Letter to the Editor: Why is Mendocino’s history being demolished?

Welcome to our letters to the editor/opinion section. To submit yours for consideration, please send to matthewplafever@gmail.com. Please consider including an image to be used–either a photograph of you or something applicable to the letter. However, an image is not necessary for publication.

Remember opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect that of MendoFever nor have we checked the letters for accuracy.

Editor-

In a 4–1 vote on May 20, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors made a stunning decision: one of the last authentic water towers on Mendocino’s Main Street will come down — despite being protected three times by the very board created to preserve the town’s historic character.

This isn’t just about losing a structure. It’s about whether the Mendocino Historical Review Board (MHRB) — and the community it represents — has any real authority in shaping the future of this iconic village.

A Blow to the Town — and to Public Trust

The MHRB heard this appeal not once, not twice, but three times, and each time, they voted to preserve the water tower. That’s because the tower is not just wood and nails — it’s history. It’s story. It’s a part of the coastal silhouette that defines Mendocino.

- Advertisement -

And yet, in a move that stunned many residents, the Board of Supervisors reversed all three MHRB denials — voting instead to allow demolition.

So now we must ask: If our local historical board can be so easily ignored, what’s the point of having one at all?

Thin Justifications, Ignored Expertise

During the Board meeting, Supervisor Ted Williams — the lone vote to preserve the tower — raised a number of key concerns. He challenged the credibility of the Engineering report, which had been submitted by the property owner. That report largely relied on visual assessments and offered no structural testing, no core sampling, and no preservation alternatives.

To be fair, the engineer likely delivered exactly the scope of report he was hired to produce — no more, no less. But that doesn’t make it the right report for the task at hand, and the pro-removal side attempted to blur that distinction.

For instance, in an effort to bolster the appellant’s case, Tom Hudson claimed the engineering report was 50 pages long — a direct contradiction of Supervisor Ted Williams’ statement that it was just over two pages. In truth, the substantive analysis amounts to about three pages, with the recommendations limited to just three brief paragraphs. Notably, Hudson identified himself as married to a “real estate person who represents the owner of this property.”

Local voices — including one individual who helped move the water tower decades ago — attest to the structure’s enduring strength. Built from old-growth redwood, it is inherently sturdy and naturally resistant to decay. The truth is, a serious remediation plan has simply never been thoughtfully considered.

As for the idea that the tower’s relocation in the 1970s diminished its historic value? That argument holds no water. Relocating structures has long been a recognized strategy in historic preservation. In San Francisco and across the country, buildings have been moved precisely to protect them.

So why was this beloved structure greenlit for destruction?

Appellant attorney Momsen put it bluntly: Because people liked it too much. That was the central claim of the appellant’s attorney. Too many people appreciated it, as simple as that — and so it had to go.

- Advertisement -

As part of a generally lackadaisical stance, this is not a serious legal argument. It’s a hollow justification for undermining a deeply held community value.

CEQA Concerns: Has the County Violated State Law?

Supervisor Williams also raised another serious issue — and it’s one that may yet bring consequences: possible CEQA violations.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), any structure over 50 years old with potential historical significance is presumed to be a historic resource. This water tower, moved in the early 1970s and even older in origin, clearly qualifies. Yet no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared, and no meaningful mitigation was proposed.

If a Notice of Determination (NOD) or Notice of Exemption (NOE) was not properly filed, the CEQA statute of limitations is 30-35 days from project approval. That clock is now ticking.

If neither notice has been filed — or if the filings are flawed — the County may be legally vulnerable. The community still has a chance to act.

Call to Action: Protect What Makes Mendocino Mendocino

Let’s not forget — the Mendocino Coast is the County’s single largest source of revenue. Tourists don’t come here for strip malls or modern development. They come for the timeless charm, the weathered water towers, the character that can’t be fabricated.

The decision to tear down one of our last authentic Main Street towers isn’t just a loss of history — it’s a threat to the identity and economy of the region.

Now is the time to speak up. Let’s preserve the very face of Mendocino, the small-town beauty that has made it a beloved destination for decades. Let’s stand together to defend the historic character that drives tourism, sustains our local businesses, and inspires generations. This is our town. Let’s fight for it.

-Scott Roat, Mendocino Coast Realtor

- Advertisement -