Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District: contributions and loans.

Header changed from amendment history listing to enrolled bill format showing passage dates: Passed the Senate August 17, 2026 and Passed the Assembly August 6, 2026.

Standard enrolled bill elements added: 'CHAPTER' designation, governor receipt line ('This bill was received by the Governor this ___ day of ___, 2026'), 'Private Secretary of the Governor' signature block, and 'Approved ___, 2026' with 'Governor' signature line.

Prior amendment date history (seven entries from May 2025 through July 2026) was removed from the header, as is standard when a bill reaches enrolled form.

Entire Section 1 amending Education Code Section 92900 was deleted. This removed provisions establishing four California Institutes for Science and Innovation at UC campuses, their competitive application process, cooperation with other institutions, permitted concentrations (medicine, bioengineering, telecommunications, energy, space, agricultural technology, artificial intelligence), and funding appropriation language.

Section 27556(b) now requires the district's resolution to specify 'the maximum duration of the loan' in addition to the previously required maximum principal amount and maximum rate of interest. This gives the district a new parameter to set when accepting loans for seismic safety work on the Golden Gate Bridge.

The entire California Science and Health Research Bond Act was removed, including authorization for $23 billion in general obligation bonds, creation of the California Foundation for Science and Health Research, the Foundation Council, grant and loan programs for biomedical/behavioral/climate research, peer review panels, and submission to voters at the next statewide general election.

A new section amending Section 27556 of the Streets and Highways Code was added, authorizing the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District to accept contributions or loans from the state, federal government, or their political subdivisions specifically for seismic safety capital improvements on the bridge. The district may pledge toll revenues for loan repayment and enter into ancillary contracts.

The required vote changed from a two-thirds majority (needed for the bond measure) to a simple majority.

Fiscal committee review changed from 'yes' to 'no', reflecting the removal of the bond appropriation.

Coauthors were changed from Assembly Member Solache to Senator McGuire and Assembly Members Haney and Stefani.

Minor language cleanups in the UC Institutes section: 'utilize use' corrected to 'use', and 'shall not necessarily be limited to' simplified to 'not be limited to.'

All CEQA and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conveyance Project provisions were removed from the bill, including the legislative intent that no revisions be made to CEQA for purposes of the Delta Conveyance Project.

A new act was added to amend Section 92900 of the Education Code to explicitly authorize the concentration of a UC California Institute for Science and Innovation to include artificial intelligence, in addition to existing concentrations like medicine, bioengineering, or space.

The fiscal committee determination changed from 'no' to 'yes,' meaning the bill now has an identified fiscal impact that requires review by the appropriate fiscal committee before passage.

Authorship was revised: Assembly Member Wicks was removed as principal coauthor, Assembly Member Ahrens was removed as coauthor, and Assembly Member Solache remains as the sole listed coauthor.

All CEQA reform provisions were removed, including: revised definitions of negative declaration and mitigated negative declaration, the 'more likely than not' standard for EIR preparation, single-condition limitation on CEQA application for projects otherwise eligible for categorical exemptions, infill development mapping requirements by July 1 2026, exclusion of staff notes and internal emails from administrative records, and limitations on court orders for CEQA exemption violations.

The bill now adds Chapter 12 (Sections 11899-11899.23) to Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, creating the California Science and Health Research Bond Act and the California Foundation for Science and Health Research within the Government Operations Agency.

The bill now requires a two-thirds vote (changed from majority) and fiscal committee approval (changed from no). State-mandated local program designation was removed (was previously yes). The coauthor changed from Assembly Member Ahrens to Assembly Member Solache.

Authorizes issuance of $23 billion in General Obligation bonds to fund grants and loans for scientific research and construction of research facilities. An interest-only floating rate bond structure is required for at least five years to minimize General Fund debt service during the initial period.

