The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

This bill would, until January 1, 2030, exempt from CEQA egress route projects undertaken by a public agency to improve emergency access to and evacuation from a subdivision without a secondary egress route if the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has recommended the creation of a secondary access to the subdivision and certain conditions are met. The bill would require the lead agency to hold a noticed public meeting to hear and respond to public comments before determining that a project is exempt. The bill would require the lead agency, if it determines that a project is not subject to CEQA and approves or carries out that project, to file a notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and with the clerk of the county in which the project will be located.

Date of Hearing: April 26, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 692

Author:(Jim Patterson) – As Introduced Ver:February 13, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill exempts from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) egress route projects to improve emergency access to and evacuation from a subdivision without a secondary egress route if specified conditions are met.

Specifically, this bill, among other things:

1. Exempts from CEQA an egress route project to improve emergency access to and evacuation from a subdivision without a secondary egress route if (a) the BOF has identified the subdivision as being located in the state responsibility area (SRA) or a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ) without a secondary egress route and at significant fire risk, (b) the BOF has recommended the creation of a secondary access route to the subdivision, and (c) other specified conditions are met.
2. Requires the lead agency, before determining that a project is exempt from CEQA, to hold a noticed public meeting to hear and respond to public comments and to file a notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the county clerk in the county in which the project is located.
3. Sunsets on January 1, 2030.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1) The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) estimates a one-time cost of approximately $1 million for staff resources and equipment in year one and ongoing annual costs of approximately $858,000 (General Fund) until January 1, 2030, for four new positons in the Forest Practice Program to accommodate the additional workload needed to implement this bill.

2) The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) estimates costs of approximately $1.7 million in fiscal year (FY) 2023-24 and $1.6 million in FY 2024-25 and ongoing (General Fund) for seven positions to provide policy coordination support and coordinate project notices and discretionary permitting needs with the department’s regional offices. CDFW notes projects exempted from CEQA would not be subject to the department’s environmental document filing fees, resulting in a decrease in revenue that funds CDFW’s CEQA program. CDFW notes it does not know how many communities would qualify for the exemption proposed in this bill as efforts to survey potentially qualified subdivisions are ongoing. However, CAL FIRE’s Subdivision Review Program has, as of January 2022, identified close to 300 subdivisions throughout the state, as demonstrated on CAL FIRE’s Subdivision Survey Reports map.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. According to the author:

California continues to see a rise in deadly wildfires, with 33 lives lost in 2020 alone. In 2018, the Board of Forestry was tasked with identifying communities at high risk of experiencing a wildfire who also lack sufficient egress (exit) routes from their communities. AB 692 builds upon this process by exempting from CEQA these critical projects that are identified by the Board. By doing so, the Legislature will be appropriately expediting projects that could prove vital to saving lives in future fires.

2) Background. Existing law requires BOF, in consultation with the State Fire Marshal and local jurisdictions, to identify each existing housing subdivision with more than 30 dwelling units located in the SRA or VHFHSZ without a secondary egress route that is at significant fire risk, and to develop recommendations to improve the subdivisions’ fire safety.

Cities and counties are required to adopt comprehensive general plans with various elements including a safety element for protection of the community from unreasonable risks associated with various hazards, including wildfires. Local jurisdictions with land in the SRA and VHFHSZ must revise their general plan safety elements to include information relating to the protection of the planning area from wildfire, and update that information whenever their housing elements are amended. Since April 2013, BOF has reviewed 45 safety elements, and has received letters back from 11 jurisdictions explaining which recommendations they did or did not incorporate. AB 2911 (Friedman), Chapter 641, Statutes of 2018, provided more tools for the BOF to collaborate with local governments and enhanced its ability to recommend changes based on best practices.

Many developments in the SRA and VHFHSZ were constructed prior to building standards and fire prevention regulations developed by BOF, including limits on dead-end roads. These older nonconforming developments are not required to take proactive steps to reduce their fire risk and could be in jeopardy because their homes are not fire resistant and they do not have secondary access roads. The author notes the lack of secondary roads is a serious problem that could leave people trapped and unable to escape a wildfire.

