Monterey County should have completed an environmental impact report for a proposal to demolish a county jail that many people consider historic for cultural and architectural reasons, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court found that the county's mitigated negative declaration was inadequate because project opponents had made a “fair argument” that the potential impacts of the project would not be offset.

“One function of an EIR is to address the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. Another function is to consider alternatives to the project,” Justice Richard McAdams wrote for the court. “Neither was fully explored here. In cases like this, an 'EIR is required to identify and examine the full range of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to demolition,'” McAdams wrote, citing League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Resources v. City of Oakland, (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 909 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, March 1997).

The case involves the old Monterey County jail in Salinas. The county would like to tear down the little-used, 73-year-old jail in order to renovate the adjacent courthouse and government offices. When the county reported that it planned to adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the jail demolition, the county's Historic Resources Review Board and other historic preservation advocates told county officials that the document was insufficient. Nevertheless, in July 2001, the county Planning and Building Inspection Department adopted a mitigated negative declaration and issued a demolition permit.

Mitigations included photographic documentation of the building, preparation of an historic monograph, reuse or duplication of architectural elements, and maintaining a complete set of blueprints at the local historical society. A citizens' group called the Architectural Heritage Association appealed to the Board of Supervisors, but the board affirmed the mitigated negative declaration.

The association then sued the county, alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act. Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O'Farrell ruled for the county, but a unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth District overturned the lower court and ordered the county to prepare an EIR.

Essentially, the questions for the court were whether the association could make a fair argument based on evidence in the record that the old jail is an historic resource, that its demolition would have a significant impact on the resource, and that the proposed mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to insignificant.

The county's initial study - a prelude to the mitigated negative declaration - called the old jailhouse “a significant historic resource as defined by CEQA.” The county, however, discounted that description, saying it was based solely on the fact that Cesar Chavez was incarcerated there during a 1970 lettuce boycott. The county also contended that a finding of significance by the Historic Resources Review Board was a “gratuitous conclusion” and that county staff statements did not qualify as substantial evidence. The Sixth District disagreed.

The initial study was based on a report by Robert Cartier of Archaeological Resource Management. The initial study noted not only the significance of Chavez's jailing (during which the labor leader was visited by Coretta Scott King and Ethel Kennedy) but also the gothic revival architecture of the structure, as well as to Cartier's conclusion that the jail was eligible for both the national and state registers of historic places.

The county based its argument on Perley v. Board of Supervisors, (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 424, in which the court held that subordinate agency staff determinations alone did not constitute substantial evidence. But the Sixth District said that the county was reading Perley too broadly, and that the CEQA definition of substantial evidence had changed since Perley.

“Here,” Justice McAdams wrote, “the record includes fact-based evidence of historic status, which the Historic Board and its subcommittee had gained through meetings with county staff, a site view and the review of pertinent documents.”

The court also dismissed the county's contention that speakers at public hearings provided only “unsubstantiated opinions.” The court noted that the speakers included an historian and an architect. “These and other speakers' remarks represent fact-based observations by people apparently qualified to speak to the question of the jail's historic status. That testimony constitutes substantial evidence because it consists of 'facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts and expert opinion supported by facts,'” McAdams wrote, citing Public Resources Code § 21082.2, subdivision (c).

The court also rejected the county's argument that the mitigation measures in the negative declaration were adequate in light of the old jail's poor structural condition.

“Without undertaking a full EIR, the county determined that the jail could not be saved, finding that 'its preservation or adaptive reuse is impractical due to its age, design and deteriorating condition, and opening up the building for more usable spaces would seriously degrade the structural integrity of the building and pose a safety hazard to its occupants and neighbors.' We find this determination insupportable, both factually and legally,” McAdams wrote.

“As a factual matter, the administrative record discloses mixed conclusions concerning the physical condition of the structure, as well as an incomplete investigation both of the jail's condition and of alternatives to demolition,” McAdams wrote.

Since the litigation began, the jail made the National Register of Historic Places. At the county's request, the federal officials withdrew the listing, but the state Historic Resources Commission has urged the federal panel to reinstate the old jail's status.

The Case:
Architectural Heritage Association v. County of Monterey, No. H026443, 04 C.D.O.S. 8997, 2004 DJDAR 12247. Filed August 31, 2004. Modified and ordered published September 30, 2004.
The Lawyers:
For the association: Susan Brandt-Hawley, (707) 938-3908.
For the county: Efren Iglesia, county county's office, (831) 755-5045.