Save Our Capitol! v. Dep't of Gen. Servs.
| Decision Date | 06 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | C096617, C096637 |
| Parties | SAVE OUR CAPITOL!, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, Defendant and Respondent; Joint Committee on Rules of the California State Senate and Assembly, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Save the Capitol, Save the Trees, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Department of General Services, Defendant and Respondent; Joint Committee on Rules of the California State Senate and Assembly, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Brown Rudnick, Stephen R. Cook and Shoshana B. Kaiser, Irvine, for Plaintiff and Appellant Save Our Capitol!.
Brandt-Hawley Law Group, Susan Brandt-Hawley, Glen Ellen, for Plaintiff and Appellant Save the Capitol, Save the Trees.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Robert W. Byrne, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Russell Hildreth, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Sierra S. Arballo, Sophie A. Wenzlau and Gwynne B. Hunter, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant, Respondent, and Real Party in Interest Department of General Services and Joint Committee on Rules of the California State Senate and Assembly.
This appeal challenges the sufficiency of an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq., statutory section citations that follow are found in the Public Resources Code unless otherwise stated) and CEQA's implementing regulations, the CEQA Guidelines ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. (Guidelines)).
Defendant Department of General Services and real party Joint Committee on Rules of the California State Senate and Assembly (collectively DGS) prepared the EIR to determine the environmental effects of a project they propose which will significantly affect the California State Capitol Building in Sacramento (Historic Capitol). DGS will demolish the State Capitol Building Annex attached to the Historic Capitol (the existing Annex) and replace it with a larger new annex building (the new Annex), construct an underground visitor center attached to the Historic Capitol's west side, and construct an underground parking garage east of the new Annex.
Plaintiffs Save Our Capitol! and Save the Capitol, Save the Trees filed petitions for writ of mandate contending the EIR did not comply with CEQA. The trial court denied the petitions. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment. We have consolidated the appeals for purposes of briefing, argument, and decision.
Plaintiffs contend (1) the EIR lacks a stable project description; (2) the EIR does not adequately analyze and mitigate the project's impacts on cultural resources, biological resources, aesthetics, traffic, and utilities and service systems; (3) the EIR's analysis of alternatives to the project is legally deficient; and (4) DGS violated CEQA by not recirculating the EIR a second time before certifying it.
We reverse in part and affirm in part. The EIR's project description, analyses of historical resources and aesthetics, and analysis of alternatives do not comply with CEQA.
The State Capitol Building Annex Act of 2016 ( Gov. Code, § 9112 et seq. ) authorized the Joint Rules Committee to pursue renovating or reconstructing the existing Annex. ( Gov. Code, § 9112, subd. (a)(1).) The project could also include a visitor center and a relocated and expanded underground parking facility. ( Gov. Code, § 9112, subd. (a)(2).) The project could proceed under any delivery method deemed appropriate and advantageous. ( Gov. Code, § 9112, subd. (b)(3)(A).)
The Legislature did not exempt the project from CEQA, but it did impose requirements to expedite and restrict judicial review of any CEQA action against the project. ( Gov. Code, § 9112, subd. (c) ; Pub. Resources Code, § 21189.57.) To expedite judicial review, the Legislature required the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of court that would require CEQA actions challenging the project be resolved to the extent feasible within 270 days of DGS's certification of the record of proceedings. (§ 21189.51.) The Judicial Council complied. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.2220 et seq., 8.700 et seq. )
The Legislature has also prohibited the judicial branch, in granting relief in a CEQA action, from enjoining the project unless the court finds either of the following:
(1) Continuation of the project presents an immediate threat to the public health and safety.
(2) The project or its site contains "unforeseen" important Native American artifacts or "unforeseen" important historical, archaeological, or ecological values that would be materially, permanently, and adversely affected by the project's continuance unless the court stays or enjoins the project. (§ 21189.53, subd. (a).)
