An act to add and repeal Section 21080.53 of the Public Resources Code, relating to environmental quality.
AB 66 creates a temporary CEQA exemption for certain public-agency egress route projects intended to improve emergency access to and evacuation from subdivisions that have only one way in or out. The exemption applies only when the subdivision has been identified by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, the board has recommended a secondary access route, and the project meets a long list of environmental, planning, and design conditions. Those conditions include avoiding wetlands and riparian areas, avoiding impacts to protected species and cultural resources, consulting with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, ensuring the route is scaled to existing population and traffic, and confirming that the project’s primary purpose is fire-safety egress.
The bill also requires public process and filing requirements even when CEQA does not apply. Before declaring a project exempt, the lead agency must hold a noticed public meeting to hear and respond to comments. If the project is approved or carried out under the exemption, the agency must file a notice of exemption with the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation and the county clerk. The exemption is temporary and sunsets on January 1, 2032.
AB 66 would amend the Public Resources Code by adding Section 21080.53 to CEQA’s list of exemptions. In practical terms, it narrows environmental review for a specific category of wildfire-related infrastructure projects, while preserving protections for sensitive habitats, species, cultural resources, and local planning consistency. It primarily affects public agencies, lead agencies under CEQA, and subdivisions in high or very high fire hazard areas that lack secondary evacuation routes.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly supportive. The bill advanced with unanimous or near-unanimous committee votes and passed the Assembly overwhelmingly, suggesting broad agreement that improving evacuation and emergency access in fire-prone areas is a priority. The absence of recorded committee testimony limits insight into detailed debate, but the bill’s progress indicates general bipartisan or cross-faction support for wildfire safety measures.
The main points of contention are likely to center on the CEQA exemption itself and whether the bill strikes the right balance between faster fire-safety infrastructure and environmental review. Potential concerns include impacts to habitat, tree removal, local land-use consistency, and whether the exemption could be applied too broadly to projects that may have environmental effects. The bill responds to those concerns by layering in multiple safeguards, including consultation, public notice, and limits on wetlands, species, and cultural-resource impacts.
AB 66 would add a new, temporary CEQA exemption in the Public Resources Code for qualifying fire-safety egress route projects in high-fire-risk subdivisions without secondary access. It would reduce environmental review requirements for those projects when strict conditions are met, while preserving agency consultation, public notice, and exemption-filing obligations. The bill would affect lead agencies, public agencies undertaking the projects, and communities in state responsibility areas or very high fire hazard severity zones, and it would repeal the new section on January 1, 2032.
The bill appears to have received broadly favorable treatment in the Legislature. It moved through committee with unanimous votes and passed the Assembly by a wide margin, indicating strong support for wildfire evacuation and emergency-access improvements. The available record does not show organized opposition in the voting history, though the CEQA exemption framework suggests some underlying caution about environmental review.
The likely controversy is the tradeoff between wildfire evacuation safety and environmental protection. Critics may worry that exempting projects from CEQA could reduce scrutiny of habitat, wetlands, riparian areas, tree removal, and cultural resources, or create a precedent for further CEQA carve-outs. Supporters appear to view the exemption as narrowly tailored because it applies only to public-agency projects in high-risk areas, requires State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection identification and recommendation, mandates consultation with Fish and Wildlife, and preserves public notice and filing requirements.