Architectural Heritage Ass'n v. County of Monterey

Opinion

This appeal presents a challenge to the adoption of the mitigated negative declaration under CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act. 1 Under the standard that governs our review here, we conclude that the challenge has merit. We therefore reverse the judgment.

INTRODUCTION

This dispute involves Monterey County’s Old Jail, located in Salinas, California. The County of Monterey (County) intends to demolish the Old *1100 Jail. Acting through its board of supervisors, the County decided to proceed under CEQA by way of a mitigated negative declaration. Plaintiffs Architectural Heritage Association and Mark Norris challenge that decision. According to plaintiffs, there is evidence supporting a fair argument that the planned demolition will result in loss of the jail’s historic value and that the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate. Plaintiffs have pressed their claims both administratively and judicially.

To provide perspective for the procedural and substantive aspects of this dispute, we begin with an overview of CEQA.

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

CEQA embodies our state’s policy that “the long-term protection of the environment. . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.” (§ 21001, subd. (d); see Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 112 [62 Cal.Rptr.2d 612].) As this court recently noted, “the overriding purpose of CEQA is to ensure that agencies regulating activities that may affect the quality of the environment give primary consideration to preventing environmental damage. [Citation.]” (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 117 [104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326].) As an aid to carrying out the statute, the State Resources Agency has issued a set of regulations, called Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines). 2 Together, CEQA and the Guidelines protect a variety of environmental values. Historic resources are among them. (See § 21084.1; Guidelines, § 15064.5; Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 183-184, 185 [105 Cal.Rptr.2d 214, 19 P.3d 567].)

Consistent with California’s strong environmental policy, the statute and regulations “have established a three-tiered process to ensure that public agencies inform their decisions with environmental considerations.” (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 112; see also Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 185; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1371 [43 Cal.Rptr.2d 170].)

“The first tier is jurisdictional, requiring that an agency conduct a preliminary review in order to determine whether CEQA applies to a proposed activity. (Guidelines, §§ 15060, 15061.)” (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 112.) “If the agency finds the project is exempt *1101 from CEQA under any of the stated exemptions, no further environmental review is necessary.” (Id. at p. 113.) “If, however, the project does not fall within any exemption, the agency must proceed with the second tier and conduct an initial study. (Guidelines, § 15063.)” (Ibid.)

The second tier of the process, the initial study, serves several purposes. (Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (c).) One purpose is to inform the choice between a negative declaration and an environmental impact report (EIR). (Id., subd. (c) (1); Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1346 [272 Cal.Rptr. 372].) Another of the initial study’s purposes is to eliminate unnecessary environmental impact reports. (Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (c)(7).)

“CEQA excuses the preparation of an EIR and allows the use of a negative declaration when an initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water Dist. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 382, 389-390 [83 Cal.Rptr.2d 836], citing Guidelines, § 15070; see also §§ 21064, 21080, subd. (c); Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1347.)

In certain situations where a straightforward negative declaration is not appropriate, the agency may permit use of a mitigated negative declaration (MND). “If the initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment but revisions in the project plans ‘would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur’ and there is no substantial evidence that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be used.” (San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water Dist., supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 390, quoting § 21064.5; see also, e.g., Citizens’ Com. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1167 [44 Cal.Rptr.2d 288]; Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(2).)

If the project does not qualify for a negative declaration of either type, “the third step in the process is to prepare a full environmental impact report . . . .” (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 113, citing §§ 21100 and 21151, and Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. (b)(1), and 15080; Gentry v. City of Murrieta, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 1372.)

The California Supreme Court has “repeatedly recognized that the EIR is the ‘heart of CEQA.’ [Citations.]” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231, 864 P.2d 502].) As the court observed some three decades *1102 ago, “since the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA, accomplishment of the high objectives of that act requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact.” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75 [118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66].) The court stressed “the importance of preparing an EIR in cases ... in which the determination of a project’s environmental effect turns upon the resolution of controverted issues of fact and forms the subject of intense public concern.” (Ibid.) Other cases have since confirmed the statutory preference for resolving doubts in favor of an EIR. (See, e.g., Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 689, 703 [7 Cal.Rptr.3d 868]; League for Protection of Oakland’s etc. Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 905 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 821] (City of Oakland).)

