MENDOCINO CO., 3/4/26 — County authorities have upheld plans to reduce landscaping in Gualala’s downtown enhancement program, rejecting an appeal that protested the reduction. The decision is a blow to residents who viewed the inclusion of native plants as mandatory to Gualala’s streetscape. With construction slated to start this year, the ruling virtually finalizes a decades-long process to design the town’s commercial area, a .4 mile-stretch bordering Highway 1.
A basic outline for the downtown improvement was first laid out in the Gualala Town Plan in 2002. The document is the certified Local Coastal Plan of the area, which provides a framework for development in Gualala.
Much of the plan aims to address Gualala’s changing needs. As the town transitioned from a logging hub to a tourist destination, the community realized that Gualala required a safer and more attractive downtown. Included in these plans are bike lanes, additional crosswalks, pedestrian safety islands, and landscaping that, according to the plan, “shall provide an aesthetic complement to the pedestrian walkways.” The original document even has a list of 174 recommended plant species to aid in this landscaping vision.
In the years since the LCP’s publication, several iterations of streetscapes for Gualala were conceived and subsequently rejected. Finally, in May of 2023, Caltrans presented “Alternative 5” to a crowded town hall. The plan’s diagrams portrayed a vibrant Gualala, with traffic islands and sidewalks teeming with native plants. Alternative 5 proved popular and was later passed by Gualala’s Municipal Advisory Council (GMAC) and the California Transportation Commission.
After winning public approval and passing state regulation, locals were under the impression that Alternative 5 was set to go. Behind closed doors, however, the plan had been changed. In the files Caltrans submitted for a Coastal Development Permit in November 2024, all landscaping had been removed from the schema. Where there were once pockets of native plants were now concrete beds and asphalt.
These new plans did not come to the public’s attention until May of 2025, on the day the Coastal Development Permit went before GMAC. The townsfolk who had been following the downtown’s development were shocked and indignant – the new design looked radically different from what Caltrans had presented to them a few years ago. Among the objectors was Tom Murphy, founder of Save Gualala, a local environmental group that had been monitoring the project for the past six years.
“They had one job to do, 24 years, a quarter of a century, and they blew it,” said Murphy of the landscape removal.
In a Mendocino County Coastal Permit Administrator hearing in June of 2025, Mendocino County Planning and Building Services staff and Caltrans explained their decision to nix the landscaping. The main reason came down to a refusal by government entities to take on any maintenance duties.
“Landscaping was removed essentially because Caltrans would not be responsible for maintaining the landscaping in perpetuity and the county Department of Transportation is unwilling to accept responsibility for maintaining the landscaping,” Liam Crowley, staff planner for Mendocino County, said in the meeting.
In an email to the Mendocino Voice, Crowley explained that Mendocino County was initially hesitant to enter into a maintenance agreement due to a lack of current funding sources, a lack of county staff for landscape maintenance, and an inability to take on the liability risk and potential cost of legal fees or damages for accidents resulting from the landscape’s maintenance.
The county has since agreed to maintain 5,100 square feet of landscaping, divided between the north and south ends of town. Mendocino County believes this concession is sufficient to fulfill Gualala’s LCP.
Despite these additions, Save Gualala and its supporters remained unsatisfied. According to Murphy, the current plans deliver a quarter of the landscaping contained in the original Alternative 5. Save Gualala also claims that the sections Caltrans proposes to landscape are areas where wild grasses and hedges already grow.
On November 14, 2025, Save Gualala submitted an appeal to the Coastal Development Permit. In it, they claim that Caltrans misled the public. They also argue that the current streetscape plans violate Gualala’s LCP. Save Gualala believes that, per Gualala’s LCP, fiscal constraints should bear no weight on fulfilling the document’s strict requirements, which include the installation of ample landscaping. To secure funding, the organization recommended using county Transient Occupancy Tax funds. They also argued that the estimated cost of maintenance had been grossly inflated in the county’s report.
The appeal was rejected in January by the California Coastal Commission staff on the grounds that the omission of landscaping was not a substantial issue.
Save Gualala then began to prepare a rebuttal to the commission’s decision, which would be presented to the 12 voting members of the California Coastal Commission. They collected 1,748 signatures and over 180 statements to back their case.
These statements cited aesthetic, environmental, and economic concerns, along with accusations of broken promises.
“…Plant landscaping is mandated in the Coastal Plan to preserve Gualala’s rural character, enhance the visual appeal of our community, and support local businesses by creating a more inviting downtown environment,” reads one.
“We need integrity restored in our civic relationships. We need to be able to trust that what is agreed upon is what will be done,” states another.
On February 4, Tom Murphy, armed with these statements and similar, stepped in front of the commission to testify. His rebuttal was unanimously rejected.
Murphy felt disheartened by the committee’s reception.
“It was clear they hadn’t read it. Save Gualala sent all the commissioners copies of our rebuttal and a PowerPoint presentation. We got only three minutes to speak about a project with a 30-year history,” he said.
With both their appeal and rebuttal rejected, Save Gualala and its supporters have exhausted all avenues within the county administrative process. In addition, the organization has chosen to avoid a lawsuit over the matter. The downtown enhancement project relies on time-sensitive grants, and any further delays could jeopardize the delivery of the entire streetscape.
Now, Save Gualala is seeking ways to incorporate more landscaping within the current plan. In a Facebook post thanking its supporters, Save Gualala wrote, “Save Gualala will pursue LCP-compliant landscaping options with appropriate agencies…,” though it is still unclear what these options might be.
According to Crowley, Mendocino County is actively working with Caltrans to finalize the project’s paperwork. The agency aims to begin the two-year construction process by the end of this year.
Once the project breaks ground, it will mark the completion of a 24-year deliberation process.
Says Murphy of the end being in sight – “it’s bittersweet for me, but Save Gualala, our official position is we are glad the project is moving forward.”
Glad the county is willing to dump $500,000 into for water lobbyist but doesn’t give a shit about residents outside the Ukiah corridor.
We need new supervisors willing to work with staff to reflect the needs of ALL county residents (ahem, Ted…)
Maybe the folks who are so adamant about the landscaping should harness their energy to create a volunteer core of likeminded people to do it, perhaps with the help of the Gualala merchants. That’s what I would call community.
Old timers here have long learned that replying on Ukiah is a fool’s errand.
The “Save Gualala” group was backed by local prop. owners who were opposed due to their issues. Look deeper! The parking they complained about was because they’d have to give up land; the landscape issue was an excuse that they’ve used for years to delay a much-needed SAFE passage for cars, bikes, and especially LOCAL residents and tourists who would like to walk to businesses in the area. The locals should water the plants anyway. The way it is is super unsafe. Thankfully, the CC and county didn’t delay this LONG overdue safety problem – plus, we’ll get more foot traffic to support our local businesses who deserve the revenues!
I am writing from Covelo and this article is the first I have known about this disappointing process with a local MAC, the County DOT and CalTrans, but I am not surprised. CalTrans is not usually a smooth and responsive agency, and County DOT has a well deserved reputation for not paying attention and then saying “no.” If Gualala has anything like a community services district that outfit, if notified in time, may have been able to start the process to adopt the maintenance of the landscaping as an additional responsibility, and therefore get a run around the County’s refusal to take on any more work or expense. There is a process to initiate the local approval for a benefit assessment. This all takes time, too late now, but if the MAC knew about the decision months ago the process could be well on its way and Gualala might have been able to keep the landscaping as originally planned.
Where was Supervisor Ted Williams on this? The article doesn’t mention any involvement of the Board of Supervisors in this process.