Members of the Menlo Park City Council—
Agenda Item K-1, meeting of October 24, 2023
I am quite concerned about various elements of proposed ordinance changes concerning placement of heat pump and similar devices related to residential dwellings and lots. I do not support formal and final adoption of the staff or alternate proposals this evening, for the reasons stated below.
First, I think the ordinance is too rushed. As the process and staff report is structured, it is not fair for folks to even comment intelligently. The staff report has three different possible scenarios, plus any the Council may introduce at the meeting real time. Thus, the staff recommendation, the EQC, and the Planning Commission, plus any council changes from the dais. Frankly, I think this is exactly why a process that seeks to adopt an ordinance in one meeting and waive readings is wrong. Some of the proposals, particularly the EQC’s, have what I view as serious flaws. So how do I even know what I am providing input about without going on for many paragraphs and scenarios to try to cover all those? And how do I know the direction the discussion will go in real time, perhaps more so with another earlier topic involving the EQC on the agenda tonight that may also drive further attendance or pitches for their proposal?
Second, I disagree with the statement this does not need further CEQA review. The staff report reaches that conclusion—in what looks like cursory form language—with no real analysis. One obvious one would be the EQC’s proposal to waive the noise ordinance up to 60db 24/7, an obvious deleterious audible change likely to disturb peace and quiet for countless thousands of residents over time. That proposal also has what seems like a potentially absurd permitted enclosure height that could literally tower over neighbors’ properties on the first floor. But another is even in the staff proposal. Even the staff proposal seems to allow some version of this at up to 9’6, far higher than any permitted fence. That then potentially projects increased noise, and at that height now even downward at an angle to neighbors’ windows or locations even when seated or in bed. Those are very real negative constantly audible impacts, separate from visual questions, intensity of use and perhaps even energy inducing consequences. How is that categorically exempt?
I disagree with any change that could result in placing this type of equipment or their enclosures above traditional fence heights. In plain English, that effectively is exporting noise to close neighbors if on a rear or side lot line area. Traditional water and space heaters had to fit in a building envelope. While sometimes somewhat bigger, this is yet another potential free pass toward more land use intensity AND exporting the negative consequences to neighbors. At least if the equipment (including any fan exhausts) is no higher than 7’, then a fence can be used to buffer the sound. Realistically 6 feet as the alternative suggestion I would make, the upper height of the more common fence in Menlo Park. That then provides both visual privacy and noise suppression to the very close proximity neighbor. Also note these rules as I recall have traditionally been factored into swimming pool equipment and enclosure designs (which also involve noise generation long cycle duration electric motors) which go back many dozens of years. Both that equipment and typical heat pumps can easily be housed in most cases in the first 6 feet of elevation, and also multiple horizontally banked smaller units used if more overall capacity is required.
The report also goes down an entirely fallacious path about heating and cooling heat pumps for HVAC use. Traditionally those are placed very close to the building, not away from it. Why are we lowering standards to permit a non-traditional way to place this type of equipment to start with? Fairly categorically, these units are commonly hung from structure walls or placed just outside their base, in both cases often partially or fully under an upper eave. Same as wall hung solar inverters or batteries as other green aware devices. That is done all over this country, especially in retrofits, and likewise is done all over the world, and has been for decades. Anyone travelling to the Far or Middle East, Central or Southern Europe, or much of the South of our own country has probably seen hundreds or thousands of them. I have seen them locally in San Francisco for that matter. I have personally had them installed in much more severe climates than locally in the same fashion, using off the shelf products that support this approach at low cost. Alternatively, these types of HVAC heat pump exterior units are sometimes placed on roofs, particularly if near flat. Where they are not commonly placed is in these stand-alone shed sort of ideas, or well separated from the structure. You may say the enclosures are principally intended for water heating (which I think is unnecessary too for setback encroaching separate structures), but in any case don’t let that creep to HVAC heat pumps too.
Further, the whole idea of placing heating and cooling HVAC heat pumps OR water heaters (winter only for those) in any enclosed space—including enclosed garages—does not make good sense. Manufacturers tend to recommend against that type of install. For carports open already to the outside, I can understand and support if really needed space wise, but not for any enclosed garage. It is also counterproductive to energy efficiency for the interior envelope and is arguably contrary to the stated goals of reducing carbon footprint. Thus, in an enclosed space like a garage, on a hot day a heat pump is heating up the garage space at the same time it is cooling the interior. Well, if any living space is beside or above that garage—commonly the case—some of that elevated heat ABOVE even ambient will transfer, no matter how much insulation. And it will transfer big time any time an interior door is opened. And likewise on a cold day for the heating function, that same space will chill, perhaps even to freezing on colder days. Not smart practice, and among reasons manufacturers discourage it. And to be specific on water heaters—which I have also had installed in an interior space—the manufacturer commonly supports a set up that provides for external air supply and exhaust to fully outside air for the compressor related waste heat/cold. For example, the very popular Rheem/Ruud units widely sold provide that. That configuration should be REQUIRED for any enclosed space install of any heat pump-based unit (whether for HVAC or hot water) such as in a closed garage or other space.
Finally, can I suggest that for any unit of any of these types that involves a fan and encroaches on any set back, that the fan exhaust direction be required to be turned inward toward the property involved. Like other common-sense points, not even discussed or perhaps thought about in thr staff report summarizing process to date. It is simply unfair to export that elevated constant fan noise any more than necessary to a neighbor. It also may unwittingly force yet more people to adopt air conditioning—which is inherently carbon producing at the margin of course—to avoid the increased racket of their neighbors’ equipment exporting that incremental constant noise to other surrounding properties.
I would urge a more careful and deliberate review than appears to be the case here. None of these common sense and industry aware sorts of points are really even in the discussion thus far. And for any proposal to be adopted at a single meeting, only one proposal or option should be on the table at that time. It is just not good process nor fair to residents and the community otherwise.
Regards, Elias Blawie
Longtime Menlo Park resident