With that overview of CEQA in mind, we now turn to the facts underlying this proceeding.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At the heart of this dispute is the County’s Old Jail, built in 1931 in the Gothic Revival style. The three-story structure was designed by Reed & Corlett, an architectural and engineering firm “responsible for numerous buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area from 1912 to 1933, many of which are still standing.” The jail is located directly adjacent to the Monterey County courthouse, at 142 West Alisal Street in Salinas. The building is approximately 40 feet tall, with some 19,000 square feet of floor space. It consists of two primary wings, which are separated by a secured passageway. The original blueprints for the jail provided for a number of uses, some quite outmoded under current penal practices. The plans thus included a boys’ department, vagrants’ quarters, an insane cell, a padded cell, a delousing room, a darkroom, and a room for liquor storage. Some of the jail cells “contain detailed and artistic graffiti done by prisoners.”

In December 1970, César Chávez was incarcerated in the Old Jail for approximately two weeks, for refusing to obey a court order to halt the United Farm Workers’ lettuce boycott. His incarceration drew international attention, prompted visits from Coretta Scott King and Ethel Kennedy, and galvanized the burgeoning farm worker movement.

By the 1980’s, the County had ceased using the structure as a jail. Since then, it has been used for records storage and as a temporary holding facility for prisoners appearing in court.

*1103 In December 1999, by unanimous vote of its Board of Supervisors, the County directed its staff “to take necessary actions to provide for demolition of [the] old jail facility in Salinas.”

Various assessments of the jail preceded and followed the County’s decision to demolish the structure.

Assessments of the Old Jail

1. Physical Condition

Several reports commissioned by the County evaluated the jail’s physical condition. A 1998 report noted the presence of asbestos and lead-based paint at the Old Jail. In August 2000, a property condition report on the Old Jail was prepared by Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI). Among other things, PSI’s property condition report concluded that the roofs were in poor condition and that the building did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In September 2000, an indoor air quality evaluation revealed high levels of mold spores and lead dust in most locations in the building.

2. Historic Status

The County also commissioned an assessment of the Old Jail as a cultural and historic resource. Dr. Robert Cartier of Archaeological Resource Management undertook that assessment, which was completed in July 2000. Cartier holds baccalaureate, graduate, and doctoral degrees in anthropology, and he has more than two decades of full-time experience in researching, interpreting, and writing about cultural and historical resources. In a section of the report detailing the jail’s factual history, Cartier noted that it “was visited by some notable historical figures” and he specifically mentioned the 1970 jailing of César Chávez.

In his evaluation of the jail’s cultural significance, Cartier stated: “A cultural resource is considered ‘significant’ if it qualifies as eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Properties that are eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one or more” of four criteria, which he set forth in the report. 3 The second factor (criterion 2) is particularly relevant here: “Association with the lives of persons important to local, *1104 California, or national history.” Cartier observed that the Old Jail “is not currently listed on the California Register of Historic Resources. The jail structure does appear, however, to qualify as potentially eligible for listing on the CRHR under criterion 2 ... .”

The Cartier report also set forth the four parallel criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 4 Again, the second criterion is most pertinent here. That factor, criterion b, applies to places “associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.” As with the state registry, Cartier observed, the Old Jail “is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. However, this structure does appear to qualify as potentially eligible for listing on the National Register under criterion B . . . .”

Near the end of his report, Cartier stated: “Due to the historic significance of the structure, several alternative mitigations are outlined below.” The listed mitigations include: (1) retention and adaptation of the structure, though that “may be impractical due to its age and condition”; (2) photographic documentation to historic survey standards; 5 (3) preparation of an historic monograph; (4) reuse of architectural elements from the building; and (5) maintaining the architectural blueprints at the local historical society.

In September 2000, County staff submitted the reports to the County Board of Supervisors.

Administrative Proceedings Under CEQA

In November 2000, the County’s Office of Capital Projects applied for a demolition permit for the Old Jail. Application was made to the County’s Planning and Building Inspection Department (Department). Although the Department’s director believed that issuance of the demolition permit was exempt under CEQA, the Department nevertheless reviewed and processed *1105 the application under the Act “out of an abundance of caution and in order to be responsive to concerns that the jail is an historic resource.”

1. The Initial Study

On June 1, 2001, an initial study was completed.

