A 109-foot tower doesn't belong in our historic district.
Proposed
Massing
Outright denial — the project sits inside the historic district, which gives legal grounds to stop it.
Updates
Latest from the campaign
More updates →
Protect the Princess Grove habitat
Behind the storefronts at 605 Bridgeway and 83 Princess stands a grove of eleven coast live oaks — about 45 feet tall and nearly a century old. SOS commissioned wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, who documented special-status species living there, among them great horned owls, Allen's hummingbirds, and red-shouldered hawks. His report estimates the building's expanse of reflective glass would cause an estimated 147 bird-window collision deaths a year.
More on the wildlife →
Best-selling author Amy Tan speaks out on the project's threat to local birds
“This proposed building is an eyesore that would damage the unique beauty of our town. Its expanse of glass windows reflecting the bay would lure birds that would be killed by colliding into what appears to be sky. These high-end residences would also be lit at night and attract and kill migrating birds. Sausalito is the varied habitat for hundreds of species of birds that are both year-round residents and visiting fall migrants from September – April. As a board member of American Bird Conservancy and a Sausalito homeowner whose backyard has been visited by 66 species of birds, I voice my strong objection to this proposed building detrimental to both our town's historic character and its wildlife.”
— Amy Tan, Sausalito resident; board member, American Bird Conservancy
Oversized projects don't belong in the historic district
Downtown Sausalito draws roughly a million visitors a year, and it's one of only twelve certified historic districts in California — the State has called its commercial architecture some of the most notable of its time. A 109-foot tower would loom over a district built at two and three stories, and the City's own consultants warn the project could shrink the district, or strip its historic designation entirely.
The history of this block →The case
Why we oppose this
It will damage the Historic District
This out of scale, non compliant project that has no place in the Historic District.
It destroys protected bird habitat.
Biologists documented special-status species the developer's plan ignores.
The developer is gaming the state density bonus.
Misusing the law to improperly dodge local review and inflate the project.
The city has the power to stop it.
Inside the historic district, outright denial is on the table — unlike most other areas of the city.
From the City's Own Expert
“The construction of such a large and visually obtrusive building within the heart of downtown Sausalito would almost certainly result in the redesignation of 605-07 and 611-13 Bridgeway as non-contributors — significantly reducing the size of the historic district, or de-listing it entirely.”
Location
Where is it
605–613 Bridgeway, Sausalito, CA 94965 · APN 065-132-16
“You would see it from the ferry, the promenade, the hills. This project does not belong in the Historic District.”
How we got here — the full timeline▸
The record
Timeline
January 2024
The "Waterstreet" project is filed
A 50-unit, seven-story building — 109 feet — in the heart of the historic district. (The applicant claims 85 feet using the average-grade "air-lift.")
March 2024
SOS launches a petition
By June 2024 it had grown to 2,300 signatures.
Read the document ↓March 2024
The City's own historic report
An independent study the City commissioned (Holan Associates) finds the project would damage the historic buildings and the district.
Read the document ↓April 2024
SOS builds the case
SOS files expert reports documenting the harm: protected-bird and wildlife habitat (Dr. Shawn Smallwood), the buildings' historic significance (Connor Turnbull), and a historic peer review (Watson Heritage Consulting).
Read the document ↓October 2024
The application is deemed complete
Starting the City's 30-day clock to document its concerns.
Read the document ↓November 2024
The City issues an 18-page inconsistency letter
The project is complete but not approved — inconsistent with the City's height, density, and historic-preservation standards — and environmental review is required.
Read the document ↓February 2025
Removed from the Housing Element
605 is kept out of voter-approved Measure J, so the site stays protected by the historic district's 32-foot limit (Ordinance 1022).
March 2025
A second City historic study
A report the City commissioned (VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting) warns the project could shrink the historic district — or lead to its de-listing.
Read the document ↓April 2025
The Planning Commission denies the developer's appeal (4–1)
Upholding the City's finding that the project is inconsistent and not exempt from environmental review.
Read the document ↓April 2025
The developer appeals to the City Council
Now
Awaiting a City Council hearing
The appeal has not yet been heard or scheduled.
Key documents (23)▸
Take action