Sausalito Council Rejects Bridgeway Appeal, Holds Density to 29 Units Per Acre
City Council • SausalitoOctober 20, 2026
Locunity is an independent informational service and is not an official government page for this commission. All information is sourced from public footage and an analysis of official agendas with the aid of responsible, fact-checked AI. to report an error or omission.
Sausalito’s City Council on Oct. 20, 2026, denied Willys LLC’s appeal for a 50-unit housing project at 605-613 Bridgeway. The vote was 4-0, with Councilmember Ian Patrick Sobieski recused. The council adopted findings that cap base density at 29 units per acre and require environmental review in the downtown historic district. The ruling builds a legal record for a likely fight under state housing law, while flood season and a local El Niño emergency loom.
- Bridgeway appeal denied 4-0-1, with base density set at 29 units per acre, not 49
- No CEQA exemption: council says the project may harm historic buildings, so an initial study is required
- Council rejects bad-faith delay claim and approves a formal response to the developer’s notice
- Residents overwhelmingly urge denial, and a few speakers back new housing downtown
- El Niño emergency ratified as king tides near 7 feet are forecast for Thanksgiving week
Bridgeway Project Hits Density, History Walls
The basics: Willys LLC appealed the Planning Commission’s decision (Resolution 2025-07) upholding staff determinations on a 50-unit project at 605-613 Bridgeway. Acting Community Development Director Neil Toft said the hearing was narrow: “the council is not deciding whether to approve or deny the project tonight.”
Why it matters: The findings decide how big the project can be and whether it can skip environmental review. Together they frame a likely court fight under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), the state law that limits how cities can block housing.
Where things stand: The applicant argued that the city’s 2023 housing element committed it to 49 units per acre and that SB 330 froze that standard. “It creates what are called vested rights for the applicant to proceed,” said Ken Stahl, legal counsel to Willys LLC. Linda Foch, the applicant’s representative, said, “That was the city’s housing plan for this project, not mine.”
The city attorney countered: “the city is entitled to change its housing element.” Staff and Councilmember Joan Cox said the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) advised that base density comes from zoning and land use. They added that the land use element has allowed 29 units per acre since 2021, and that SB 786, which took effect Jan. 1, 2026, is not retroactive. Under that reading, the site allows 16 units at base density and 32 with a density bonus, well short of 50.
History and design: Staff said the site holds two buildings listed on the California Register inside the Sausalito Historic District. A consultant found the project does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s standards, and the general plan’s environmental review studied only 29 units per acre. “In my mind, the issue of the historic district is paramount,” said Mayor Steven Woodside. Councilmember Jill James Hoffman cited nine historic reports.
Hoffman also pressed staff on 10 two-bedroom affordable units of 500 to under 650 square feet. Most face the rear and have one egress window. Staff confirmed the applicant had not explained how two bedrooms would fit. The applicant said the units average 600 square feet. “Our lower-income residents and neighbors deserve better,” said Vice Mayor Melissa Blaustein. One of Cox’s findings cites state Health and Safety Code 17929.
Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Cox moved to deny the appeal and adopt 20 findings, and Hoffman seconded. The vote was For: 4 (Woodside, Blaustein, Cox, Hoffman), Against: 0, Recused: 1 (Sobieski). A separate motion approving the Attachment 1 resolution with Cox’s added findings passed with four yes votes. Cox said part of the delay stems from the developer: “the city has been unable to take CEQA review because the applicant has not yet paid the required fee for that initial study.”
What’s next: To proceed, the applicant must submit revised plans and pay for an initial study.
A Packed Room, Mostly Against
Where things stand: Twenty-one residents spoke on the appeal, and most urged denial. They cited the project’s scale, the historic district, parking, traffic and the design of the affordable units. Save Our Sausalito sent two speakers. Sophia Collier criticized staff’s late alternative, which would have granted the appeal on density: “The city’s own staff acknowledged the interpretation of Option B is legally uncertain.” Richard Drury, also speaking for Save Our Sausalito, ran the density-bonus math: “So no matter how you cut this cake, it doesn’t get you to 50.” Vicki Nichols, chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, said destroyed historic structures cannot be mitigated and urged adoption of Attachment 1.