The initial study identified several environmental factors potentially affected by demolition of the Old Jail, including cultural resources. With respect to that aspect, the research underlying the initial study “focused on the structure’s characteristics and its contribution to the historic fabric of the City of Salinas and the County of Monterey.” The initial study noted Cartier’s conclusion that the Old Jail “qualifies as potentially eligible for listing on both the CRHR and the National Register.” The initial study then concluded: “Consequently, the old jailhouse is a significant historical resource as defined by CEQA [Guidelines] Section 15064.5.”

The initial study stated: “Without appropriate and extensive mitigation, the proposed demolition will cause a substantial adverse change to an historic resource.” But it also noted that “the architectural integrity of the resource has been diminished by the deteriorated physical condition of the structure and the hazardous materials that are found extensively within” its components. Based on those factors, the initial study stated, “renovation or reuse of the structure is not feasible. However, the demolition of the building represents an incremental loss of both the architectural style of 1930s jail construction and an historic resource potentially eligible for listing on both the California Register of Historic Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. Without appropriate mitigation, the demolition would have impacts that are cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past demolitions of architecturally significant and historically significant structures within the state. However, extensive mitigation measures have been developed to reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level.” To a large extent, the listed mitigations mirror those in Cartier’s report. They include photographic documentation to historic survey standards, production of an historic monograph, reuse or duplication of architectural elements from the building, and filing a complete set of architectural blueprints at the local historical society.

Ultimately, the initial study concluded, with the proposed mitigations, the adverse environmental effects on cultural resources from demolition of the Old Jail will be less than significant. Based on that conclusion, the initial study called for preparation of a mitigated negative declaration.

*1106 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration

On June 14, 2001, the County gave notice of its intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration.

Public comments were received in response. One was from the County’s Historic Resources Review Board (Historic Board). The members of the Historic Board were “unanimous in their opinion that the draft Initial Study is insufficient upon which to address mitigation measures and recommend the County undertake a more extensive [EIR].” A memorandum from the Historic Board’s jail subcommittee likewise recommended an EIR. In addition, Historic Board member Dorothy Steele Laage, acting in her personal capacity as a “concerned citizen of Monterey County,” wrote in support of a full EIR. The comment period on the mitigated negative declaration ended on July 16, 2001.

A public hearing followed nearly a year later. It began on June 19, 2002. Those opposed to issuance of the demolition permit argued for preparation of an EIR, based on claims that the Old Jail is a cultural and historic resource. The hearing was continued to permit completion of an addendum to the historic monograph of the Old Jail, which had been prepared for the County by Carey & Company. At the continued hearing, held on July 3, 2002, the Department received additional testimony, further staff recommendations, and the third addendum to Carey & Company’s monograph.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Department adopted the mitigated negative declaration, together with a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and it issued the demolition permit for the Old Jail. In order to mitigate the demolition’s impact on the jail’s value as an historic resource, the following conditions were imposed; photographic documentation to HABS standards; preparation of an historic monograph, including detailed descriptions of the jail’s construction, the social environment in which it was built, its association with local, state, and national history, and jail culture; reuse or duplication of architectural elements from the building, with certain salvage details called out; and maintaining a complete set of the architectural and engineering blueprints at various agencies, including the local historical society.

3. Plaintiffs’ Administrative Appeal

On July 12, 2002, plaintiff Architectural Heritage Association filed an appeal of the decision with the County’s Board of Supervisors. As one of the grounds for its administrative appeal, Architectural Heritage Association argued that the mitigated negative declaration did not reduce the environmental impacts of demolishing the Old Jail to a level of insignificance.

*1107 The appeal was heard on July 30, 2002. At the conclusion of that hearing, County’s Board of Supervisors denied the appeal and affirmed the Department’s decision adopting the mitigated negative declaration.

