The Fort Bragg City Council on Monday approved a resolution accepting the Mill Site Development Strategy Draft Report as a guideline for future planning on the city’s oceanfront mill site, a former Georgia Pacific lumber mill now under scrutiny for its toxic legacy.
The vote was 3-1, with Councilmembers Chris Hockett and Marcia Rafanan voting in favor, along with Mayor Jason Godeke. Councilmember Tess Albin-Smith cast the lone opposing vote, citing concerns over inadequate time for public review. Councilmember Lindy Peters was absent while participating in a golf tournament in Monterey.
Public comments reflected a city deeply divided over the plan and the pace of the process. More than half a dozen residents urged the council to delay the vote, noting that the 59-page document was made public only five days before Monday’s meeting.
“The city has repeatedly stated ... that the development of the Headlands Master Development Agreement can only be successful if it is conducted in a highly transparent fashion,” resident Peter McNamee said. “Yet this very important report was released to the public just five days before tonight’s consideration.”
McNamee called for postponing the vote until after a public workshop scheduled for June 26.
Resident Jade Tippett also urged a delay, raising concerns about the report’s accuracy. He noted that the property is no longer owned by Mendocino Railway but by Sierra Northern Railway, a fact not reflected in city documents. Tippett further questioned whether the responsibility for cleaning up hazardous waste at the site — a liability previously estimated at $60 million — had transferred to the new owner.
“Here’s the question: Did the liability for the cleanup of the millsite … get transferred to Sierra Northern Railway along with the asset value?” Tippett asked.
Supporters of moving forward argued that the report is not a final plan but a step in an ongoing process.
“There has been a ton of public participation and it continues,” said Jenny Shattuck. “That’s why I think this needs to be signed. I believe this is to focus on the process, while many seem to be focused on the content — which would come at future meetings.”
Resident Jacob Patterson said the city should not waste further money by halting the process, even though he was unimpressed by the report.
“There’s no scenario where I don’t think you should still direct staff to proceed,” he said. “It would be a total waste for us to just abandon that right now — not to mention the costs.”
Albin-Smith disagreed.
“There is no rhyme or reason to rush this through,” she said. “I’d really like to give people a chance to read this and participate in the public workshop.”
Godeke said moving forward is critical to resolving long-standing issues tied to the site.
“I feel very strongly about moving forward with this process,” he said. “A lot of the work that’s been done in the report is useful, but I’m particularly keen to see the work that needs to happen over the next weeks and months.”
Following the vote, the council directed staff to prepare for a public workshop on June 26, with a second workshop to be scheduled for July.
