## Facts

- Monterey County proposed demolishing the “Old Jail,” a 1931 reinforced-concrete jail building in Salinas that had ceased use as a jail and had deteriorated.
- The Old Jail was not listed on the California or National Registers, but record evidence included expert views that it was potentially eligible and had historical and architectural significance.
- The County conducted an initial study under CEQA and determined the project could have a substantial adverse effect on a historic resource unless mitigated.
- The County adopted a mitigated negative declaration (MND) rather than preparing an environmental impact report (EIR).
- The MND’s mitigation measures included photographic documentation, an historical monograph, salvage of some architectural elements, and retention of structural plans.
- During public review, preservation groups and other commenters objected and urged an EIR, disputing the County’s conclusion that impacts would be reduced to no significant effect.
- The County approved demolition and denied an administrative appeal by preservation advocates.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported a fair argument that the Old Jail qualified as a “historical resource” under CEQA despite the lack of formal listing.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported a fair argument that demolition could have a significant effect on the environment by eliminating a historical resource.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported a fair argument that the MND’s mitigation measures failed to reduce the impact to a level of clearly no significant effect, thereby requiring an EIR.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate.
- Applying the fair argument standard, the court held substantial evidence supported a fair argument that the Old Jail was a historical resource for CEQA purposes.
- The court held substantial evidence supported a fair argument that demolition would significantly and adversely affect that resource.
- The court held the mitigation measures in the MND (documentation and limited salvage) did not clearly reduce the impact to no significant effect.
- The court directed that the County set aside its MND and related approvals and comply with CEQA by preparing an EIR before proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- An EIR is required if there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a project may have a significant environmental effect; this is a question of law reviewed by examining the whole record.
- The fair argument standard applies to disputes over (1) historical-resource status, (2) significance of impacts, and (3) whether mitigation in an MND reduces impacts to clearly no significant effect.
- A resource may qualify as a CEQA “historical resource” based on evidence of potential eligibility and significance, even without formal register listing.
- An agency may use an MND only if project revisions and mitigation avoid or reduce effects to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur and the record lacks substantial evidence of potentially significant effects.
- Mitigation that merely documents or salvages portions of a structure may be insufficient where the project eliminates the historical resource itself.

## Conclusion

The court required preparation of an EIR because the record contained substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Old Jail was a historical resource and that demolition would significantly harm it, and because the County’s proposed documentation-and-salvage mitigation did not clearly eliminate the significant impact required to support an MND.


Architectural Heritage Ass'n v. County of Monterey, 122 Cal. App. 4th 1095 (Ct. App. 2004)