Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1984/10/23 Item 4a-b COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 4A Meeting Date 10/23/84 ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Final EIR-84-6 for Chula Vista Woods, Gardner Investments Properties Resolution �/,� -> •Certifying Final EIR84-6 - Chula Vista Woods SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning g ' (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) REVIEWED BY: City Manager A public hearing on the draft of this EIR was held on July 25, 1984, by the Planning Commission. There were comments in writing which were presented with the staff report and additional oral and written comments were presented at the public hearing. All of the comments received have been incorporated into the final EIR, along with responses regarding each of the comments. It is the finding of this final Environmental Impact Report that all significant environmental impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance, although mitigation to reduce biological impacts would require a redesign of the project. RECOMMENDATION: Certify that EIR-84-6 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the City Council will consider the information in this document as it reaches a decision on the project. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Certify EIR-84-6. DISCUSSION: A. Project Description 1 . The proposed project involves the following discretionary acts: (a) General Plan amendment from "Park-Open Space" for the westerly 10 acres of the 20-acre project site to "Medium Residential" (4-12 du's/ac) ; (b) Rezoning of 20 acres from R-1-H (Single Family Residential subject to the hillside modifying district) to R-1-P (Single Family Residential subject to a precise plan) ; (c) Tentative subdivision map approval on 20 acres of vacant property located east of Greg Rogers Park and approximately 1400 feet south of East Naples Street; and (d) Precise plan approval. Page 2, Item 4A Meeting Date 10/23/84 2. The project will consist of the development of 110 manufactured housing units on 111 lots. Lot sizes will average 4,675 sq. ft. The smallest lot will be 3,500 sq. ft. and the largest 15,500 sq. ft. 3. The term "manufactured housing" refers to homes that will look like typical single-family homes but they are constructed offsite in a factory and transported to the property as the homes are sold to buyers. The garages, however, are built onsite and will be attached to the houses. The units will range from 864 sq. ft. to 1274 sq. ft. and sell from $70,000 to $80,000. 4. Access is proposed via a 1400 foot north/south street which runs adjacent to the easterly boundary of Greg Rogers Elementary School from East Naples Street to the proposed subdivision. B. Impact Analysis 1 . Land Use The GPA would allow residential uses on what could have been additional park/open space for the community, possibly an extension of Greg Rogers Park. However, this land use change to 10 acres is not considered a significant impact. Greg Rogers Park is the largest park in the City and adequately serves the surrounding area. The project site is located within Community Park District #7 and as shown on the Park and Recreation Element map of the General Plan, future parks needed within this district are proposed west of I-805. Thus, a 10-acre park located at the project site would not readily serve those areas where parks are needed. 2. Geology/Soils The project site is characterized by alluvial and expansive soils. Mitigation will include the need for qualified geotechnical personnel to supervise grading operations and an additional geologic report to be prepared based on the final grading plan. 3. Drainage The proposed project is estimated to increase runoff by 15% over existing levels. The drainage basins are not large and storm drain design is anticipated to reduce drainage impacts to a level of insignificance. 4. Land Form The proposed subdivision will be terraced down from the north to the south as the site presently slopes. Grading will involve approximately 140,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill and the Page 3, Item 4A Meeting Date 10/23/84 use of crib walls at the northerly edge of the property. Mitigation will include emphasis on a landscape plan which encourages land form alterations to blend in with the natural landscape. 5. Biological resources The property was first surveyed by Mr. R. Mitchel Beauchamp of Pacific Southwest Biological Services in 1977. That report has been updated by a biological reconnaisance performed by Wier Biological in April 1984. The EIR incorporates a compilation of the two reports and finds that no highly sensitive animal species are expected to reside on the site, although there are significant stands of several plant species which are of limited distribution in San Diego county. The most sensitive of these are San Diego Ambrosia and Orcutt's Birds Beak which are found within the southwesterly portion of the site. The recommendation by Wier Biology, contained in the EIR, is that the habitat for these rare plant species should be preserved and that the subdivision should be redesigned. An open space easement should be created