By Kate Wolffe
Four years after lawmakers vacated the old building, the new Capitol Annex is halfway complete.
That’s one takeaway from a new report from the California Legislature’s Joint Committee on Rules – the first formal update since 2021.
“The external structure of the Annex building has been erected,” the report reads.
“Currently, workers are installing the glass façade, interior wall framing, garage and access road development, and building infrastructure, including utilities and technology systems.”
The project is expected to be completed in fall 2027, almost two years behind schedule. The committee attributed the delays to lengthy litigation, pandemic-era disruptions in supply chain and the addition of security measures following the Jan. 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol
One thing that was missing was a new estimation of costs. The original project was estimated to cost $543 million.
As of September 2025, $518.7 million had been spent. During an interview with KCRA 3 Monday, Rules Committee Chair Blanca Pacheco, D-Downey, said the committee is “looking at seeing” what the final cost estimates will be.
The report says in early 2026, a new project manager will create a new estimated cost by factoring in “litigation costs, Pandemic-era supply chain issues, inflation, and the cost of delays.”
Assemblymember Josh Hoover, R-Folsom, called the update “insufficient” in an emailed statement Tuesday afternoon, and asked for a comprehensive cost estimate.
The report “restates facts that are already known, lays blame on litigation that was the result of poor policy choices by the Legislature, and provides a list of excuses for why project costs will likely increase in the near future,” he said.
Hoover, who replaced one of the project’s longtime champions, Ken Cooley, in 2022, also expressed concern with language about the Visitor Center, which he said could endanger the Capitol’s West Steps.
Few progress reports
The public has received few updates about the project, chiefly due to advice by the Legislature’s counsel not to comment while litigation was underway, said Alina Evans, communications manager for Pacheco’s office. Evans said they were advised to not even update the website.
The project has come under scrutiny for its secretive process. Reporting by KCRA 3 found more than 2,093 people signed non-disclosure agreements to not discuss the project.
It’s a far cry from when the first Capitol Annex was built in 1949. The Sacramento Bee and Sacramento Union newspapers regularly went into detail about the process – one November 1949 article listed how many rivets were driven by steelworkers every day (300). That project also went over-budget and over-time. The first estimate for how much it would cost was $1.5 million, and it ended up coming in at $7.25 million, several months behind schedule.
The December 2025 report also addressed some of the reporting that has been circulating around the project in recent years, including reports it would have “secret corridors” for avoiding the public.
“The future Annex building will have secure corridors for the safety of elected officials, staff and law enforcement, similar to the previous Annex and current Swing Space,” the report reads.
The report also explains why granite sourced from a quarry in Raymond, in Madera County, was sent to Italy to be cut.
“It was determined that the extended time needed for cutting in the United States would amount to a significant additional cost and would also delay the project,” the report said. The authors called the choice the most “budget-conscious and affordable option.”
Pacheco and Laird have said they plan to continue providing updates, although the report says tours are not feasible.
Per the report: “If construction is paused or stopped, even for a day, the associated cost is approximately $54,000 per day.”
A look back at how we got here
Jan 8, 2016: Gov. Jerry Brown proposed $2.9 million to study needed repairs to the Capitol Annex, which a summary states “is undersized to meet current demands for legislative hearings and office space, and its antiquated building systems are prone to failure and expensive to maintain.”
June 16, 2016: Lawmakers approved a budget package that allows for the streamlining of any court challenges to the project on environmental grounds. The provision was similar to the one that was given to the creation of the Kings arena in 2013. The Legislature still hadn’t decided whether they’d renovate or raze the building.
Feb. 21, 2018: A long-awaited report from the design firm CSHQA of Sacramento found it would cost $543 million to replace the Capitol Annex, and encouraged lawmakers to consider it.
June 15, 2018: Lawmakers approved a budget package that set aside $755 million to replace the building and $420 million to build a new state building on O Street, dubbed the “Swing Space,” that would temporarily house legislative staff.
July 12, 2021: Environmental groups Save our Capitol! and Save the Capitol, Save the Trees coalition sued several state agencies, arguing a 2019 environmental review report that was circulated among the public was insufficient due to “previously-unforeseen environmental impacts.” They requested a new analysis.
Dec. 2021: Lawmakers vacated the Capitol Annex and moved to the new Swing Space down the street.
Dec. 8, 2022: California’s 3rd District Court of Appeals partially sided with the Save Our Capitol coalition, ruling the state didn’t provide the public with an environmental review report that matched the final scope of the project. It ordered a new analysis, and a stay on construction was issued.
April 7, 2023: The Department of General Services circulated a new Draft Environmental Impact Report.
July 2023: The demolition of the Capitol Annex got underway.
September 2023: Construction on the Capitol was cleared to begin after the state issued a final court-ordered Environmental Impact Report for the project.
June 28, 2024: A budget trailer bill, SB 174, proposed the Capitol project be exempt from environmental law review. It was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, despite some opposition from Republican leadership.
Oct. 7, 2024: The 3rd District Court of Appeal dismissed the remaining lawsuits, ruling that the Legislature’s passage of SB 174 made the project exempt from CEQA review.
