The Sid Commons apartment development that became a flashpoint in local politics can move forward, a Sonoma County judge ruled last week, representing a blow to neighbors who sued on environmental grounds.
In his May 19 decision, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Arthur Wick struck down residents’ claims that the city of Petaluma and project developer J. Cyril Johnson Investment Corporation did not conduct adequate environmental review of the 180-unit development alongside the Petaluma River
Matthew Visick, a San Francisco-based attorney representing the developer, said Tuesday his clients are pleased with the decision.
“We think the county got it right, and we’re looking forward to moving forward with the project,” Visick said.
The decision could pave the way for the developers to take their project before the public once again, this time to gather input and city approval on their architectural and design plans.
The final ruling comes more than a year after the resident-led group, Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands, sued the city and Menlo Park-based developer March 6, 2020, based on claims related to the city’s environmental impact report.
Among them were claims that the city’s report relied on outdated versions of the development, failed to investigate public safety concerns, failed to identify vulnerable species on the parcel and that its analysis of cumulative flooding impacts was factually inaccurate.
Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands’ lawyer Rebecca Davis said in an email Tuesday that the group has not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling, though the decision must be made in the next few months. Petaluma resident Beverly Alexander is the named plaintiff in the case, with all others remaining anonymous.
Davis, who declined to offer further comment on the ruling, has previously characterized her clients as Petaluma residents, the majority of whom live in a neighborhood near the development.
The Sid Commons project, first proposed for development more than 15 years ago, garnered a torrent of public opposition with its latest iteration, introduced in 2019 and early 2020.
The project design calls for 180 units spread among two- to three-story buildings, a reduction from a previous 278-unit plan, along with a swimming pool and clubhouse.
The city council approved the complex in February 2020, overturning the planning commission’s prior rejection.
Some community members pointed to the 19-acre parcel’s two wetlands, its several mature oak trees and proximity to a largely undeveloped stretch of the Petaluma River as reasons why the development should not go forward.
Dozens of residents packed city hall chambers over fears the project would increase flooding in the neighborhood, touching on sensitive memories in an area of town that has seen devastating floods in the past.
However, in his decision, Wick said residents offered no evidence proving their claims, and in some cases, only “speculation.”
City staff said at the time of approval that the project underwent all required environmental reviews, but questions about environmental safeguards lingered among dozens of residents, as well and the two council members who voted to reject the planned development.
Mayor Teresa Barrett and then-Vice Mayor D’Lynda Fischer sharply criticized the apartment complex proposal, arguing the riverside parcel is too fragile for development.
The city’s Climate Action Commission criticized the city council for its approval of the project last year, slamming a decision that some commissioners suggested was out of line with the city’s stated climate emergency goals.
In the wake of the outraged response, former council members Gabe Kearney, Kathy Miller and current council member Mike Healy drafted a joint opinion piece defending their vote and the project itself in the pages of the Argus-Courier. The vote became a heated discussion point on local social media and amid the 2020 city council election, which unseated Kearney and Miller.
Contact Kathryn Palmer at kathryn.palmer@arguscourier.com, on Twitter @KathrynPlmr.