Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Notice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges broader public notice and criticizes 5‑story Solano Avenue proposal, saying density bonus was misapplied
Summary
A resident told the Planning and Zoning Commission that Albany’s 300‑foot notice rule limits public input and alleged the commission ignored its mission when approving a modern five‑story project on Solano Avenue; the commission did not act on the comment at the meeting.
During public comment at the May 14 meeting, Dr. Steven Alpert criticized Albany’s mail‑notice practice and raised concerns about a proposed five‑story mixed commercial‑residential building on Solano Avenue, saying the public was not sufficiently notified and that the design conflicted with the neighborhood’s character.
Dr. Alpert told the Planning and Zoning Commission that "the practice of only notifying those within 300 feet clearly limits public discourse" and said postcards mailed 10 days before the first hearing alerted only 73 properties for the project he referenced. He argued that the design was "not visually and functionally appropriate or harmonious with the adjacent craftsman‑era buildings" and said density bonus rules do not override local ordinances.
The commission took no formal action on the remarks during the meeting; Chair McLeod responded with a brief acknowledgment and moved the agenda forward. No additional testimony or staff presentation occurred on the subject at that time.
Context and clarifications - The commenter referenced a five‑story project at Solano Avenue (variously referenced as 600 Solano in the comment) and raised concern about reduced setbacks and no parking tied to density bonus provisions. The project specifics and the commission’s prior votes on that project were not reviewed or amended during this meeting. - Dr. Alpert repeatedly referenced the city’s mission statement for design review and asserted commission members had ignored those design goals in prior hearings; the commission did not discuss or respond to those specific allegations at the meeting.
Next steps The comment was entered into the meeting record. Staff and commissioners did not indicate further immediate action in response to the public comment during the May 14 meeting; any request for additional review or reconsideration would need to be raised as an agenda item or via the formal application review process.
