Dear Friends,
I’m sending this message to ask you to contact Governor Newsom, your California state assembly member, and your state senator and urge them to use their influence to stop what we call the “Crystal Palace Project” – the plan to completely demolish the existing State Capitol Annex building and replace it with an entirely new glass and steel structure at an estimated cost of 1.2 -1.4 billion dollars.
When we first learned of the project in January of 2022, our PSR/Sacramento Steering Committee decided to oppose it for a number of reasons discussed below. We made a contribution to the Capitol Historic Preservation Society to help support a lawsuit seeking to halt the project on the basis that it violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as due process for modifying or demolishing historic state buildings. The existing Annex, which is the six story rectangular building that extends eastward from the original West Wing of the Capitol and the iconic Capitol Dome, was built in 1952 and was carefully designed to blend architecturally with the original buildings built in 1874.
Above: Aerial View of State Capitol from th West. The Annex is the rectangular structure with the flat roof sitting behind the original Dome with its two wings. The air conditioning and heating units on top of the Annex roof aren’t visible from the ground.
Below: Ground level view of the Annex from the East with the tip of the Capitol Dome visible over the top.
The Annex has been accurately described as “an inseparable part of the Historic Capitol.” The proposed new annex building would be much larger and more luxurious than the old one and would have an exterior consisting almost entirely of glass panels attached to a steel frame, earning it the nickname, the “Crystal Palace.”[i]
Above: Artist’s conception of the proposed new annex building, viewed from the East.
Below:Artist's conception of the new annex, on the right, sittinbg behing the original Capitol buiding, on the left, viewed from the South.
An artist’s conception of the Crystal Palace shows that it would stand in marked contrast to the neo-classical style of the original West Wing and Dome of the State Capitol. Moreover, the Crystal Palace Project includes removing or replanting approximately 25% of the trees in Capitol Park in order to make room for the new, larger annex building and a new underground parking garage. Also, for unknown reasons, the plans also includes replacing the historic West Steps and adjoining plaza in front of the Capitol Dome with a “visitor’s center.” For more than a century, the West Steps and plaza have served as a venue for the citizens of California to peacefully and publicly exercise their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In recent years, PSR members have participated in numerous demonstrations and rallies on the West Steps and adjacent plaza.
Above: The current West Steps and Plaza, largely vacant.
Below: The West Steps and Plaza filled with demonstrators during the January 17, 2021 Women’s March. Many PSR members participated in this demonstration.
Above: Artist’s conception of the new “visitor’s center” that would replace the existing West Steps and Plaza.
We don’t dispute the fact that the existing Annex needs renovation and modernization, but there’s reasonable doubt as to whether the main movers behind the Crystal Palace – the Department of General Services and the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee – ever seriously considered renovating the existing Annex instead of demolishing it and building an entirely new one. From just the point of view of preserving the urban forest in Capitol Park, we object to the fact that the Crystal Palace project jeopardizes 25% of the trees in Capitol Park, some of which are over 100 years old and represent rare species gifted to California from other countries. From a broader environmental perspective, though, we agree with the position of the National Trust for Historic Preservation that renovating an existing building “is often less expensive, less disruptive, and less time-consuming than new construction;” and that “reuse avoids the significant carbon emissions that occur when materials for a new structure are mined, manufactured, transported, and assembled.” The National Trust estimates that it may take up to 80 years “to overcome the carbon debt that is incurred when an existing structure is replaced, even if the new building is highly energy efficient.”
From the due process point of view, the way in which the Crystal Palace Project has been advanced suggests a deliberate attempt by the proponents of the project to avoid public scrutiny. For example, an exemption for the Crystal Palace Project to the requirement to get the approval of the State Historic Preservation Officer, which is required for all construction projects that would modify or destroy historic state structures, was passed late at night by the legislature as a rider to a budget bill with no opportunity for public comment. When the Historic State Capitol Commission, charged with preserving key historic elements of the State Capitol, tried to interview Capitol staff to determine the full extent of the proposed Crystal Palace Project, the Commission found that staff had been coerced into signing non-disclosure agreements. The Department of General Services (DGS) didn’t reveal the final design of the visitor’s center and the proposed new annex building until the opportunity for public comment had ended. A survey conducted by Save Our Capitol, a group opposing the Crystal Palace Project, found that once details of the project were revealed, 76% of members of California’s general public who were informed about the project opposed it.
Despite public opposition to the project and ongoing lawsuits, the DGS and the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee (JRC), chaired by former California Assembly Member Ken Cooley, proceeded with the project anyway. In November of 2021, members of the legislature and their staff began moving to a brand new 10 story state building – known as the “swing space” – a block away from the Capitol, constructed at a cost of $424 million just for the purpose of the transition from the existing Annex to a new one. And early last year, the process of replanting trees in Capitol Park began. Although the demolition of the exterior of the existing Capitol Annex hasn’t started yet, a chain link fence has been placed around Annex and both the general public and opponents of the project have been barred from entering to see what if any demolition has already begun inside the building.
