I speculate that the applicant might in the future request that the city approve <br />2 CC&Rs that include bulk or height standards that vary from the R-1 <br />3 development standards. That possibility also does not represent a potential <br />4 "deferral" of findings of compliance with EC 9.8320(3), as any such review <br />5 proceeding to approve CC&Rs or modification of R-1 development standards <br />6 would not concern the application of EC 9.8320(3) at all, and the hearings <br />7 official did not rely (indeed, expressly rejected any reliance) on such a future <br />8 review proceeding in order to establish compliance with EC 9.8320(3). The <br />9 Neighbors' arguments on this point do not provide a basis for reversal or <br />10 remand. <br />11 D. Conclusion <br />12 For the reasons stated above, the Neighbors' second and third <br />13 assignments of error are sustained in part and denied in part. <br />14 The city's decision is remanded. <br />Page 46 <br />