If the court makes either finding, it may enjoin only those specific project activities that present an imminent threat to public health and safety or that materially, permanently, and adversely affect the unforeseen artifacts and values. (§ 21189.53, subd. (b).)
The project site is primarily contained within the Historic Capitol grounds bounded by 10th Street on the west, L Street on the north, N Street on the south, and roughly the alignment of 12th Street were it to cross Capitol Park east of the existing Annex.
The project consists of three primary components: (1) demolishing the 325,000 square-foot existing Annex attached to the east side of the Historic Capitol and constructing a new attached Annex; (2) constructing a new underground visitor/welcome center (visitor center) on the west side of the Historic Capitol between the Historic Capitol and 10th Street; and (3) constructing a new underground parking garage. Originally, DGS planned to construct the parking garage south of the Historic Capitol and the Annex between the Capitol building and N Street. The new Annex would provide up to approximately 525,000 square feet of space, the visitor center would contain 40,000 square feet, and as described in the draft EIR, the parking garage would have approximately 200 parking spaces. The draft EIR stated the project would require removing an estimated 20-30 trees.
The draft EIR stated the project's objectives were to:
• Provide an accessible, efficient, and safe environment for State employees, elected officials, and the public they serve.
• Integrate the new development with the existing surroundings.
• Develop sustainable and energy-efficient facilities.
• Provide modern facilities that meet current construction standards and codes.
• Continue to provide secure parking for legislative and executive branch officials.
• Provide meeting space for legislative and executive functions of sufficient size to support efficient performance of State business and with modern communications technology.
• Continue to provide annex facilities directly adjacent to the Historic Capitol.
• Promote education, hospitality, and a welcoming environment for the visiting public.
At the time of the draft EIR, the project components were not fully designed, especially the new Annex and the parking garage. In the final EIR, DGS explained that the project was designed and delivered in accordance with a construction manager at risk (CMAR) delivery method. This contrasts with a traditional and lengthier three-phased design-bid-build method or the two-phased design-build method. Under the CMAR method, a construction manager is hired to oversee the entire project from preconstruction, design, and bidding through construction. The process begins with a concept that evolves and becomes more detailed and refined as the process progresses.
As a result, the project design became more detailed over time. DGS stated that to evaluate the project under a CMAR scenario and simultaneously satisfy CEQA's requirement for an accurate, stable, and finite project description, it defined with some precision the project's size, scale, footprint, and construction methods even if design details were not available. DGS stated that as designs further developed and changes were made, it would evaluate those revisions in subsequent CEQA analyses.
DGS circulated the draft EIR for public review and comment on September 9, 2019. After the public review period, DGS revised the design of the visitor center with an entry that was significantly different from what was analyzed in the draft EIR. Originally, the underground visitor center would have been accessed by an above-ground elevator and stairway to be built near 10th Street. DGS changed the center's approach and entrance to two, open-air ramps beginning at 10th Street. The opposing ramps will loop at 180 degrees and lead down to a wider central walkway and open-air "lower plaza." At the east end of the lower plaza, doors will lead into a below-grade enclosed security checkpoint and the visitor center.
The ground above the visitor center will be landscaped as an "upper plaza," with the surface elevation raised to be even with the bottom of the first set of remaining west portico steps to the Historic Capitol. The upper plaza will be expanded to the north and south. It will also include a large glass skylight to provide light to and views from the visitor center below and metal safety railings.
As a result of the new visitor center design, DGS revised and, on January 17, 2020, recirculated affected portions of the draft EIR, referred to here as the recirculated draft EIR, to evaluate impacts from the new design. Except for the visitor center design, the project's description and purposes generally remained unchanged from the draft EIR.
DGS developed more detailed designs and modifications after the recirculated draft EIR was circulated, and it evaluated these modifications in the final EIR. It determined the new Annex's exterior design. The new Annex will be physically connected to the historic Capitol. It will have a "Double-T" configuration, and its exterior will be mostly glass. The base of the new Annex will have...
To continue reading
Request your trial