Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
AB 66 would allow targeted CEQA exemptions to build or improve single-egress evacuation routes; advocates say it saves lives, opponents cite biodiversity and V
Summary
AB 66 would allow narrowly tailored CEQA exemptions for projects that improve emergency evacuation routes in areas with only a single egress, proponents said, citing wildfire safety needs.
Assemblymember Tangipa presented AB 66 to address communities that lack multiple evacuation routes in wildfire-prone landscapes. The bill would allow specific local agencies to use a targeted CEQA exemption to build or improve projects that create life-saving exits from single-egress areas.
Carrie Hillis, vice mayor of Moraga, described neighborhoods in her town that are effectively one-way-in, one-way-out and said AB 66 would allow construction of short connecting routes (for example, linking disconnected segments of Bollinger Canyon) to establish meaningful additional egress during wildfires. She said the bill balances environmental protections with the need to rescue residents and emphasized local planning and Cal FIRE technical clarifications.
Supporters included a mix of public safety contractors and local government organizations (Perimeter Solutions, CBIA, Rural County Representatives of California, Pioneer Community Energy, League of California Cities) who highlighted practical mitigation tools such as aerial retardant and existing pilots to protect routes. Opponents, including planning and conservation groups, said they shared public-safety goals but objected to building roads in sensitive areas without environmental review and urged programmatic planning and analysis first. They raised concerns about biodiversity loss, induced growth, and uncounted vehicle-miles-traveled and greenhouse-gas impacts.
Committee amendments require that roads eligible for the exemption be identified in a general plan or program, and to incorporate technical clarifications from CAL FIRE; the author accepted the amendments. Several committee members expressed support; one member said they would welcome further technical work and amendments. The committee moved the bill forward with amendments.
Ending: The bill advanced out of committee as amended; proponents said it was a practical safety step and opponents asked for continued work to ensure environmental protections and programmatic evaluation of projects.