within this area. Consideration was given to transplanting the species but this was considered a non-viable alternative to mitigate this impact based on the lack of success transplanting these species in other parts of the County. The EIR concludes that project implementation, as proposed by the developer, would result in a significant environmental impact, but with the proposed mitigation, biological impacts could be reduced to a level of insignificance. The applicant, subsequent to the Planning Commission hearings, submitted more detailed financial information. The conclusion of that data shows that a reduction in dwelling unit count from 110 to 100 would increase the housing cost about $4,000.00 per unit. Therefore, the significant environmental impact can be avoided while implementing the goals of the project. 6. Traffic Circulation Traffic to and from the project along East Naples Street, east of Oleander, will increase from almost non-existent levels to approximately 1100 trips per day which is well under the design capacity for East Naples Street. Traffic levels on Oleander Avenue, north of East Naples Street will increase approximately 10% from 6500 ADT to 7323 ADT, but service levels at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Oleander Avenue will remain at A for the p.m. peak hour and be reduced from B to C for the a.m. peak hour. A significant impact is not anticipated; therefore, no mitigation is recommended. Page 4, Item 4A Meeting Date 1 U/Z.i/84 7. Noise The anticipated noise levels due to additional traffic on area streets was analyzed in the EIR. The level of increase is not anticipated to create any adverse environmental impacts; therefore, no mitigation is proposed. 8. Public Services a. Sewers The project includes the installation of a sewer pump station which will enable project flows to be handled by the East Naples Street sewer system. Since this system is well below capacity, minimal project impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation will be required. b. Fire Protection No significant impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation will be required. c. Law Enforcement The potential for construction vandalism is discussed in the EIR and a recommendation has been made that 24-hour guards be posted to prevent vandalism during the construction stage. d. Water Supply The attachment to the Otay Water District and the installation of an 8-inch water main to the project will mitigate any adverse impacts. 3. School s The elementary and senior high school districts have indicated that developer fees will be required for the purchase of new and relocatable classroom buildings and that a citizens advisory committee, assigned to make school assignments, will assure that adequate classroom space is available for students generated from the project. C. Alternative Options If the Council , based on evidence in the record (see attachment no. 1 ), determines that the transplantation program proposed by the applicant is adequate mitigation, then the Council has the authority to change the conclusion of the EIR regarding biological impacts. • Page 5, Item 4A Meeting Date 10/23/84 There is a difference of opinion between the biological consultants hired by the Environmental Review Coordinator and the applicant. Based on information in the record (see attachment no. 2) and the importance of this stand of Ambrosia pumila due to its size, rarity, endangerment, lack of vigor and limited distribution, staff must support the conclusions of the City-retained consultant. Transplantation has had limited success and, given the importance of this stand, it is not a viable alternative. Another alternative would be in accordance with the Planning Commission actions, CEQA findings could be made that the significant impact cannot be avoided and a statement of overriding considerations made (in essence allowing for approval of the project with 110 lots). Subsequent to the Planning Commission's actions on this project, more complete information has been submitted to staff which shows that it is clearly feasible to implement the project, and its goals, while avoiding the significant environmental impact. Therefore, it is the Planning staff's opinion that the "CEQA findings" of infeasibility to support this option cannot be made. D. Subsequent CEQA Actions Based on Council action on this project, staff will present final CEQA documentation; CEQA findings and if necessary a statement of overriding considerations at the second reading of the rezoning ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. WPC 1382P • 1�� 4 October 18, 1984 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: John Goss, City Manager(j FROM: George Krempl , Director of Planning SUBJECT: Chula Vista Woods, Cover Memo to Public Hearings and EIR Considerations Scheduled for October 23, 1984 Because of the complexity of the Chula Vista Woods project, we thought it would be helpful to provide some additional background information as to financing and then to explain the various options and issues before the Council . If Council wishes to approve the Chula Vista Woods project, its actions will be dictated heavily by what action is taken on the