Judge gives Capitol Annex saviors another chance

A Sacramento County judge has granted a potential reprieve to plaintiffs trying to block a $1.2 billion teardown and rebuild of the Capitol Annex.

In a tentative ruling on Thursday, Judge Laurie M. Earl ruled the plaintiffs missed their deadline under the California Environmental Quality Act to file the complaint. Save the Capitol, Save the Trees vs. California Department of General Services, 34-2021-80003674-CU-WM-GDS (Sac. Super. Ct., filed July 9, 2021).

"Respondents' demurrer is granted without leave to amend because it is clear from the face of the petition that it is barred by the 180-day statute of limitations contained in section 21167(a)," Earl wrote. "The court also finds that this ruling effectively moots petitioner's motion to augment the administrative record."

But at a hearing on Friday, Earl agreed to allow the sides "one shot" to file additional five-page briefs by Sept. 24. Earl said this was because she had largely based her tentative on a case neither side had cited, Communities for a Better Environment v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1 Cal. App. 5th 715 (2016). Earl cited that interpretation of the "discovery rule" in the case to find the plaintiffs had missed the deadline.

In 2018, lawmakers passed AB 1826. This bill gave the Department of General Services the authority to move forward with either renovating or rebuilding the Capitol Annex. Completed in 1951, the Annex connects to the back of the original 1874 domed Capitol building.

Susan L. Brandt-Hawley filed a writ petition on behalf of the plaintiffs, claiming insufficient review under the Environmental Quality Act. The San Francisco based historical preservation attorney argued the clock on a 180-day statute of limitations under the law should have started ticking in April 2021, when a memorandum of understanding on the project was released after a California Public Records Act request.

Earl's tentative ruling agreed with the department, which argued the clock began "at the latest" with the release of a draft environmental impact report in March 2020.

At Friday's hearing, Brandt-Hawley argued the information available to the plaintiffs by that date lacked key specifics. It wasn't until they had the memorandum that the plaintiffs knew there was "a commitment to demolish" the Annex, she argued.

"It's a post hoc rationalization, that's the problem with it," Brandt-Hawley said. "The EIR process is supposed to be open and looking at ideas. If you've decided ahead of time, it's just a pro forma waste of everyone's time."

Deputy Attorney General Gwynne B. Hunter said her brief would argue the department had provided sufficient information to trigger the statute of limitations. Earl then took the case under submission.