from the entry drive; softer, more meandering landscape edges rather than strict banding; articulation and materials studies for retaining structures (to avoid long, monolithic concrete faces); and a material/color board (including matte metal roofing if a metal roof is required for maintenance and fire performance).
Board members repeatedly asked staff to provide accurate, architect‑scale site sections and view studies showing the proposed work against existing topography. Staff acknowledged a net export of soils will be required, and applicants agreed to return with cross‑sections and a refined planting palette, materials samples, and photo‑simulations that illustrate the project’s visual impact from neighboring properties.
This hearing was a voluntary pre‑application discussion only; no final action was taken. The board encouraged applicants to continue coordination with related right‑of‑way and off‑site work and to return with fully dimensioned, architect‑scale sections and a more developed landscape design at the formal submittal.