EIR. First though, some commentary on finance. A. FINANCE Chula Vista Woods participated in the City's 1983 single family mortgage revenue bond issue, reserving approximately $5 million of take-out mortgage commitments for qualified buyers (10.9% interest rate) . Buyers must meet the following: (1) Make annual incomes of less than 150% of the San Diego County Median Income (Income for a family of 4 could not exceed $44,429. ) (2) Be first time buyers (3) Be owner occupants Chula Vista Woods has until October of 1987 to use the mortgage funds. The above is simply presented as background information for the project. B. PROCESSING As to processing, Chula Vista Woods involves joint considerations of a number of discretionary actions including EIR, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Precise Plan. The items are intended to be heard concurrently. C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Council ' s actions on the EIR must be emphasized because it will condition subsequent alternative actions on the balance of the applicant's request. If the City Council certifies the final EIR, as certified by the Planning Commission, the conclusion is that a significant biological impact would result (the destruction of a sensitive plant material - Ambrosio Pumila [ San Diego Ragweed ] ) . Under this “f( 4 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 18, 1984 Page 2 scenario, Council action would be limited to options #1 and #2 as outlined below and in Exhibit A. The choice would be as per the Commission action ; CEQA findings could be made that the significant impact cannot be avoided and a statement of overriding considerations made (in essence allowing for approval of the project with 110 lots) or CEQA findings could be adopted that the significant impacts have been avoided (resulting in biology preservation and a reduced project of approximately 100 units. Subsequent to the Planning Commission's actions on this project, more complete information has been submitted to staff which shows that it is clearly feasible to implement the project, and its goals, while avoiding the significant environmental impact. Therefore, it is the Planning staff's opinion that the "CEQA findings" of infeasibility to support option #1 cannot be made. A third option exists to change the findings of biological significance to insigni- ficance and certify the EIR; CEQA finding would be similarly made. This would allow for transplantation of the biology resource, if desired, and implementation of the 110 lot development. To restate: Option #1 represents the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the project at 110 units, requires that Council adopt CEQA findings in support of the facts that a significant impact cannot be avoided due to social and economic reasons . Under this option a statement of overriding considerations would be required. Option #2 represents the Planning Department's recommendation which would require the applicant to modify the tentative map and the precise plan to bring the map and plan in conformance with the mitigation measures identified in the EIR (Refer EIR-84-6) . This option would likely result in a project of approximately 100 lots . Option #3 represents an endorsement of professional opinion of the applicant's biologist. It would allow the transplantation of the biological resources ; this is in opposition to the opinion of the City hired consultant who has stated that the only adequate mitigation is on-site preservation. Given this change in the findings of the EIR, the document could then be certified and the project, as submitted, could be approved. D. ISSUES In addition to the options listed, several unresolved issues are worth noting: (1) Provision of a stub street The Planning Department and Planning Commission have recommended that a stub street be provided near the northeast corner of the project to serve as a future access link. The subject project is designed as a self contained 110 unit project having a single entry and exit road extending to East Naples . Although the presently 4 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 18, 1984 Page 2 designed access is in compliance with City standards, the long range development of adjacent properties in this area would best be served by having a second means of ingress and egress . Mail service, school access , fire safety and general overall community interaction depends on convenient and efficient road connections. The adjacent property owner and the developer object to providing a stub street on the basis of the potential impact on the undeveloped area abutting this project and the fact that such a road is unnecessary. (2) Private (concrete) vs. public street system The City Engineer has stated that the applicant's proposal for a private street system is acceptable only if the streets are constructed with PCC rather than asphalt. The proposed street is narrower (32' vs 36' curb to curb for a public street) with a 4' wide sidewalk on one side vs a 52' wide sidewalk on each side if public. The street design is not in compliance with City standards for vertical curves . The City Engineer is of the opinion that utilizing an asphalt design for a private