Mendocino County continues Caltrans Gualala streetscape permit after dispute over landscaping and parking

The Mendocino County Coastal Permit Administrator continued public hearings on June 26, 2025, on Caltrans’ coastal development permit application CBP2024-0040 for the Gualala downtown streetscape project, citing concerns raised in public comment over removal of landscaping and the elimination of informal on‑street parking. The administrator set the next hearing for July 10, 2025, at 11 a.m. and indicated no additional public notice will be issued; hearing materials will be posted with the July 10 agenda.

The project, led by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with funding support from the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), would reconfigure a section of State Route 1 between Post Mile 0.6 and 1 to add two 11‑foot travel lanes, a 12‑foot two‑way left‑turn lane in portions, two 5‑foot class‑2 bicycle lanes, sidewalks (6‑ and 5‑foot widths in different segments), an 8‑foot right‑of‑way strip on both sides, five mainline crosswalks and three side‑street crosswalks with pedestrian‑activated flashing beacons, a radar speed‑feedback sign, median islands, drainage upgrades including a bioswale, relocation of utilities, and removal of informal on‑street parking. The project footprint would require right‑of‑way adjustments and includes erosion‑control measures, new drainage inlets and culverts, and other stormwater features.

Why it matters: Project supporters and local officials say the design will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and drainage in the downtown core; opponents say removing landscape features and all on‑street parking will harm downtown businesses and the community character. Caltrans staff told the hearing that delaying the project beyond the 2025–26 fiscal year risks loss of construction funding and could push the work out of the 2026 construction season.

Staff presentation and environmental findings

Liam Crowley, Mendocino County planning staff, told the Coastal Permit Administrator that the application is the product of more than 20 years of planning, beginning with adoption of the Gualala Town Plan in 2002 and multiple design iterations between 2007 and 2023. Crowley said Caltrans prepared a CEQA negative declaration with Caltrans as lead agency and that Mendocino County, as a responsible agency, agrees with the determinations in that document. Crowley reported the project would not affect Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) 1 and 4 but would result in about 0.0165 acres of temporary or permanent impacts to ESHA 2 and 3; Caltrans proposes on‑site riparian replanting at a 1:1 ratio and purchase of mitigation credits to offset temporal impacts. Crowley recommended approval with the staff report findings and conditions, plus an additional finding and condition memorializing a staff memo addressing landscaping and parking discussions.

Permits and regulatory requirements referenced in the staff report include compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Section 1602 authorization, and U.S. Clean Water Act Section 404/State Water Quality Certification (401) coordination with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Stormwater treatment measures and an NPDES permit requirement were also discussed.

Caltrans position

Katie Everett, Caltrans project manager, said the agency supports moving the project forward and emphasized budget, schedule and maintenance constraints that led to removal of the decorative landscaping element from the current construction scope. “Caltrans has worked diligently to deliver this project within the constraints that we have,” Everett said. She described the project’s widened bike lanes, repaving, drainage improvements and sidewalks as “very crucial to the community” and said additional delays would increase costs and jeopardize the project’s ability to be delivered within the available funding window.

On landscaping, Everett and other Caltrans staff explained that Caltrans’ highway design manual favors low‑maintenance, native grasses and similar vegetation that can be managed by Caltrans maintenance crews; shrubs and trees envisioned in earlier design iterations require irrigation, pruning and ongoing care that Caltrans does not have the maintenance capacity or funding to provide without a local landscape maintenance agreement. Everett said Caltrans will include stormwater‑related plantings for the bioswale as required for NPDES compliance and indicated willingness to facilitate future landscaping through an encroachment‑permit process if a local funding or maintenance mechanism is identified. Caltrans also said it is engaged in right‑of‑way acquisition discussions and that one property owner requested Caltrans present a resolution of necessity to the California Transportation Commission as part of eminent‑domain proceedings.

Public comment: businesses and residents oppose loss of landscaping and parking

More than a dozen members of the public spoke, including current and former Gualala Municipal Advisory Council (GMAC) members, property owners and business operators. Speakers frequently urged restoring the decorative landscaping and preserving on‑street parking. Tom Murphy, a former GMAC member speaking for “1,700 plus supporters of Save Alla,” said the project “would have written the very heart out of this project” if landscaping is removed and urged approval only with a condition restoring curb strips and islands before project completion. “There’s $60,000 in the project budget for plants and $80,000 for two years of plant establishment,” Murphy said; he also asserted earlier cost estimates were higher.

Business owners and tenants said loss of parallel parking would harm customer access for restaurants, grocery and service businesses and for workers who need space for trucks and trailers. Robert Bowen, owner/operator of Upper Crest Pizza, said the downtown is takeout‑oriented and that removing curb parking could “possibly ruin my business.” Attorney Steven Johnson, representing Bauer Limited Partnership, argued that loss of private parking raises constitutional takings and eminent‑domain concerns and said the project, as described in staff findings, is inconsistent with some Gualala town‑plan policies as they relate to landscaping and compatibility with existing commercial uses.

GMAC support and local government comments

Dave Schbach, GMAC secretary, told the hearing that GMAC reviewed the project on May 7 and unanimously recommended approval of the coastal development permit with six conditions that had been transmitted to county staff. Nafili Barrett, executive director of the Mendocino Council of Governments, said MCOG is a funding partner and that Caltrans had attempted to preserve some on‑street parking during design but was informed by the Coastal Commission that on‑street parking would likely not be allowed in the proposed configuration. Barrett urged approval to realize safety and multimodal benefits while noting that the town plan identifies funding mechanisms for future decorative landscaping that the community could pursue.

Technical and safety points

Caltrans staff and some commenters emphasized safety improvements. The project includes pedestrian‑activated beacons, better crosswalks and bike lanes intended to reduce collision risk and improve visibility at driveways, Caltrans said. The county staff report and Caltrans representatives described bioswale and other drainage work as intended to treat stormwater and reduce contaminant discharges.

County action and next steps

Coastal Permit Administrator Kroger (first name not stated on the record) closed the public hearing and continued the item to the July 10, 2025, agenda at 11 a.m. Kroger said counsel may be asked to weigh in on recusal questions and confirmed that all public comments are part of the record. Caltrans staff told the hearing a July continuance would not immediately jeopardize capital funding but warned that pushing construction past the 2026 season risks cost escalations and the potential loss of funding tied to the 2025–26 fiscal year. Hearing materials including staff reports and the landscaping memo will be posted with the July 10 agenda.

The hearing record includes multiple technical clarifications requested by speakers on whether proposed vegetated bioswales are “landscaping” (Caltrans: no; they are stormwater treatment facilities and plantings will follow NPDES specifications) and whether changes in drainage near the Surf Market and Breakers Inn would replace a concrete lined swale (a county property‑owner commenter asked that the existing concrete swale remain to protect foundations and reduce slope instability).

Votes at a glance

No final permit decision or vote was taken on June 26. The Coastal Permit Administrator continued the hearing to July 10, 2025.

Ending

The county record remains open and materials will be posted with the July 10 agenda. The administrator asked parties and counsel to prepare for possible recusal advice and for further discussion of conditions of approval, mitigation measures and the specific language addressing future landscaping opportunities via encroachment permits.