Council approves Mary Avenue housing project and AB130 exemption amid fire‑safety and sequencing disputes

The Certino City Council on a late‑night vote approved permits for the Mary Avenue affordable‑housing project and upheld a statutory CEQA exemption under AB130 after an extended debate over fire‑safety mitigation, setback reductions and procedural sequencing.

Vice Mayor Chiao opened a deep dispute over the meaning of AB130 and whether the city’s November adoption of Chapter 7A and related local amendments satisfies the statute’s phrase about sites that “have adopted mitigation measures” in very‑high fire severity zones. Council members and counsel differed over whether the citywide adoption of building and fire‑safety standards constitutes the “adopted mitigation measures” that allow an AB130 exemption, or whether the language requires site‑specific adopted measures.

Why it matters: AB130 provides a statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act for qualifying housing projects, but it also excludes sites in delineated earthquake‑ or very‑high‑fire‑severity zones unless mitigation steps have been adopted. If a council wrongly denies an exemption, the city could face litigation, attorney‑fee awards and fines under the Housing Accountability Act; if the council wrongly grants an exemption in the face of real health‑and‑safety risks, residents and first responders could face greater fire hazards.

What council heard and decided Council Member Fuin led questions about competing fault‑zone maps and whether the state geologist’s active‑fault map applies to the site. Project counsel told the council the state map of active traces—the statutory map—does not show the active fault beneath the site. City attorney Pam Lee told the council that compliance with applicable seismic and building‑code standards is the means by which certain AB130 carve‑outs are implemented, but that many technical verifications occur in post‑entitlement, building‑permit reviews.

Fire‑safety objections formed the core of the public and council scrutiny. The fire chief told the council he has not observed the “chimney effect” scenario described by some speakers at the distances proposed and stressed operational concerns—hydrant spacing, ladder access and the ability to protect exposure buildings—if setbacks are reduced. Several council members pressed for an evacuation analysis and objective standards; the city attorney and planning staff replied that the City lacks a project‑level, objective evacuation standard and that, under state law, applicable standards are those in place when an application is deemed complete.

Trail access and map corrections Council separately voted to deny a proposed trail access connection from the site after council members worried it could cause slope or drainage issues. The council also required corrections to the vesting tentative map’s ownership table to match the supplemental title information staff provided and added conditions for environmental monitoring modeled on a recently used local framework.

Reconsideration petitions denied After the council approved the project and the AB130 exemption, the Garden Gate Coalition filed protective petitions for reconsideration. Petitioners’ counsel argued that procedural sequencing (parcel formation, RFP timing, street vacation and surplus‑land declarations) and later expert analyses warranted reopening the decisions. Staff reviewed the municipal‑code grounds that permit reconsideration—new evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been presented earlier; improperly excluded evidence; decisions beyond jurisdiction; lack of a fair hearing; or an abuse of discretion—and recommended denial. The council voted to deny both petitions and adopted the staff resolutions upholding the February and March actions.

Claims and responses - Claim: Petition counsel argued new expert analysis (a second Krepka consulting report) surfaced after the February hearing and addressed cumulative impacts not previously evaluated. Response: Staff countered that Krupka/Krepka’s testimony and materials were in the hearing transcript and that the post‑hearing memos did not meet the municipal‑code test for new, previously unavailable evidence. - Claim: Some council members and residents said the city has not adopted site‑specific mitigation measures required to exempt very‑high fire severity sites. Response: City counsel said the state and local building and fire codes (including Chapter 7A) supply a list of mitigation options applicants may use and that the project proposes measures from that list; opponents said those measures are not the same as the “adopted mitigation measures” AB130 contemplates.

What comes next The council adopted the project approvals and the AB130 exemption while directing staff to return with more detailed recommended objective mitigation measures for very‑high fire severity zones (e.g., defensible space and potential setback standards) for future projects. Petitioners retain the option to pursue judicial remedies; council debate underscored the tension between statewide housing mandates and local public‑safety concerns.

Attribution: Throughout the meeting, reported claims and quotations are attributed to speakers who appeared in the transcript: council members, city attorney Pam Lee, project counsel, the fire chief, staff engineers and public commenters.