street, with a lower cost housing project, will result in long term maintenance costs which will be burdensome to the homeowners. The estimated increased cost for a concrete street is approximately $102,000. The Planning Commission does not favor the use of concrete streets, but does favor the streets remaining as private. (3) Grading and retention basin The applicant's grading plan assumes permission for off-site grading. If off-site grading is not obtained, both the storage area and the retention basin will require modifications which could affect their capacities . A workable plan appears likely, however it is possible that revisions to the retention basin, together with drainage revisions, could affect the lotting pattern. GK:je cc: Applicant United Enterprises Standard Packet Distribution \1(6 4 EXHIBIT A CHULA VISTA WOODS ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. 2. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF ALTERNATIVE OPTION OPTION OPTION Certify EIR A. Certify EIR A. Change Significant Biological Impact Finding in EIR to Insignificant & Certify EIR Approve GPA B. Approve GPA B. Approve GPA 4pprove Rezone C. Approve Rezone C. Approve Rezone approve Tent. Map D. Direct Applicant to Revise D. Approve Tentative Map Tentative Map and Precise Plan to Avoid Significant Impact (Continue Action) Approve Revised Tentative Map 1pprove Precise Plan E. Approve Revised Precise Plan E. Approve Precise Plan Idopt "CEQA" Findings F. Adopt "CEQA" Findings that F. Adopt "CEQA" Findings that :hat Significant Impact Significant Impact has been Significant Impact has been :annot be avoided due Avoided Avoided :o Social & Economic seasons adopt a Statement of iverriding Considerations \105 1 011 411 ri ATTACHMENT #1 Mr. John Moy 29 May 1984 HCH & Associates 4877 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123-1667 Dear John, I examined the Chula Vista Woods project on 22 May. A fire had occurred in the northern portion of the site, apparently eliminating the single shrub of Ambrosia chenopodiifolia. The western alluvial area, where the Ambrosia pumila occurs, is in a much more deteriorated condition than I reca l l from my 1977 site survey. Many more trails cross there and in other portions of the site. More non-native vegetation now occurs in this western area also. The Ambrosia pumila population does occur to the north and south of the project site, with about 60% of the population on the project site. As stated in our 1977 report, it is still my opinion that the population is hybrid in origin. The parential stock appears to be A. pumila and A. psilostachya var. californica. This is not discussed in the EIR. Ambrosia pumila is known from the fol lowing locations in California: Devenberg property, Bonsall ; South of Junipero Serra Road at Padre Dam ; State Highway 125 reserved right-of- way in Spring Valley ; three populations at the South Bay Plaza in National City ; an open space site on a residential development now under construction along Spring Valley Creek Gorge; a ridge along the 230Kv line north of Telegraph Canyon; and the Chula Vista Woods population. Because of the habit of the plant to persist in disturbed areas, I would speculate that additional sites still remain in the Boston i a a n d Santee areas. I n most cases, the plants occur in alluvial soils. The Dicranostegia orcuttiana (Cordylanthus o. ) population on-site seems to have diminished since my 1977 survey. This is not unexpected due to its annual habit and the depressed rainfall this past season. As I stated in my 1977 report, this population and one in the Tijuana Hills, are the only ones known on this side of the international boundary. The population is significant mostly from an academic point of view. It is frequent in Baja California, occurring to mid-peninsula. Page Two - Chula Vista Woods Biological Response I do not agree with the statement in the EIR that a transplanting alternative is not viable to mitigate what is presented as a significant impact. The truth of the matter is that Mr. Wier failed to successfully transplant the Ambrosia because he abandoned the plants he had salvaged in 1981 when he attempted to operate his own consulting business. Also those plants which were relocated at the Gillespie Field site were subjected to a weed abatement program about the runway. With this level of effort, I hardly believe a statement can be made as to transplanting being inviable. I have observed the plant's being established in a garden in National City. Once established, th.e plant behaves in a rather aggressive fashion, Iike other members of its genus. I w o u l d propose that t r a n s p l a n t a t i o n is v i a b l e. I t can be achieved by in-situ removal of the plants, recontour i ng of the site and replacement of alluvial soil . This can be achieved in the back, western portion of lots 51 , 50, 49, and 48. There is sti I I a need for an open space easement, but one with the eastern boundary set mid- way in these lots and fenced. The easement should not be landscaped and it would require management for a few years to hold down weed competition until the Ambrosia stolons were established. The Dicranostegia could also be established, but on a more sloping site in the easement. This would be done by seed propagation, since the plant appears to have an annual habit. I would also recommend salvage of the Ferocactus. These are in demand for revegetation in the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge currently. I believe this response will allow the City of Chula Vista to determine that, with a minor redesign of the open space easement, the project can be built without significant biological impacts. Sincerely, fe4a:114g2-.