Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Notice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albany residents press council to expand notice radius for new construction beyond state 300-foot minimum
Summary
Multiple residents urged the Albany City Council on April 7 to expand public-notification for new construction projects beyond the state-mandated 300-foot mailing radius, saying the current practice limits community awareness of large developments.
Several Albany residents urged the City Council on April 7 to consider expanding public-notification rules for proposed construction beyond the state's 300-foot mailing radius, saying the current practice limits public awareness for larger projects.
"My remarks tonight commemorate the 1 year anniversary of false assertions by councilman Jordan and the city attorney that existing state laws would create legal exposure if Albany enacted wider and varied notification based on project size," said Dr. Stephen Alpert during the public-comment period. He described repeated requests for the city to explain the legal basis for limiting notice to 300 feet and questioned why broader notification had not been placed on the council agenda.
Dr. Celeste Marks said the 300-foot rule "clearly limits public discourse, allowing the Planning and Zoning Commission to propose and the council to then push through new projects ... with minimal awareness and input from the public," and cited the proposed five-story project at 1600 Solano Avenue as an instance in which only 73 properties received mailed notice before the Planning and Zoning hearing.
Thomas Stimac, an Albany resident with decades in the city, told the council that a one-block (300-foot) notice is reasonable for small remodels but not for major multi-story developments and urged the council to place an item on an upcoming agenda for extended public discussion.
Speakers asked the council to formally consider varied notification by project size so that larger developments would be noticed to a wider set of residents. Several speakers described prior staff responses and cited particular code sections they said were referenced by council staff; those claims about legal citations were made by public commentators and were not presented as staff testimony during the meeting.
Council members did not take immediate action on the request during the public-comment period. The public commenters said they would continue to attend meetings until the council places the topic on a future agenda.
