A California state law that NIMBYs and environmentalists alike have used for years to slow down or halt the construction of new homes, businesses and other developments cannot be used to similarly slow reconstruction work at California's state capitol building, because California lawmakers specifically exempted their project from the law.
That ruling was handed down Oct. 7 by a three-justice panel of the California Third District Appellate Court in Sacramento, in the ongoing court fight between the California state government and the group known as Save Our Capitol.
The fight landed in Sacramento County Superior Court in 2023, when Save Our Capitol filed suit, accusing California state lawmakers of violating California state law when they moved ahead with plans to enlarge and reconstruct the Capitol Annex and, in the process, the capitol complex, overall.
The reconstruction plans were set in motion first in 2016, and later expanded in 2018, when lawmakers authorized the Joint Committee on Rules - a government body composed of members of both houses of the California state legislature, which oversees the Capitol Complex - to demolish the existing Capitol Annex building and replace it with a new Annex, including space for offices for state lawmakers, the governor and other state officials; a new underground parking garage; a visitor center; and other amenities.
The project would enlarge the Capitol Annex from its past 325,000 square feet to 525,000 square feet. The project is estimated to cost $1.2 billion, to be paid for with tax dollars through the state's general fund.
California state lawmakers have asserted the project is needed, because the Annex, which was built in 1952, is outdated and too small to meet lawmakers' needs and comply with building codes and accessibility laws.
The Save Our Capitol group mobilized in response, seeking to stop or modify the project. According to its website, the group includes a collection of California organizations from across the ideological spectrum, including the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Sierra Club, the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, various California county taxpayers' associations and others.
Save Our Capitol has asserted the project will ruin the adjoining 40-acre Capitol Park, cut down "hundreds of irreplaceable trees," and rip away from California residents the opportunity to gather on the Capitol's West Steps, a common place of assembly for groups seeking to protest state action or attempt to grab lawmakers' attention.
Their lawsuit against the project, however, centered heavily on the law known as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.)
Lawsuits citing CEQA have become ubiquitous in California courts in recent years, as environmentalists and opponents of various development projects - often derided as NIMBYs, an acronym for "Not In My Back Yard" - have petitioned courts to either slow down or halt private and public development projects of many kinds, including new housing, shopping centers, sports stadiums, marinas, ports and more.
In their lawsuit, Save Our Capitol asserted the Joint Rules Committee filed a so-called environmental impact report (EIR) that fell short under CEQA.
The court challenge initially found success in court, as the Third District Appellate court twice reversed a Sacramento County Superior Court judge and found "certain aspects of the EIR flawed."
After the state government revised and recertified the EIR, Save Our Capitol challenged it again, this time asserting lawmakers improperly claimed the project complied with federal standards for historic properties.
A Sacramento County judge rejected those arguments and Save Our Capitol appealed once again.
But this time, California state lawmakers moved to change the rules in the middle of the game, enacting legislation known as Senate Bill 174. That new law specifically exempted the Annex project from having to comply with CEQA at all.
In their decision, the appellate justices noted the legislation came "after two adverse appellate decisions, and with this appeal pending." They also noted lawmakers opted to take the extraordinary step under the California state constitution to make the new law take effect immediately, specifically to shut down legal challenges to the Annex project under CEQA.
But nonetheless, the appellate justices said SB174 "dictates the result in this appeal."
Save Our Capitol attempted to persuade the justices to strike down SB174 as unconstitutional, because they said it runs afoul of Article IV, Section 28, which was added by voters to prevent lawmakers from reconstructing or renovating the state capitol using "an urgency statute."
The appellate justices, however, sided with the state. They found SB174 doesn't qualify as an "urgency statute" because it also authorizes spending on the project. So, SB174 essentially functions as a budget or spending appropriation bill, which are allowed to take effect immediately under a different section of the state constitution.
And the justices said the renovations and reconstruction work doesn't fall under the limits placed in Article IV, Section 28, because it won't "modify the color, detail, design, structure or fixtures of the historically restored areas of the first, second, and third floors and the exterior of the west wing of the State Capitol."
The justices also said they could not rule based on hypothetical scenarios presented by Save Our Capitol, which asserted neither the public nor the courts should trust the state government to not expand the scope of the project in ways that would violate the state constitution.
The decision was authored by Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie. Justices Harry Hull and Rebecca Wiseman concurred.
Save Our Capitol was represented by attorneys Stephen R. Cook and Shoshana B. Kaiser, of the firm of Brown Rudnick, of Irvine.
The state has been represented by attorneys from the office of Attorney General Rob Bonta.