Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albany Council adopts housing-code changes tied to local housing plan; 5-1 vote
Summary
The City Council approved amendments to the Albany Development Code and comprehensive plan intended to implement the local Housing Implementation Plan; one councilor voted no, citing neighborhood impacts and no guarantee of increased affordable housing.
The Albany City Council adopted an ordinance on Feb. 12 amending the Albany Development Code and the city’s comprehensive plan to implement strategies from the city’s Housing Implementation Plan. The ordinance passed on a 5-1 vote.
The ordinance package, read into the record by city staff as an amendment to Ordinance No. 44401 (which adopted the development code) and Ordinance No. 4836 (which adopted the comprehensive plan), implements locally developed strategies the council directed staff to pursue under the city’s Housing Implementation Plan (HIP). Council members discussed possible effects on neighborhood livability before the final vote.
Councilor Thompson said he opposed the ordinance because of the scope of regulatory change and because, in his view, there was no guarantee the changes would result in more housing, reduced processing time or more affordable housing. He described the adjustments as “significant” for long-standing local requirements and said he would vote no because of objections to the underlying policy direction.
Matthew Rutgers, speaking during a later staff clarification, told the council the amendment package was “locally grown” from the Housing Implementation Plan and not a direct state mandate. He said the HIP had been developed by a council-appointed task force over about 18 months and that the strategies in the ordinance reflected council direction and community and local builder input.
Council discussion included questions about specific numeric standards. One councilor noted setbacks in the adopted changes appeared to be three feet and asked whether larger setbacks (four or five feet) were possible. The ordinance package’s specific numeric standards were discussed as part of the broader trade-offs between complying with state requirements and pursuing locally developed policies.
The council voted in favor of adoption; roll-call results recorded during the meeting showed a 5-1 outcome with Councilor Thompson voting no. The ordinance was carried on second reading at the Feb. 12 meeting.
Ending: City staff and a councilor noted that some confusion had arisen about the package’s origins; a later staff presentation clarified that the changes were prompted by the locally developed Housing Implementation Plan rather than a single state mandate. The council did not rescind the ordinance during the meeting.
