Two large development proposals in Sausalito are heading toward the City Council at key decision points.
On Oct. 20, the council will hear an appeal by Linda Fotsch of prior city decisions to reject a 49-residence project at 605-613 Bridgeway. The hearing had been scheduled for Tuesday, but the council granted Fotsch a two-week continuance.
“The project you see today is substantially different from the original proposal,” Fotsch said in a letter to the council. “At the city’s request, we increased setbacks, refined the building’s relationship to Bridgeway and Princess Street, and redesigned its architectural style.”
“The city initially worked constructively with me,” she said. “California housing law provides significant remedies when a city unlawfully denies or obstructs qualifying housing, including applicants attorney’s fees, costs and substantial financial penalties.”
Fotsch contends the project is allowed under the city’s 2023 housing element, a state-mandated plan that identifies housing sites and densities. Sausalito updated its plan in January 2025.
However, the city concluded Fotsch can only build an 11-residence structure because the property is in a historic district, and thus shielded from state “density bonus” awards authorized by state law.
The council did not discuss the merits of her appeals but took public comments.
“I support the continuance,” said Sandra Bushmaker, a former councilmember. “It is clear to me that the applicant is exhausting her administrative remedies prior to litigation, and I want to make sure the city is dotting its i’s and crossing its t’s, so to speak, in order to avoid any kind of problem with procedural issues.”
Also on Oct. 20, the council expects to receive a report from City Attorney Sergio Rudin about whether a proposed 294-apartment complex across from Mollie Stone’s Market in the Marinship district can be evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act. That review could take a year or longer.
Earlier this year, Save Our Sausalito, a community group, gathered more than 900 signatures on a petition calling for the environmental impacts of the six-story, 350,000-square-foot project to be assessed under CEQA.
“The city does have the authority to pursue a CEQA analysis,” said Sophia Collier, the group’s chair. The group’s attorney said developer requests for discretionary permits and waivers trigger the review.
Dave Rand, a lawyer for the Bayspring Development Partners, wrote to the city in August and contended the project is exempt and entitled to administrative approval under state housing laws.
Mayor Steven Woodside, a former county government lawyer, said housing and environmental laws clash on whether the city could require a CEQA review.
“Whoever is on the other side of how we harmonize is likely to sue,” he said. “We need to get a clear definitive answer on what our authority is so we can proceed in accordance with that.”
Rudin is expected to report on whether the city can file a suit that raises the issues and gets a court ruling to clarify if it can seek a CEQA review for the complex.