Note: This article summarizes a lengthy public hearing and the board’s tentative action on multiple entitlements for the Dana Reserve specific plan (NKT Development LLC). It describes the applicant’s amended proposal, the environmental addendum, public testimony on housing and environmental tradeoffs, and the board’s tentative vote to approve amendments and to tentatively approve the development agreement (the ordinance will return for a second reading).

What the applicant proposed under the settlement

Planning staff presented an amended project submitted after a settlement between the original litigants and the applicant. The amendment reduces the overall residential unit count by 128—from 1,370 units to 1,242—and removes a prior requirement that the initial construction include 100 accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The amendment also increases the project’s open space from 55.6 acres to 60.86 acres and reconfigures neighborhoods to preserve additional oak woodland and areas of Burton Mesa chaparral in selected locations.

Affordable housing and RHNA

The modification shifts the unit mix and reduces deed‑restricted and very‑low/low‑income unit totals that had been part of the April 2024 approval. Planning staff presented a table comparing the April 2024 approved package to the amended package and explained the project would still contribute to the county’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): the amended project would provide a notable percentage of unmet RHNA need (for example, roughly 51% of the county’s remaining moderate‑income need, per staff tables), but the amendment reduced very‑low and low income counts from the earlier approval.

Environmental review and settlement background

Planning staff prepared an addendum to the certified 2024 Final EIR and concluded the changes could be addressed with the addendum under CEQA Guidelines §15162 (no subsequent EIR required). Staff said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the modified project in September 2025. The project was previously approved by the board in April 2024; that approval was later challenged in two lawsuits. The settlement between litigants and the applicant led to the amended submittal now before the board. Staff recommended tentative approval of the development agreement; county counsel indicated the DA requires a second‑reading ordinance and would return to the Nov. 18 meeting.

Public comment and contention

Speakers in favor included housing advocates and the applicant’s counsel, who argued the project would make a meaningful contribution to housing supply and to the county’s RHNA obligations. Housing supporters urged the board to approve the settlement package so construction could proceed.

Opponents and several board members highlighted tradeoffs: the amended plan reduces deed‑restricted and lower‑income units, and some supervisors expressed concern about environmental tradeoffs and reduced community benefits relative to the 2024 approval. During the hearing, county staff and the applicant’s counsel declined to disclose several redacted settlement amounts and attorney fee payments that appear in the publicly filed settlement agreement; that refusal prompted further questions from board members about transparency of the settlement terms.

Board action

After extended deliberations, the board voted to tentatively approve amendments to the Dana Reserve specific plan, the vesting tentative map, and related entitlements, and to tentatively approve the development agreement; the DA ordinance will return for second reading on Nov. 18. Two supervisors voted no on the tentative DA approval; another supervisor recorded a partial recusal on airport‑related fees earlier in the consent votes.

What’s next

The board’s tentative approval advances entitlements per the settlement, but staff will bring the ordinance for adoption on Nov. 18 (second reading). The amended project and the addendum to the 2024 EIR remain subject to any administrative or legal challenges that may be filed.

Sources: Planning staff presentation, public testimony and board deliberations at the Nov. 4 meeting; applicant and counsel statements recorded in the board transcript.