Judicial Proceedings

On August 27, 2002, plaintiffs Architectural Heritage Association and Mark Edwin Norris filed a petition for writ of mandate, naming as respondents the County of Monterey and its board of supervisors. The petition asserted that the County’s decision to certify the MND constituted a violation of CEQA. Both sides filed briefs with the trial court in advance of the hearing on the petition, which was set for May 2003. Both sides also proffered additional evidence. The County requested the court to take judicial notice of federal regulations and bulletins concerning standards for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Plaintiffs submitted a declaration from their attorney, which reported on a public meeting of the California State Historical Resources Commission held in February 2003 to consider a determination that the Old Jail was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The declaration included the attorney’s unofficial transcription of a portion of the hearing. The County objected to consideration of that evidence, urging “(1) it is not relevant, (2) it lacks the requisite foundational showing of relevancy and for an exception to the general rule against admission of extra-record evidence, (3) it contains objectionable hearsay, and (4) it pertains to another agency’s proceedings which are as yet not completed and not probative of the issues in the present proceeding.” In their response to the County’s objections, plaintiffs submitted the official minutes of the February 2003 hearing, together with a certified transcript of the hearing, and they requested “judicial notice or record augmentation” as to each.

On May 1, 2003, the petition for writ of mandate was heard in Superior Court. The court first received the administrative record, which consists of five volumes. The court next granted the County’s request for judicial notice of the federal regulations and bulletins. The court then took up plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of the minutes and transcript of the February 2003 meeting, at which the state Historical Resources Commission unanimously determined that the Old Jail met register criteria and was eligible for listing on both the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. After discussion with both sides, the trial judge announced: “I will take judicial notice as requested.” The court then entertained argument on the petition. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court took the matter under submission.

On May 14, 2003, the court issued its ruling denying the writ petition. In its written decision, the court reviewed the evidence and the parties’ general *1108 arguments. It then set forth the standard of review, stating: “The law requires that where substantial evidence supports a ‘fair argument’ that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR must be prepared, unless adopted mitigation measures can reduce the environmental impacts to a level of insignificance.” The court then analyzed plaintiffs’ claim “that the administrative record contains material from which a fair argument can be made that the jail should be deemed an historic structure.” It stated: “The importance of César Chávez and the events surrounding his leadership in the farm labor movement are historic. Whether the event of his jailing is sufficient to make the entire building itself historic is another question.” The court went on to say: “César Chávez leaves an historic legacy because of his many years of toil and leadership on behalf of the farm labor movement. His two week connection with the jail represents just one segment of a lifetime effort. The real question is whether the mitigation measures adopted by [the County] will appropriately preserve the historic attributes of that two week period of César Chávez’s life.” The court concluded that they would. It said: “The record supports the finding that, to the extent the jail is seen to have historic attributes, the mitigation efforts undertaken have reduced those attributes to less than significant levels.” The court therefore denied the petition for writ of mandate.

Judgment was entered the following month. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, arguing that the court had applied the wrong standard of review. In August 2003, the court denied that motion.

This appeal followed.

ISSUES

Contentions

Plaintiffs assert (1) demolition of the Old Jail is subject to CEQA; (2) the evidence supports a fair argument that demolition may have a significant impact on an historic resource and that the impact has not been adequately mitigated; and (3) the County impermissibly segmented the project. Appearing as amicus curiae, the California Preservation Foundation supports plaintiffs’ bid for a full environmental impact report.

The County counters (1) the record does not contain substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Old Jail is historic; (2) even if the Old Jail is an historic resource, the mitigation measures are adequate; and (3) plaintiffs failed to raise and exhaust their segmentation claim, which lacks merit in any event.

*1109 Questions Presented

As distilled by the parties’ briefs, the substantive issues presented are (1) whether the Old Jail is an historic resource, (2) whether its demolition will have a significant environmental impact, and (3) whether the proposed mitigation measures are adequate to reduce that impact to insignificance. The briefs also discuss segmentation, but our resolution of the other questions obviates the need to analyze that issue.

DISCUSSION

Before addressing the substantive questions presented, we first discuss three threshold issues that frame and govern our analysis.

I. Threshold Issues

A. Standard of Review: The “Fair Argument” Test

Judicial review of an agency’s efforts to comply with CEQA “ ‘ “shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination is not supported by substantial evidence.” ’ ” (City of Oakland, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at pp. 903-904.) When there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project will significantly impact the environment, an agency abuses its discretion in failing to require an EIR. (Id. at p. 905; Gentry v. City of Murrieta, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 1412.)

Thus, in reviewing the adoption of a negative declaration, the concern of both trial courts and appellate courts “is whether there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact.” (Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1348; see Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1123; Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(1).) In this case, the fair argument standard applies to all three substantive issues—historicity, impact, and mitigation—since they all bear on the question of whether an EIR is required. (See City of Oakland, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 905.) “Whether a fair argument can be made is to be determined by examining the entire record.” (Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1348.) The sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument presents a question of law. (City of Oakland, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 905.)

