Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newark council upholds permit allowing removal of large eucalyptus at Waterford complex
Summary
The City Council affirmed the Public Works Director’s decision to allow removal of a large, hazardous eucalyptus (Tree 199) on Waterford Association property after staff and an independent arborist found structural decay and root intrusion. Residents and the appellant urged trimming and more transparency; council voted to affirm staff 5-0.
Newark City Council on Feb. (date not specified) affirmed a staff decision to issue a tree-removal permit allowing the Waterford Association to remove a large eucalyptus (Tree 199) adjacent to condominiums at the Waterford complex. The council voted to affirm the Public Works Director’s permit issuance by a unanimous vote.
Staff said the eucalyptus presented an elevated risk to nearby structures and people. “The arborist report indicated that Tree 199 has a decay pocket at the base of the tree, overextended limbs, and large roots growing into a structure,” Public Works Director Howard Young told the council, summarizing staff’s inspection and the association’s arborist report.
The city’s arborist, Dan Cien Cirillo, reviewed both reports and concurred with the recommendation for removal, Young said. That assessment, staff said, meant the municipal code’s conditions for denying a permit were not met.
Appellant Molly Connolly asked the council to defer or modify the permit and to require clearer permits and tag numbers for individual trees. Connolly said her own arborist found the tree could be saved and that the association had not provided requested documentation. “If they trim the tree, even if they starkly trim the tree, at least they’d save the tree,” Connolly said during her remarks.
Representing the Waterford Association, President Ryan Serene said the association had completed a full tree inventory in October and paid for a level‑2 assessment of the remaining eucalyptus. He said one of the assessments recommended immediate removal of Tree 199 because of root decay, a cavity and canopy overhang above nearby roofs. Unit owner Charles Gee, who lives next to the tree, told the council the tree has repeatedly dropped branches and damaged gutters and that he and his wife consider it a safety hazard.
Council discussion centered on the municipal code criteria staff must apply when deciding to issue or deny a private‑property tree removal permit, and on whether the public interest in preserving the tree outweighed risks to residents and structures. Staff cited Newark Municipal Code sections 8.16.040 and 8.16.060 as the governing standards.
After discussion, a motion to affirm the Public Works Director’s decision carried unanimously. The council record shows the vote as 5-0 to affirm issuance of Permit 15120 (Tree 199), with no amendments recorded.
The Waterford Association said it paid for the tree inventory and has begun trimming and removing other hazardous trees on the property; the association also said it plans to replant in the future once hazard mitigation and irrigation needs are addressed.
The council’s formal action allows the association to proceed under the terms of the issued permit. The city manager and public works staff said they would continue to coordinate with the association on removal logistics and neighborhood notifications.
Votes at a glance: The council voted to affirm the Public Works Director’s issuance of the tree-removal permit for Tree 199 (Permit 15120) by a 5-0 vote. The permit authorizes removal on private property owned by the Waterford Association at the addressed complex; the municipal code criteria applied were outlined in the staff report.
