From: City of Fort Bragg
To: Paoli, Diana
Subject: Email contact from Fort Bragg, CA
Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 1:03:05 PM
Message submitted from the <Fort Bragg, CA> website.
Site Visitor Name: Jessica Ehlers
Site Visitor Email: [email protected]
March 10, 2025
Dear Fort Bragg City Council,
I am writing to give support of the development of the Georgia Pacific site. I have lived in Fort Bragg for 40 years. I am a daughter, a wife and mother among other things. I have lived here for 40 years.
In my academic and professional life, I have studied things that contribute to mental illness and addiction. People who don’t have places to live and meaningful work are at much higher risk for complications of both. I believe we are already seeing the consequences of this situation in our community. It’s up to you to decide how we will move forward by building up the infrastructure with our town for us, our children and the children who will come after.
I don’t think I am overstating that since the loss of logging and fishing, Fort Bragg has been contracting at an ever-faster rate. I hope, Dear Council- that we say yes to the opportunity to develop into something more sustainable that will fortify our capacity to live here.
Sincerely, Jessica Ehlers
Jessica Ehlers, LCSW
335 E Fir Street
Fort Bragg CA 95437
(707) 357-4019
From: Jacob Patterson
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment -- 3/10/25 CC Mtg., Continued Mill Site Workshop Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 2:26:23 PM
City Council,
As you may recall, I have consistently advocated for a development agreement process to address the various community and landowner concerns about future development on the Mill Site. I still believe such a process is the right path forward; however, after the first workshop meeting, I am concerned that it isn't being handled well and might be a little off track (or offthe-rails, if you prefer a train theme). Like many others, I have been concerned that the substantive discussions about this process have been going on behind closed doors with limited public participation only to be presented for our collective review after a lot of controversial details have been addressed only privately My fears were compounded when I learned that the team working on this process is already compromised by apparent conflicts of interest and disproportionate participation from landowning parties with their own agenda, including the head of the Noyo Center's board now working as part of the so-called neutral consultant team jointly hired by the City and the Railway. It is entirely appropriate for a stakeholder to advocate for their own interests and objectives through the public planning process but they shouldn't be involved in crafting what is being presented as the City's work and should participate on an even footing with all public participants. Likewise, for the railway itself. It is fine and appropriate for them to advocate for their entity's objectives but who is looking out for the needs and overall concerns of the community and the public at large? The City should be representing our interests but I am not seeing enough of that so far. (It may be there in some way, it just isn't clear to me that it is the case.)
To illustrate, we have the first draft of the land use map component of the illustrative plan and it included details that are aligned with the private proposals of the interested landowners but not the community consensus or even past council direction. Two prominent examples are the conceptual layout of the proposed Noyo Center, which includes changes to the air strip that were already rejected outright as well as changes to the access road to the sewer plant that were also not supported by the City Council. Similarly, the map shows the central mill pond in OUE remaining in place and subdivided into two ponds, which has been proposed by the railway (and will coincidentally remove the existing dam around the pond from the oversight of the California Department of Water Resources' (DWR's) Division of Safety of Dams (DSOE). There is broad community objection to that proposal as well and yet it shows up on the map paired with the daylighting on only Maple Creek leaving off similar daylighting efforts of Alder Creek. Why are these private proposals from the interested landowners directly participating in the closed door discussions, which also have not been conceptually approved by the City Council on behalf of the community, been included in the draft illustrative plan proposals, particularly the specific aspects that have already been rejected? That shouldn't be the case, IMO.
Anyway, I think a development agreement process is the best way to move forward and resolve the underlying concerns and disputes but that process needs to be objective, neutral and focused on the overall community good, not the private interests of involved interested parties. So far, I am not seeing that but I am hopeful that if/when we continue with this process, we keep our focus on the good of the overall community and not just on those with the loudest voices or the deepest pockets.
On a related note, I think it is important to recognize that abandoning a cooperative development agreement approach in favor of litigation followed by usual planning processes would likely delay any meaningful development on the Mill Site for another decade. Why should we have to wait many more years to get started with what most view as very necessary growth (at least if done thoughtfully) to battle it out in court when we can resolve our underlying concerns through the flexible development agreement process? We shouldn't if that is what is at stake. That said, this process needs to be managed well and that appears to need improvement before people can feel comfortable with this cooperative rather than adversarial direction.
Regards,
--Jacob