Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and environmental groups press Newark to reject housing plan on wetland‑adjacent Pick N Pull site
Summary
A coalition of residents and environmental groups delivered thousands of signatures and a detailed technical rationale urging Newark officials to oppose a proposed housing project at the Pick N Pull site, citing wetlands, flood‑risk and long‑term climate resilience concerns.
A coalition of Newark and Bay Area residents, community groups and environmental organizations told the City Council on Oct. 23 that the proposed Mori (sometimes styled “Maori”) Village housing development should be rejected or substantially revised because the site abuts wetlands and flood control channels and is not suitable for new housing.
“On our end, we plan to continue educating the public about this proposed development and why preserving this land is better for the residents of Newark,” said Cara Madden, a Newark resident who led petition gathering and said she personally delivered signatures to the council. “In total, we deliver 2,755 signatures from individuals who support the cleanup and restoration of the Pick And Pull properties,” she said, providing physical and online petition packets to the council clerk.
Multiple speakers — including neighborhood volunteers, members of Greenbelt Alliance and other regional organizations — presented overlapping technical and community arguments: the site is surrounded on three sides by wetlands and two flood‑control channels; groundwater and tidal flooding are expected to increase with sea‑level rise; converting wetland or former industrial marshland to residential lots would reduce a natural flood buffer and increase risk to nearby existing neighborhoods.
“Funding exists for acquisition. Funding exists for implementation of nature‑based solutions,” said Jana Soquel, who urged the city to pursue state and regional grant programs rather than permit near‑bay housing. Andrew of Greenbelt Alliance told the council that Maori Village “is the least suitable location for development and the very best location to implement nature‑based climate resilience strategies.” Greenbelt and local organizers said they collected 777 Newark signatures and more than 2,700 total Bay Area signatures opposing the proposed project.
Speakers also pointed out zoning and permit history: several acres are currently used by auto‑dismantling businesses operating under conditional use permits that, speakers said, include cleanup obligations when those business uses cease; some petitioners argued that enforcement of those cleanup conditions and pursuit of acquisition for restoration would be a better long‑term strategy.
Why this matters: Council members heard repeated concerns about flood risk for existing and new homes, traffic and limited access (one primary approach road), and long‑term climate vulnerability. Petitioners urged the city to position the property for acquisition and wetland restoration, and to pursue state funding sources such as recent bond measures and other regionally available resilience grants.
Council response and next steps: Council members did not take an immediate vote on the development during the meeting. Staff accepted the petition materials and said they would include the public comments in the project record. Several speakers and residents asked the mayor and council to prioritize outreach and make resource information widely available as the issue moves forward.
Speakers quoted above are drawn from the meeting transcript. The petition packages and spreadsheet were delivered to the council clerk at the meeting.