3) Support and Opposition. Writing in support, the Rural County Representatives of California states:

While CEQA provides public disclosure and environmental mitigation benefits, it can also add considerable costs and delay project completion, especially if the project’s compliance is challenged through litigation. Many communities lacking secondary egress routes are located in rural counties where scarce resources are needed for project construction. Furthermore, the increasing risk of catastrophic wildfires justifies expediting projects that may be vital for saving lives in future fires. It should be noted that AB 692 is narrowly tailored to apply to subdivisions of 30 units or more and prohibits use of the CEQA exemption when a project contains a wetland or riparian area or would harm species protected by federal, state, or local laws.

Writing in opposition, a coalition of environmental organizations states:

Our organizations strongly support good planning and fire preparedness, including the construction of secondary egress routes. However, we do not believe that CEQA is a barrier to constructing well-sited and well-designed secondary egress routes. In this case, as noted in your committee analysis of AB 1154, CEQA already provides for statutory exemptions for work to repair, maintain, or make minor alterations to existing roadways if certain conditions are met; categorical exemptions; negative declarations; and abbreviated review if a road project has been considered in a local planning environmental impact report. Carefully planned road projects that do not trigger “significant environmental impacts” will result in expeditious projects. However, a CEQA exemption, such as the one proposed in AB 692, eliminates any incentive for a public agency to plan and implement an egress project that avoids, minimizes, and mitigates environmental impacts.

4) Prior Legislation. AB 1154 (Patterson), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, was similar to this bill. AB 1154 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file.

AB 394 (Obernolte), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, was similar to this bill. AB 394 was vetoed by the Governor, who stated:

California's devastating wildfires of 2017 and 2018 amplified the urgent imperative to mitigate risk and build robust community emergency plans, especially for our most vulnerable in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). However, the CEQA exemption provided in this bill is premature and may result in unintended consequences. Without better information on the number, location and potential impacts of future fire safety road construction projects, it is not clear whether statutory changes are needed. Furthermore, it is important that we build solutions around the unique and targeted needs of each community.

Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 27, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Luz Rivas, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 692 (

Author:Jim Patterson) – As Introduced Ver:February 13, 2023

SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: egress route projects: fire safety

SUMMARY: Exempts from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) egress route projects in subdivisions reviewed by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (BOF) where the BOF recommends creation of secondary access to the subdivision.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines). (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21000, et seq)
2. Requires on or before July 1, 2021, and every five years thereafter, the BOF, in consultation with the State Fire Marshall, to survey local governments to identify existing subdivisions (i.e., an existing residential development of more than 30 dwelling units) in the state responsible area (SRA) or locally-designated “very high fire hazard severity zones” (VHFHSZ) without a secondary egress route that are at significant fire risk, then develop recommendations to improve the subdivision's fire safety. Authorizes the recommendations to include, but not be limited to, the following (PRC § 4290.5):
   1. Creating secondary access to the subdivision;
   2. Improvement to existing access road; and,
   3. Other additional fire safety measures.

THIS BILL:

1. Exempts from CEQA an egress route project to improve emergency access to and evacuation from a subdivision without a secondary egress route if the subdivision has been identified by the BOF, and the BOF recommends the creation of a secondary access to the subdivision, provided all of the following conditions are met:
   1. The subdivision has insufficient egress routes, as determined by the lead agency.
   2. The subdivision is located in either a SRA classified as high or very high fire hazard severity zone or a VHFHSZ.
   3. The location of the project does not contain wetlands or riparian areas.
   4. The project does not harm or take any species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act, the Native Plant Protection Act, the CEQA Guidelines, or the California Endangered Species Act.
   5. The project does not cause the destruction or removal of any species protected by an applicable local ordinance.
   6. The project does not affect known archaeological, historical, or other cultural resources.
   7. The project is carried out by a public agency.
   8. The public agency consults with the Department of Fish and Wildlife during project development.
   9. The egress route is scaled to the existing population of the development, as specified.
   10. The lead agency determines that the primary purpose of the project is fire safety egress.
   11. Any commercial timber harvest is incidental to the project's primary purpose and complies with the Forest Practice Act.
   12. The lead agency determines that the project has obtained, or is able to obtain, all necessary funding and any federal, state, and local approvals within one year of the filing of the notice of exemption.
   13. All roads that comprise the egress route are publicly accessible to vehicular traffic at all times.
2. Requires the lead agency, before determining that a project is exempt, to hold a noticed public meeting to hear and respond to public comments.
3. Requires the lead agency to file a notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the county clerk in the county in which the project is located.
4. Sunsets January 1, 2030

