The massive budget bill approved by the California Legislature on Wednesday night included a last-minute exemption from the state's landmark environmental law that lawmakers granted themselves.

Democrats rushed through a bill exempting a $1.1 billion renovation of the state Capitol from the California Environmental Quality Act, citing a cost-saving measure, a move they hope will fast-track the project, which has been mired in litigation due to concerns from environmentalists and preservationists.

At issue is a 50-year-old law called CEQA that was created to protect the state's natural beauty and mitigate environmental damage. But the law has long been criticized as an easy tool to use to block construction, and that criticism has only grown as the state faces a housing crisis.

Now, as lawmakers consider renovating the wing of Capitol Hill that houses lawmakers' offices, they are facing the same problems that many developers have faced before — but they have the power to quickly come up with a workaround.

Rep. James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) said it was “problematic” and “hypocritical” for lawmakers to exempt themselves from environmental laws that often prevent developers from building the housing their constituents need.

“I think we have an obligation to do better when we're talking about these issues,” Gallagher said during debate on the bill on the Assembly floor. “Or let's do a blanket CEQA exemption instead of just limiting it to state offices. That's not the right way to go about it.”

Lawmakers on Wednesday gave Gov. Gavin Newsom the money as part of a $297.7 billion spending plan. invoice The budget, written days ago, allocates $700 million for Capitol renovations and provides exemptions from environmental laws. Lawmakers passed the budget as Newsom arrived in Atlanta to attend the presidential debate as a rep for the Biden campaign. Newsom is due to return to Sacramento on Friday and must sign the budget before it goes into effect on Monday.

The project involves demolishing a 70-year-old building known as the “Annex” that housed the governor's office, committee hearing rooms and dozens of lawmakers' offices, and replacing it with a larger, more accessible structure. The main part of the Capitol, originally built in the 1800s and including the Rotunda and the Assembly and Senate chambers, was restored in the 1980s and will remain open to the public while the Office Building is constructed.

Then-Governor Jerry Brown approved the project in 2018, and although demolition work has already begun, construction has been delayed by litigation over access to Capitol Park's stunning trees, historic buildings and the West Lawn, where many protests and press conferences are held.

Democrats seeking the CEQA exemption argue it's necessary to save taxpayers money and avoid getting embroiled in endless litigation that could further drag out construction and increase costs. But critics of the project, including Dick Cowan, former chairman of the State Capitol Historical Commission, called the tactic “despicable.”

“It's really awful. We've been trying to fix this project for years,” Cowan said. “This is not good democracy. This is not good government. It shows that someone knows how to play the trick card at the last minute.”

State officials who support the project cite concerns about asbestos and accessibility and say renovations are needed to meet safety standards.

In the lawsuit, a group called Save the Capitol, Save the Trees argued that the project did not meet CEQA requirements. 2022 The project violated the law and was not transparent enough to the public.

In a letter sent Saturday to leaders of the state Assembly's Budget Committee, state Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco (D-Downey) and Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) said the state has already prepared two environmental impact statements on the project, reduced parking and dropped plans for a visitor's center in response to CEQA concerns.

“Meeting their main demands has not resolved the issue,” lawmakers wrote, despite years of giving in to opponents' demands. The ongoing litigation could add another $5 million per month in costs to an already expensive plan if workers are forced to halt construction, the letter said.

“We have worked hard to address significant concerns about this project and this is now the best option to protect California taxpayers,” Laird and Pacheco said, speaking on behalf of the rules committee they oversee.

At a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) rejected the “narrative” that lawmakers are being self-serving, saying the situation shows CEQA is being misused by special interests.

“What's happening here is actually one of the frustrations we all have with CEQA, which is that it's being used for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment to kill projects and increase costs for taxpayers,” he said.

Assembly Budget Chairman Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) offered a similar defense.

“I think it's important for people to understand that the millions of dollars that this bill will save are millions of dollars of taxpayer money,” Gabriel said before the House passed the bill Wednesday night.

Many business and housing advocates have long called for comprehensive reform of environmental laws, but major changes have been unacceptable in Congress. Instead, lawmakers have allowed exceptions in certain cases, including for new housing. Sports Arena And student housing. Last year, Governor Newsom approved several changes to CEQA to speed up certain infrastructure projects.

“This is another example of what I call Swiss cheese CEQA,” said Bill Fulton, director of Rice University's Kinder Institute for Urban Studies and a leading California land use expert. “The Legislature isn't going to take a logical approach. When they get upset about this, they always poke holes in it.”