---4444-c14, L R. Mitchel Beauchamp Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. Post Office Box 985 National City, California 92050 (619) 477-5333 tf Wier Biological ATTACHMENT #2 BIOLOGICAL STUDIES, IMPACT ASSESSMENT&MITIGATION • HABITAT RESTORATION PHONE(619)292-5094 4855 RUFFNER STREET SUITE B SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 RECEIVED SY Duane Bazzell .JUL 181934 Planning Department City of Chula Vista G /` s ,y, -� 276 Fourth t `;` ±. = '1T Chula Vista, CA 92017 . CHU r. �� >> C.I-+:' '!''11 Dear Mr. Bazzell: 16 July 1984 Following is a supplementary discussion of the biological impacts and recommendations for the Chula Vista Woods project. This letter is intended to assist the City of Chula Vista Planning Department in its effort to make an informed decision regarding mitigation for biological impacts. The significant biological resources that were identified are: populations of San Diego Ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) and Orcutt ' s Bird ' s Beak (Cordylanthus orcuttianus) . There was some discussion as to the significance of the Orcutt' s Bird ' s Beak population here. Based on its distribution in San Diego County, which consists of two small populations, and its distribution in Baja California, which consists of several or one very large population, the population here is significant. The population is similar to many other "rare" plant populations which have been deemed significant by various consultants and agencies over the last ten years. As designed, the project would eliminate both plant populations, which are concentrated in lots 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 112. We are careful to point out that the populations of these plants, rather than merely the individuals isolated from their natural environment, are considered significant. We have proposed on-site preservation and protection of the plant populations, so that lots 48-51 and 112 would be included in the preserve and would not be developed. An alternative form of mitigation has been proposed by the project applicant: transplantation of individual plants. It is our opinion that this is not an effective form of mitigation and therefore it is not acceptable as mitigation. In general , a biological preserve area must be able to support self-sustaining populations : small , isolated 7 preserves are more vulnerable to disturbance, improper -15 drainage, and disruption of requisite ecological interactions such as may occur with both these species. Over a time, small populations may be subject to loss of genetic variability, thus their ability to adapt to the envvronment . due to inbreeding . 4 There is little doubt that native plants can be cultivated in the garden. Many botanic gardens throughout southern California feature displays of native plants, including some that are considered difficult to propagate. San Diego Ambrosia can be maintained in pots for some time, and it has succeeded in the garden also. To our knowledge, Orcutt' s Bird ' s Beak has not been successfully cultivated outside the greenhouse. Dr. Larry Heckard of the Herbarium of the University of California, Berkeley has transplanted seedlings of a Cordylanthus species in Fresno County, California, and after ten years plants from that introduction are still present at the site. He has also grown Cordylanthus orcuttianus in pots in the greenhouse. Dr. Heckard also reports that Dr. James Griffin has seeded C. littoralis in the Monterey area, but Heckard is not aware of the progress of that effort (personal communication, 7/3/84) . There are, however , obvious and fundamental differences between botanic gardens and natural preserves with self- perpetuating populations. Botanic gardens do not attempt to nor do they succeed at re-creating populations, much as zoos and animal parks do not re-create faunas from the many individual beasts in captivity. They merely display living things. Botanic gardens require constant and expensive maintenance, whereas natural preserves require little or no maintenance. Following is a brief analysis of the attributes of two different strategies, ON-SITE PRESERVATION and TRANSPLANTATION. ON-SITE PRESERVATION 1 . Lower construction costs, or no costs 2. Low maintenance costs, maintenance over a short period 3. Usually higher land costs 4. Conservation of the existing population within the ecosystem 5. Ecosystem remains relatively intact 6. Loss of genetic variability small 7. Chances for failure small TRANSPLANTATION 1 . Higher construction costs 2. High maintenance costs, perhaps over many years 3. Usually lower land costs 4. Attempts to recreate original population within a new setting5. Ecosystem greatly altered 6. Genetic