Los Altos City Council members last week approved a 5-foot side-yard setback as a minimum requirement for mechanical devices such as air conditioners, despite concerns that noise impacts have not been adequately addressed.
In a proposal that has already encountered lengthy discussion at two past council meetings, council members Aug. 22 approved the first reading of an ordinance to reflect a major change voted on in a 3-2 decision at the July 11 council meeting. After hearing concerns from some residents, the council majority agreed to reduce the setback to 5 feet.
“This is really, really limiting,” former Environmental Commissioner Don Bray said July 11 of the 10-foot side-yard setback. “Many properties in Los Altos, including my own, have side yards that are 10 feet or less.”
Further, critics said, the goals of the city’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan could be undermined if equipment such as heat pumps is restricted from side yards.
Inconsistent setbacks
According to a staff report, the ordinance addresses the lack of a “codified” setback requirement.
“The city’s reliance on noncodified setbacks has proven to be ineffective as noise violations still are present,” the report stated.
Nick Zornes, the city’s development services director, indicated an overhaul of the city’s noise ordinance is more involved and may not happen until next year.
“This is something that is going to require outside help of an acoustical engineer to be able to actually help us design that,” he said.
As they did at the July 11 meeting, councilmembers Neysa Fligor and Lynette Lee Eng opposed the ordinance. Lee Eng said the ordinance did not adequately address noise issues with adjacent neighbors.
Fligor thought the ordinance was rushed and should have been reviewed by the city’s Environmental Commission.
But Councilmember Pete Dailey noted, “We are mitigating noise issues, we are not making them worse. Now, it may not be 10 feet. But we decided as a body that our (city’s) Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and the goals associated with that, justified having a smaller setback requirement for the mechanical appurtenances (accessories) because most of the electrification occurs with these appurtenances in the side yard. So … we are increasing the distance from these appurtenances to the neighbors. That’s what this ordinance does explicitly.”
Building permits
Council members also approved Aug. 22 introduction of a new ordinance that would put expiration dates on building permits, addressing the sometimes blight-like conditions of projects that go unfinished for years.
“The draft ordinance proposed accomplishes the goal of eliminating or reducing future instances of ‘never ending’ permits,” according to a staff report overseen by Zornes.
“Currently, developers can obtain permit extensions, and reactivations by requesting an extension, and in some cases by paying a reactivation fee of the issued permits,” according to the report. “The enactment of this ordinance will … require private developments to complete construction within a reasonable amount of time.”
Teresa Morris expressed support for the new ordinance last week.
“As a resident of Loyola Corners, I am grateful for this to be coming in front of council,” she said. “We have a building that’s been sitting unbuilt for many years now.”
The ordinance would provide a per-day penalty upon the 31st day should a property owner not seek a building permit renewal.
Penalties are $200 per day from day 31 to 60; $400 per day from day 61 to 120; and $800 per day from day 121 on.
Second readings and adoption of the mechanical devices and building permit ordinances are set for Sept. 12; they become effective 30 days after.