“ ‘In the CEQA context, substantial evidence is “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can *1110 be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” ’ ” (Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1348.) “Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” (§ 21082.2, subd. (c); Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (b).) “If such evidence is found, it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary. [Citations.]” (Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1348; accord, Gentry v. City of Murrieta, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 1400; and see Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a); but see Citizens’ Com. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1168.)

The “fair argument” test is very different from the usual measure of judicial deference given to agency decisions. (Cf., e.g., Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 817, 824 [85 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 977 P.2d 693] [in administrative mandamus action, the trial court exercises its independent judgment but nevertheless “must afford a strong presumption of correctness” to administrative findings; appellate court reviews for substantial evidence].) The fair argument test has limited application. It “was derived from an interpretation of the language of, and policies underlying, section 21151 itself. For this reason, the ‘fair argument’ test has been applied only to the decision whether to prepare an original EIR or a negative declaration. [Citations.]” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

“This test establishes a low threshold for initial preparation of an EIR, which reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. [Citation.]” (Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 703.)

B. Scope of Review

Judicial review for evidence of a fair argument is undertaken “by examining the entire record.” (Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1348.) In this context, that means the entire administrative record. (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 571 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139, 888 P.2d 1268]; Citizens’ Com. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1169; see generally Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 2003) §§ 23.45-23.55, pp. 963-974.)

The appellate record in this case contains material beyond that included in the administrative record. First, the trial court received extra-record evidence. *1111 At the hearing on the petition for writ of mandate, the trial court admitted evidence that was not before the County when it adopted the MND. Specifically, the court received evidence that the state Historic Resources Commission had determined that the Old Jail was eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The record below thus includes evidence beyond that contained in the administrative record. Similarly, on appeal, both parties have requested us to take judicial notice of evidence of subsequent events involving that determination. 6 In addition, amicus curiae has filed an appellate brief with exhibits containing extra-record evidence. 7

Notwithstanding the existence of additional evidence in the appellate record, review is properly limited to that contained in the administrative record, as we advised the parties prior to oral argument. As the California Supreme Court recently recognized, in various “parts of CEQA the Legislature has expressly stated that the existence of substantial evidence depends solely on the record before the administrative agency. For example, in considering whether an environmental impact report must be prepared, the lead agency must determine whether there is ‘substantial evidence in light of the whole record’ before indicating the project may have a ‘significant effect on the environment.’ (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21080, subds. (c) & (d), 21082.2, subds. (a) & (d), italics added.)” (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 571.) The provision at issue here is one that limits review to the administrative record. The statute defining “mitigated negative declaration” refers to the absence of “substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (§ 21064.5, italics added; see Citizens’ Com. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1169.)

In sum, we limit our review to evidence in the administrative record. “Although a reviewing court may take judicial notice of matters not before the trial court,” as we did here, “the reviewing court need not give effect to such evidence.” (Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184, fn. 1 [151 Cal.Rptr. 837, 588 P.2d 1261]; see also Windham at *1112 Carmel Mountain Ranch Assn. v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1162, 1173, fn. 11 [135 Cal.Rptr.2d 834].) It would be improper to give effect to extra-record evidence in this case. We therefore disregard all evidence of events postdating the administrative proceedings, as contained in the parties’ requests for judicial notice, both here and below, and in the exhibits to the brief of amicus curiae.

C. Burden of Proof

Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof with respect to the three substantive questions we address here. With respect to the first two issues: “The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate by citation to the record the existence of substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact. [Citations.]” (City of Oakland, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 904.) Plaintiffs thus must cite evidence in the record supporting a fair argument of (1) historic status and (2) environmental impact. With respect to the third issue: “Upon the issuance of an MND, the project opponent must demonstrate by substantial evidence that the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate and that the project as revised and/or mitigated may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.” (Citizens’ Com. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1167; accord, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water Dist., supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 390.)

Summarizing the three threshold issues, (A) we apply the fair argument standard to all three substantive issues presented—historicity, impact, and mitigation; (B) we limit our review to the administrative record; and (C) we consider whether plaintiffs have carried their burden. With the foregoing principles in mind, we turn to the substantive issues presented by this appeal.

II. Analysis