The Heart of the Lawsuit I Filed against Mendocino County to save the Iconic Water Tower on Mendocino’s Historic Main Street

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Violation of CEQA and County Law)

by Scott Roat

These are the main points of the lawsuit I filed against Mendocino County and the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on June 16, 2025 for alleged CEQA violations regarding proposed destruction of an iconic water tower on Main Street Mendocino. The suit has since been amended, but these are my very first points, very concise, not so much legalese (I’m a total neophyte), and nicely summarizes many of my thoughts. Here it is for ease of understanding what someone the concerns are:

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

1. The subject water tower is more than 50 years old and constructed of old-growth redwood, which is highly durable and decay-resistant. It was relocated in the 1970s to 45040 Main Street, Mendocino, specifically to preserve it.
2. The tower is prominently visible from Main Street and coastal viewpoints and functions as a stairwell entrance to the Flow Restaurant. It is part of the town’s coastal skyline and contributes to its historic character.
3. CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a)(2) and (a)(3) establish that resources over 50 years old are presumed historic unless substantial evidence proves otherwise. No such evidence has been presented.
4. The Mendocino Historical Review Board denied the demolition application three times. Despite these findings, the Board of Supervisors reversed that decision on May 20, 2025.
5. The County relied on a short, surface-level engineering letter from Duncan Engineering, which included no core sampling or structural analysis, no modeling, and no consideration of alternative approaches such as reinforcement or partial restoration.
6. Supervisor Ted Williams, the lone dissenting vote, criticized the report’s lack of technical detail and its inadequate scope for justifying demolition of a historic structure.
7. The report’s author was hired by the applicant, who is represented by an individual with a direct family interest in the property’s redevelopment.
8. No Initial Study, EIR, or formal historical evaluation was conducted. The County proceeded based on an inappropriate categorical exemption.
9. The California Coastal Commission later affirmed the County’s exemption from a Coastal Development Permit, but its letter makes clear that it did not evaluate CEQA compliance or historical impacts.
10. CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(f) prohibits categorical exemptions for projects that may impact historical resources. The County violated this provision.
11. The County also violated CEQA by failing to consider feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, as required by PRC § 21002 and CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4.
12. Local residents, including those familiar with the structure’s history, have affirmed its architectural and cultural value. Public opposition has been substantial.
13. On information and belief, the deterioration used to justify demolition resulted from prolonged neglect by the property owner. In preservation practice, this tactic is known as “demolition by neglect” — the failure to maintain a historic structure in order to later claim it is unsafe. This approach is widely condemned and inconsistent with the public interest in protecting historic resources. Local policies, including the Mendocino Town Plan and Review Board procedures, discourage or prohibit such neglect by requiring good-faith maintenance of contributing structures in the Historic District.
14. By approving demolition in the face of apparent neglect, the County has undermined the intent of local preservation policies and set a harmful precedent. This decision signals to other property owners that historic resources may be allowed to deteriorate in order to justify their removal, threatening the continued integrity of Mendocino’s Historic District — including other iconic water towers, the most iconic landmarks of Mendocino’s historic past.

The other thing I hope to stop is our local ordinance making a formal policy decision no less than three times, and then having someone just run it over the hill to the county seat because they don’t like it. I hope to prevent this from happening in the future, thereby further preserving the unique charm of our costal town!