The lawsuits that were filed in opposition to the Crystal Palace Project were initially unsuccessful. Courts ruled in initial judgements that plaintiffs had not succeeded in proving that any laws had been violated. In November of last year, though, the project suffered a minor setback when the legislature’s most public face on the project, JRC Chairperson Ken Cooley, was voted out of office. Cooley’s defeat didn’t have an official impact on the project, but it probably dampened the level of enthusiasm of other legislators for the project when Cooley, a veteran office older, lost re-election to a largely unknown political novice, Josh Hoover, despite outspending Hoover by a margin of almost four to one during the election campaign. The Crystal Palace Project wasn’t the only issue on which Cooley and Hoover had sharply opposing views, but it may have contributed to Cooley’s defeat.
The Crystal Palace Project was officially put on hold on December 6, 2022 when a three judge panel of the state’s Third Court of Appeals ruled that the DGS and JRC had not fully complied with CEQA in moving forward on the project. Specifically, the Court stated that DGS, “may have misled the public about the nature of the Annex’s design and adversely affected their ability to comment on it;” and furthermore, that “DGS’s method for selecting alternatives to be considered also thwarted informed decision-making and public participation on this project.” In a controversial and seemingly contradictory subsequent opinion issued in January of this year by the same three judge panel, though, the Court clarified that while construction of the new Annex could not move forward until CEQA requirements were met, demolition of the existing Annex could proceed. The Court’s reasoning for this apparent contradiction was that plaintiffs hadn’t proved that renovation of the existing Annex was a viable option. It’s important to note that the failure of plaintiffs to prove that renovating the existing Annex was a viable option is not equivalent to the DGS and JRC proving that they had fully considered this option before rejecting it. From a practical point of view, though, the clarification that the Court issued in January means that demolition of the exterior of the existing Annex could now begin at any time.
Please contact Governor Newsom, your California state assembly member, and your state senator and urge them to use their influence to halt any further work on the demolition of the existing Annex until the DGS and JRC go back to the drawing board and thoroughly reconsider the option of renovating the existing Annex instead of completely demolishing it and building a new one. Please also let the Governor and your state legislators know that if it’s decided, after a thorough review with the ample opportunity for public comment, that demolition of the existing Annex is preferable to renovating it, you expect your elected officials to ensure that the design for the new annex building will be architecturally compatible with the historic Capitol Dome and West Wing; that the design will be subject to approval by the Historic Capitol Commission and the State Historic Preservation Officer; that the West Steps and adjacent plaza will not be altered in any way that would infringe on the ability of the people of California to utilize these areas to exercise their First Amendment rights; that there will be no further removal or replanting of the trees in Capitol Park; that the project will done in full compliance with CEQA; and that there will be ample opportunity for public input throughout the design process.
Other points that you may wish to consider when contacting your elected officials include:
- There is no urgency in renovating or rebuilding the Annex or in providing additional parking. Legislators and their staff already have a brand new 10 story office building to work in just a block away from the Capitol with plenty of onsite parking. It may be a bit more convenient in some regards for legislators and their staff to be headquartered in an annex directly connected to the main Capitol building, but it’s not essential. Most members of the U.S. Congress are headquartered in office buildings that are much farther away from the U.S. Capitol than the “swing building” is from the California State Capitol.
- A new model for office work of the type done by legislative staff has evolved since the Covid pandemic with much of this work being done outside of a formal office setting. If a new annex building on the scale of the planned Crystal Palace were built, it’s likely that much of the office space would be unoccupied most of the time.
- The scope of any renovation or rebuilding project for the Capitol Annex should also take into consideration the fact that California is facing a projected $22 billion budget deficit in the coming year and that there are many higher priorities than creating luxurious new offices for legislators and their staff. These priorities include, but are not limited to:
- Providing housing and support services for the nearly 10,000 homeless persons in Sacramento and the more than 100,000 homeless persons in the rest of the state.
- Providing adequate funding for public education. (California currently ranks 33rd in the nation in per student funding.)
- Providing access to necessary medical care for all Californians. (It’s estimated that over 3 million Californians lack adequate health insurance.)
In summary, please contact your state elected officials and urge them to do the right thing. Instead of building a new Crystal Palace for themselves at a cost of over a billion dollars, let them know that you expect them to act in a fiscally, socially, and environmentally responsible manner, and in a manner consistent with California’s historical and democratic values, in addressing the need to renovate or replace the existing Capitol Annex.
Thanks very much.
Yours truly,