Establishes a 10-13 member California Foundation for Science and Health Research Council with a majority of scientists (including at least one graduate-level researcher and one postdoctoral scholar), at least two public members, and optional representatives from UC and CSU. Also creates a Finance Committee consisting of the Treasurer, Controller, Director of Finance, Foundation Director, and two Council members.

Requires all funded research to be conducted under standards of open scientific exchange, peer review, and public oversight. Grants must be awarded based on council-established research priorities and scientific merit determined by competitive peer review. The foundation must prioritize replacing federal funding cuts. Administrative costs are capped at 3 percent of fund moneys.

Requires annual independent financial audits by a certified public accounting firm, with the Controller reviewing and issuing a public report after a public comment period. Applies the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act to foundation meetings, with limited closed session exceptions for patient privacy, intellectual property, unpublished research data, personnel matters, and security risks.

Bonds are to be submitted to voters at the next statewide general election. Interim debt and bonds have a five-year interest-only period before principal repayment begins. The fund is continuously appropriated without respect to fiscal years.

Added 'Infrastructure Projects' to the bill's subject matter, expanding CEQA categorical exemption reforms beyond just infill/housing projects to also cover infrastructure projects.

Added a legislative intent statement that no revisions made by this bill to CEQA shall apply to the Delta Conveyance Project, effectively exempting that major water infrastructure project from the new environmental review standards.

Changed the fiscal committee designation from 'yes' to 'no,' meaning the bill no longer requires a fiscal committee appropriation review.

Changed the state-mandated local program designation from 'yes' to 'no,' removing the finding that the bill imposes a state-mandated local program on local agencies. This is significant because state-mandated local programs trigger reimbursement obligations under the California Constitution.

Section 21064.1 redefines 'may have a significant effect on the environment' from 'there is no substantial evidence in the record that the project will not have a significant effect' (the fair argument standard) to 'the public agency has determined, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the proposed project is more likely than not to have a significant effect on the environment.' This raises the bar for finding a project may have significant effects.

Section 21080(c)(2) changes the EIR trigger from 'if there is no substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect' to 'if the lead agency determines, based upon substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that it is more likely than not that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.' This means an EIR is only required when the agency affirmatively finds it more likely than not that significant effects will occur, rather than whenever there is any fair argument they might.

Section 21080.085(a) narrows the CEQA exemption for housing-related rezonings. The old version exempted 'a rezoning that is consistent with an approved housing element.' The new version exempts only 'a rezoning that implements the schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65583 of the Government Code.' This limits the exemption to rezonings that directly carry out the specific schedule of actions in the housing element, rather than any rezoning merely consistent with it.

Section 21080.08, which was an empty placeholder section in the prior version, has been removed entirely. Subsequent sections have been renumbered accordingly (old SEC. 8 becomes SEC. 7, old SEC. 9 becomes SEC. 8, etc.).

The standard for requiring an EIR changes from 'there is substantial evidence the project may have a significant effect' (fair argument standard) to 'the lead agency determines, based upon substantial evidence, it is more likely than not that the project will have a significant effect.' This makes it substantially harder to trigger full EIR preparation for most projects.

New subdivision requires an EIR for projects that include a distribution center or oil and gas infrastructure, or are located on natural and protected lands, if there is substantial evidence the project could have a significant effect. These project types continue to be subject to the old 'fair argument' standard rather than the new 'more likely than not' standard.

New Section 21067.5 defines 'natural and protected lands' to include state parks, wilderness areas, marine protected areas, national parks, national recreation areas, national monuments, wild and scenic rivers, ecological reserves, hazardous waste sites (with narrow exceptions), regulatory floodways (unless no-rise certification obtained), conservation easements, wetlands, environmentally sensitive coastal areas, and preserve/reserve lands under NCCP or HCP.

The single-condition categorical exemption provision (limiting CEQA review to only the effects caused by the disqualifying condition) is now limited to statutory or categorical exemptions adopted before January 1, 2026. Previously it applied to any categorical exemption without a date cutoff.

