Coastal Commission to Weigh 83-Unit Fort Bragg Development: Views, Water Traffic at Issue
The commission will consider seven appeals filed by local residents on Wednesday, September 10.
5:39 p.m. September 9. We updated the story to include written comments from Teresa Skarr.
The fate of a proposed 83-unit mixed-use development in Fort Bragg hangs in the balance as state regulators weigh whether it complies with the city’s Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal Act. The California Coastal Commission is scheduled to meet Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2025, to consider seven appeals filed by residents challenging the City of Fort Bragg’s approval of the project at 1151 S. Main St.
Applicant Kosh Grewal proposes seven apartment buildings ranging from 32 to 38 feet tall with 86 residential units, including eight designated as affordable for very low-income households. The plan also includes a 1,000-square-foot commercial/retail space and four visitor-serving hotel suites on the ground floors of buildings facing Highway 1, with one suite offered at a low-cost rate. Other features include a 107-space parking lot, an outdoor play area, landscaping, a 5-foot-high sound wall, and a public access path with signage to Pomo Bluffs Park.
The Fort Bragg City Council approved the project in March amid significant neighborhood opposition focused on the project’s scale and the city’s approval process.
At Monday’s council meeting, appellant Paul Clark criticized the city for not using story poles—temporary framing that shows a project’s height and massing—before approval. Neighbors erected their own poles over the weekend to illustrate the scale, which Clark said drew strong reactions from passersby.
The appeals raise four main issues:
Land use and zoning. Appellants argue the project does not conform to requirements for the Highway Visitor Commercial (CH) district, which restricts residential uses to upper floors or—if on the ground floor—to the rear of buildings. They contend the project prioritizes private residential uses over visitor-serving uses, designated as priority uses in the CH district, and exceeds the allowed residential density of 24 dwelling units per acre. The site is a 2.6-acre vacant lot.
Water quality and hydrology. Appellants cite concerns about potential contamination and impacts on local water sources. They say the city did not address 10 bore holes drilled on the site about five years ago and provided no evidence they were properly sealed or decommissioned. They also argue the city relied on an outdated groundwater report for an adjacent site and did not require a project-specific hydrologic analysis, leaving potential effects on the Todd Point aquifer unknown.
Visual resources. Opponents say the buildings would obstruct public views from Highway 1 to the coastline and could undermine the “small-town” character that draws visitors.
Traffic and public access. Residents, including Kathleen Zarrabi, questioned whether added traffic would overwhelm local roads and discourage visitors. “Do they really want to be stuck at Ocean Drive and Highway 1 for 20 minutes?” she asked.
Coastal Commission staff recommended a “no substantial issue” determination on the seven appeals, which would allow the project to proceed. The staff report noted several issues raised by appellants that are outside the Commission’s purview because they do not allege inconsistencies with the certified Local Coastal Program or the Coastal Act’s public access policies. Those excluded topics include a flawed noise study and noise levels, inadequate public hearing notices, and failure to conduct meaningful environmental review under CEQA.
Staff also did not consider alleged inaccurate statement made by planner Marie Jones to the city council or the city’s initial failure to make scientific reports relevant to their review available to the public.
”There are significant problems with every report relied upon by the city,” Teresa Skarr wrote in written comments. “All City statements and City Staff resolutions are not supported by valid, scientific evidence.'“
Despite the staff recommendation, appellants urged council members to attend Wednesday’s hearing, expressing hope the Commission will take a closer look.