Developer seeks alternate access at 767 Newhall Creek Road; neighbors raise flood, retaining‑wall and greenway concerns

City planning staff told the City Council on Oct. 9 that a revised site plan for 767 Newhall Creek Road would amend a previously approved conditional zoning to allow a new principal access road linking single‑family lots directly to Newhall Creek Road. The original 2024 approval anticipated access via Sleepy Hollow Drive; the developer is reserving the option to add that connection later but is seeking council approval to allow the Newhall Creek Road access now.

Jade Dundas and Ben Woody explained the proposal and showed a revised site plan. Staff identified retaining walls and a bridge as required elements for the new access alignment across wetlands and said technical permitting — including flood and wetland modeling and state/federal agency review — would be part of later approvals. Jade Dundas said the change “creates the area in blue” on the site plan showing the new access and that “we are maintaining the ability to make that road and Greenway connection in the future.”

Council members and neighborhood representatives pressed staff on environmental and connectivity impacts. Councilwoman Turner asked whether a large retaining wall shown in earlier plans remained; staff confirmed retaining walls and a bridge structure will be required to cross the wetland area and that more detailed information will be provided in the presentation to council on Oct. 14. Councilwoman Roni said Chris Peli of the Hall Creek Community Association had highlighted five reasons the association opposes the bridge access, including that the bridge would necessitate retaining walls and cause the Greenway to dead end rather than connect to Sleepy Hollow Drive. Staff confirmed that the revised site plan, as presented, shows the Greenway terminating at the property line rather than continuing to Sleepy Hollow Drive; staff said ownership and future connectivity remain possibilities but are not resolved in the amendment.

Neighbors and some council members also raised flood and fire concerns. Turner said community members with hydrology and stream‑restoration experience asked staff whether bridge modeling had been completed; she reported asking the applicant’s lawyer and being told modeling exists but that she had not yet received the report. Staff said modeling will be required as part of technical permitting and that wetland permitting will involve state and federal review.

What happens next: staff will include additional detail about retaining walls, bridge design, flood modeling and greenway impacts in the Oct. 14 public hearing presentation. As this is a conditional‑zoning amendment, later technical and permitting processes will require further engineering and regulatory approvals before construction can proceed.

Ending: Councilmembers asked staff to ensure the Oct. 14 materials include the flood modeling reports or a summary of modeling findings and to clarify ownership issues and whether the Greenway could be reconnected in the future.