Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Cleanups topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Certino City Council directs staff to map and correct parkland zoning inconsistencies
Summary
The Certino City Council unanimously directed staff to return with parcel maps, lot sizes and proposed zoning cleanups to bring about 10–15 city-owned properties into conformity with the general plan, including rezoning specific park parcels such as the Creekide soccer field and Civic Center library field.
The Certino City Council on June 16 voted unanimously to direct staff to prepare detailed maps and proposed zoning cleanups to align city-owned park and public-facility parcels with the adopted general plan.
Senior planner John Martier told the council staff identified more than 40 city-owned parcels and estimated “probably 10 to 15 properties” that need rezoning or land-use designation adjustments. He highlighted specific inconsistencies: the Creekide Park soccer field, which the general plan lists as parks and open space but that portion is zoned BA (public buildings); Quinnland Community Center, listed as a public facility in the general plan but zoned PR (parks and recreation); and a segment at the Civic Center where staff recommended treating the library field as PR while keeping office footprints as public facilities.
The council’s questions focused on whether PR zoning permits community buildings, how the city should treat small remnant parcels adjacent to creeks, and whether rezoning residential parcels would trigger state housing-element offsets. Vice Mayor Chow confirmed during discussion that PR zoning does allow recreational structures and community spaces, and staff said rezoning a buildable residential parcel would require offsetting the lost residential capacity under state rules; remnant sliver parcels that cannot practically accommodate housing are less likely to trigger an offset.
Council members also discussed riparian protections after members referenced a recent local encroachment incident and Berkeley’s creek protections as a possible model. Council member Wong said she “really appreciate[d] hearing the suggestion of this riparian zone,” and staff recommended sending riparian-designation work to the planning commission for more detailed standards and potential setback rules. Staff noted many creek-adjacent parcels are in FEMA flood zones, which could affect future requirements.
A council member moved—without a named mover recorded in the transcript—to have staff return with maps, parcel sizes and recommended rezoning or general-plan adjustments for the listed and any additional city-owned parcels; Vice Mayor Chow recorded a second. The council conducted a roll-call vote and the motion carried unanimously (Council member Ferin: yes; Council member Mohan: yes; Council member Wong: yes; Vice Mayor Chow: yes; Mayor Moore: yes). The motion directs staff to include lot sizes, clarify PBA vs. BA plan/zoning distinctions, and flag any parcels that may require housing-element offset analysis.
The council asked staff in the return report to: provide clear maps for each APN under consideration, show which portions of multipart lots would change designation (for example Civic Center field versus offices), identify which sliver or remnant parcels are non-buildable, and recommend whether a riparian policy or new zoning district is appropriate. Staff said it will come back with the requested maps and supplemental analysis.
The meeting included no in-person or virtual public commenters on this item. The council adjourned after confirming next steps.
