Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Notice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Albany to revisit 300‑foot notice rule after 1600 Solano project; request formal agenda item
Summary
Two residents, Dr. Steven Alpert and Dr. Celeste Marks, asked the council to explain and reconsider the city's use of the minimum 300‑foot notice for new construction, citing the 1600 Solano project and a legal letter from YIMBY Law referencing California Government Code section 65008.
Two Albany residents told the City Council on June 16 they want the city to explain why Albany uses the state-minimum 300‑foot notice radius for development notifications and to consider broader notice practices used elsewhere.
Dr. Steven Alpert said he and more than a dozen others have asked the council to justify Albany’s reliance on the state minimum of notifying property owners within 300 feet of a proposed development, rather than a larger radius that other California cities use. Alpert cited the example of a five‑story project at 1600 Solano Avenue (described in his remarks as an “oversized 5 story modern box”) and said postcards notifying owners were mailed to only 73 properties before the initial Planning & Zoning hearing. He said the approved plan for the project is not “functionally appropriate nor harmonious to their surroundings,” and that density bonus provisions allowed greater height, zero setbacks and reduced parking but did not override local building-code compatibility concerns.
Alpert said the council had previously read a five‑page letter from an attorney associated with YIMBY Law (Jack Farrell) that quoted California code “65008” and argued cities cannot vary public notice by project size. Alpert said he has exchanged emails with the YIMBY attorney and will meet to review apparent discrepancies in the letter’s interpretation and applicability.
Dr. Celeste Marks echoed the concerns and asked the council to place the notice-radius question on a future agenda for full discussion, arguing that the Brown Act limits public comment time and that the topic requires an in-depth public hearing.
Council members did not take action on the matter during the meeting. Staff did not provide an immediate policy change; the speakers requested the council formally agendize the issue so staff and the public could fully examine legal constraints (they referenced the state code), the city’s current practice and whether broader notice would be permissible and practical for Albany.
Because the residents referenced a statutory provision in their remarks, the transcript shows the specific code cited as Government Code section 65008. Residents also named Beverly Hills in discussion of differing local practices and said they would meet with YIMBY Law to clarify legal interpretation. The council did not provide a timetable for bringing the notice-radius issue back for study or vote during the June 16 meeting.