The rezoning exemption for housing elements moves from Section 21080.08 to new Section 21080.085, changes 'consistent with' to 'implements' an approved housing element, and adds natural and protected lands as an additional exclusion (rezonings allowing construction within natural and protected lands boundaries are not exempt).

Language throughout changes from projects 'to construct or related to' a distribution center or oil and gas infrastructure to projects that 'include' a distribution center or oil and gas infrastructure, narrowing the category of affected projects.

A new exclusion is added to the single-condition provision: it does not apply to a project that is 'not similar in kind to the projects listed in the statutory or categorical exemption.' This prevents projects of a fundamentally different type from benefiting from the narrowed review.

The record of proceedings provision is changed: instead of excluding communications of persons 'tangential to or far removed from project decisionmaking,' the bill now excludes staff notes and electronic internal agency communications (including emails) that were not presented to the final decisionmaking body. This exclusion does not apply to projects including a distribution center or oil and gas infrastructure.

The infill development mapping requirement changes from 'every incorporated city' to 'every urbanized area or urban cluster,' potentially broadening geographic coverage beyond city limits.

New statutory definitions added: 'distribution center' (warehouse distribution center of 50,000 square feet or larger), 'oil and gas infrastructure' (facility for production, processing, transmission, storage, or distribution of petroleum or natural gas), and 'may have a significant effect on the environment' (meaning there is no substantial evidence in the record that the project will not have a significant effect).

The definition of 'negative declaration' is revised to describe it as a written statement describing the substantial evidence in the record that the project will not have a significant effect. The definition of 'mitigated negative declaration' is similarly revised to require that revisions avoid or mitigate effects 'as determined by the public agency based upon substantial evidence in the record.'

The legal standard for determining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment is changed from the 'fair argument' standard to a 'substantial evidence' standard. A negative declaration is now required when there is no substantial evidence of a significant effect, and an EIR is required only when there is substantial evidence of a significant effect. This is a major shift that makes it harder for opponents to force full environmental review.

New provision requiring an EIR for any proposed project that includes a distribution center or oil and gas infrastructure if there is substantial evidence of a significant effect. Legislative intent stated that these projects shall continue to be subject to the fair argument standard as it applied before January 1, 2026.

New provision protecting projects that were eligible for the Class 32 infill categorical exemption as it read on December 31, 2024: such projects shall not become ineligible as a result of any amendment adopted under this bill. This prevents the new alternative compliance pathway from inadvertently disqualifying previously exempt projects.

New subdivision added to Section 21080.1: if a project would otherwise be exempt from CEQA but for a single condition, the application of CEQA is limited to effects caused solely by that single condition. EIRs for these projects are not required to include alternatives, cumulative impacts, or growth-inducing impacts. This does not apply to projects ineligible due to two or more conditions or projects including a distribution center or oil and gas infrastructure.

The infill development categorical exemption amendment is reframed from 'refinements to' the existing exemption to 'an amendment that establishes an alternative means of compliance.' New provisions added for housing development projects on sites identified in certified housing elements and for projects outside city limits within urbanized areas or urban clusters. Safe harbor thresholds are added that lead agencies may elect to use, with protection that a lead agency is not in violation if determinations were made in substantial compliance with those thresholds.

The geographic scope of the infill site mapping requirement is broadened from 'every incorporated city' to 'every incorporated city urbanized area or urban cluster,' extending the mapping obligation beyond city boundaries to include unincorporated areas within urbanized zones and clusters.

The record of proceedings in CEQA litigation is narrowed: staff notes and electronic internal agency communications (including emails) that were not presented to the final decisionmaking body are excluded from the record, except for projects that include a distribution center or oil and gas infrastructure. This makes it harder for plaintiffs to use internal communications as evidence in court.

New provision requiring that when a court finds a public agency's determination of eligibility for a statutory or categorical exemption violated CEQA, the court's order must be subject to specified limitations, effectively capping the remedy available to successful plaintiffs.