The other side: Chris Sullivan urged approval, citing business closures downtown. Arthur Guevara, who owns adjacent property, faulted the city for designating the site an opportunity site and then restricting it. Luke Anthony, a prospective buyer, described how little housing is for sale in Sausalito.
Ballot crosscurrents: Ordinance 1022, a 1983 measure that lets only voters amend central commercial district standards, became a flashpoint. Stahl argued state law preempts it. “Ordinance 1022 already existed back in 1983,” Cox replied. Speakers tied the fight to Measure X, which goes before voters in two weeks. Nash said he supports Measure X but opposes this project. Linda Pfeiffer said she will vote no to protect residents’ right to vote under Ordinance 1022.
Fairness flag: Before public comment, Woodside said he was prepared to deny the appeal. Cox objected, citing the Brown Act, the state’s open meetings law: the council should hear “from every member of the public that wishes to weigh in on this before we decide our final course of action.” Stahl later called the remark improper. “I did not say anything about this case, Mr. Stahl,” Woodside said. The exchange is now part of the record in a hearing likely headed to court.
Council Denies It Stalled Housing on Purpose
Why it matters: Willys LLC filed a challenged conduct notice, a formal HAA claim that the city acted to delay the project. The city’s response becomes its defense if the developer sues.
Where things stand: The city attorney framed the legal test: “is the city undertaking conduct for the specific purpose of harassment, unnecessarily delay increases in cost, or for other improper purposes.” He said complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not the same as disapproving a project. Staff said HAA fines apply only if a city defies a court order, and that attorney’s fees are the main risk.
The other side: Stahl argued the city’s incompleteness letters, its housing element amendment and Ordinance 1022 add up to illegal obstruction. “State law prohibits a city from engaging in a course of conduct that is calculated to delay, to frustrate a project, or to raise an applicant’s costs,” he said. He also warned that penalties multiply by five for each violation and raised the risk of housing element decertification.
Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Cox found no evidence of improper purpose and added language on CEQA and SB 786. Cox moved the response, and Hoffman seconded. It passed For: 4, Against: 0, with Sobieski recused.
What’s next: Staff said a second filing from Oct. 6 would be answered in January 2027. The applicant said that letter is a comment, not a new notice.
El Niño Emergency Ratified as King Tides Approach
The basics: Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a statewide emergency Sept. 21. Interim City Manager Brandon Phipps proclaimed a local emergency Oct. 16, and the council ratified it on the consent calendar.
Why it matters: The proclamation lets the city issue temporary orders, redeploy staff, buy quickly and call in mutual aid. It does not authorize no-bid contracts or guarantee reimbursement. “It does not bring disaster funding now,” Phipps said. That makes documenting local conditions and costs key to any later recovery.
Where things stand: King tides of about 7 feet are forecast for Thanksgiving week, around Christmas (peaking about Dec. 24) and in late January. Bids for the Gate 5 tide gate open Oct. 30. The city may add a cofferdam, a temporary barrier that keeps water out of a work area, and pumps at a cost of about $280,000. Engineering is underway to raise Varda Landing Circle.
The other side: Wendy Richards said the flooding report and the emergency ratification are not routine and do not belong on consent. Sandra Bushmaker supported the emergency measures but called it contradictory to add density on the waterfront. Woodside said, “we’ve had at least 3 fully blown discussions about these issues.”
Decisions and stakeholder impacts: The consent calendar passed with four recorded yes votes. Asked how the emergency ends, Phipps said, “we will continue to assess it every 60 days.” The council can rescind the order or decline to renew it.
What’s next: The 60-day review falls by Dec. 15.
- Pay schedule: Approved 5-0. Updates for positions not covered by a union contract, including the police chief, cost “about $57,411 for fiscal year 2027,” said Human Resources Manager Kathy Nikitas. The three-year cost is about $60,908, absorbed through vacancy savings.
- New fire chief: Southern Marin Fire introduced Heather Marquez, a 20-year Alameda County Fire veteran and the district’s sixth chief. She said she has already held about four meetings on flood and El Niño response.
- Closed session: The council discussed two anticipated-litigation matters, with no reportable action.
- Consent extras: The council approved commemorative plaques for Dorothy Gibson and Ann Arnott and accepted the library’s first-quarter report.
Looking ahead: The council will not meet on Election Day. Its next regular meeting is Nov. 17.