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement:

California continues to see a rise in deadly wildfires, with 33 lives lost in 2020 alone. In 2018, the Board of Forestry was tasked with identifying communities at high risk of experiencing a wildfire who also lack sufficient egress (exit) routes from their communities. AB 692 builds upon this process by exempting from CEQA these critical projects that are identified by the Board. By doing so, the Legislature will be appropriately expediting projects that could prove vital to saving lives in future fires.

1. CEQA review for roads. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study shows that there would not be a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.

Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.

It should be noted that CEQA already provides alternatives to comprehensive environmental review for minor projects, including road maintenance. First, the CEQA Guidelines provide a categorical exemption for work on existing facilities where there is negligible expansion of an existing use, specifically including "(e)xisting highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities," (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(c)). Second, if the project is not exempt from CEQA, but the initial study shows that it would not result in a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration, and no EIR is required. In addition, a road project that has been considered in a local planning EIR would be subject to abbreviated review, or possibly exemption, depending on the project’s potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

1. Local fire safety planning. Cities and counties are required to adopt a comprehensive general plan with various elements including a safety element for protection of the community from unreasonable risks associated with various hazards, including wildfires. CAL FIRE acknowledges the importance of planning and its importance to wildland fire safety and risk mitigation. Land use planning incorporates safety element requirements for state SRA and VHFHSZ; requires local general plan safety elements, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2014, to be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire in the SRA and VHFHSZ; requires each safety element update to take into account the most recent version of OPR’s "Fire Hazard Planning" document; and requires OPR to include a reference to materials related to fire hazards or fire safety.

Local jurisdictions with land in the SRA and VHFHSZ must revise their general plan safety elements to include information relating to the protection of the planning area from wildfire, and update that information whenever the housing element is amended. New requirements for wildfire planning in the safety element have increased wildfire planning efforts. Since April 2013, the BOF has reviewed 45 safety elements, and has received letters back from jurisdictions explaining which recommendations they did or did not incorporate from 11 of them. AB 2911 (Friedman), Chapter 641, Statutes of 2018, provided more tools for the BOF to collaborate with local governments and enhanced its ability to recommend changes based on best practices.

Many developments in the SRA and VHFHSZ were constructed prior to building standards and the fire prevention regulations developed by the BOF, including limits on dead end roads. These older nonconforming developments are not required to take proactive steps to reduce their fire risk, and could be in jeopardy because their homes are not fire resistant and they do not have secondary access roads. Lack of a secondary road is a serious problem that could leave people trapped and unable to escape a wildfire.

1. Third time’s the charm? This bill is essentially the same as AB 1154 (Patterson, 2022), which was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee, and AB 394 (Obernolte, 2019), which was vetoed by Governor Newsom, with the following message:

This bill exempts from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), until January 1, 2025, egress route projects or activities undertaken by a public agency. The affected projects include those that are specifically recommended by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to improve the fire safety of an existing subdivision when certain conditions are met.

California's devastating wildfires of 2017 and 2018 amplified the urgent imperative to mitigate risk and build robust community emergency plans, especially for our most vulnerable in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). However, the CEQA exemption provided in this bill is premature and may result in unintended consequences. Without better information on the number, location and potential impacts of future fire safety road construction projects, it is not clear whether statutory changes are needed. Furthermore, it is important that we build solutions around the unique and targeted needs of each community.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Fresno County Supervisor Sal Quintero
Humboldt and Mendocino Redwood Companies

Inyo County Board of Supervisors

Livable California

Madera County Board of Supervisors
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. /