variability lost 7. Chances for failure substantial . To our knowledge, there have not been many successful transplantations of "rare plants" in California, and none where San Diego Ambrosia and Orcutt ' s Bird ' s Beak have been handled . • • If I may be of further service, please do not hesitate to call . Sincerely, A 4/( Harold A. Wier cc : M. Bruce McIntyre, Mooney Lettieri and Associates COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 4B Meeting Date 10/23/84 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: GPA-84-4 - Consideration of an amendment to the General Plan to redesignate approximately 10 acres of land, abutting upon the easterly line of Greg Rogers Park, from "Parks and Public Open Space" to "Medium Density Residential" on the plan diagram of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan Resolution /70ipproving an amendment to the plan diagram of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan for the redesignation of approximately 10 acres of land abutting upon the easterly line of Greg Rogers Park SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning `t (4/5ths Vote: Yes No ) REVIEWED BY: City Manager The applicant proposes to develop a 110-dwelling unit, modular-home project on twenty acres of land. The proposed project, called Chula Vista Woods, would be partially accommodated on a certain 10-acre parcel of land which adjoins Greg Rogers Park, and which was formerly considered as a potential site for the expansion of the said park. The amendment would redesignate the site from "Parks and Public Open Space" to "Medium Density Residential" (4-12 dwelling units per gross acre). RECOMMENDATION: 1. Concurrence with the recommendation of the City Planning Commission. 2. Adopt a resolution approving GPA-84-4. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends that Council approve GPA-84-4. DISCUSSION: BASIC INFORMATION 1. Subject property The 10-acre parcel of land in question is rugged in terrain, and is traversed by finger canyons and an SDG&E power transmission line. It is presently landlocked. The said parcel adjoins Greg Rogers Park, and is zoned "R-1-H." The proposed rezoning of the property to a classification which would be more responsive to the development of Chula Vista Woods is the subject matter of a forthcoming companion case. Page 2, Item 4B Meeting Date 10/23/84 2. Adjacent General Plan Designations (Please see Exhibit A) North - Medium Density Residential South - Parks and Public Open Space East - Medium Density Residential West - Parks and Public Open Space 3. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use (Please see Exhibit B) North - R-S-4 - Vacant and SDG&E easement (County) South - R-S-4 - Vacant (County) East - R-1-H - Vacant (easterly 10 acres of the proposed Chula Vista Woods project) West - R-1 - Greg Rogers Park and SDG&E easement ANALYSIS 1 . The subject 10-acre site was, prior to 1982, regarded as a potential addition to the Greg Rogers Park, and has been depicted as such on the plan diagram of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, since 1970. In 1982, the City of Chula Vista considered the acquisition of the site for park purposes, but did not avail itself of the opportunity to purchase the land. 2. The applicant's proposal to subdivide the site into small building sites, and to develop a single-family dwelling project composed of manufactured housing would be consistent with the "Medium Density Residential" character of the Telegraph Canyon Community, and would foster the production of affordable housing, in accordance with the Chula Vista Housing Element of 1981 . 3. Since the City of Chula Vista did not elect to purchase the subject site for the expansion of Greg Rogers Park, it might be reasonably argued that the proposed amendment to the General Plan is not prerequisite to the proposed residential development. This argument is strengthened by the fact that the plan diagram of the Parks and Recreation Element, adopted in 1974, does not depict the said site as a component of Greg Rogers Park. The proposed amendment, however, would resolve any dispute which might arise in conjunction with the matter, and would therefore serve a useful , housekeeping purpose. 4. The need to amend the General Plan is primarily attributable to the nature and character of the plan diagram of the Land Use Element. The diagram follows a format which was popular in the 1960's and 1970's, and depicts major public park and open space proposals with too much specificity. Page 3, Item 4B Meeting Date 10/23/84 This high level of specificity tends to make the long-range General Plan too rigid, and limits the options of the decision makers. The Planning Department, as a part of its proposed comprehensive amendment to the General Plan, will propose a diagram which utilizes symbols for proposed public facilities and open space. These symbols would indicate, for example, that park and open space areas are proposed for a "general location. " CONCLUSION The proposed amendment would promote the development of affordable, single-family dwelling housing, and would further the effectuation of the Chula Vista Housing Element of 1981 . The said amendment would resolve a housekeeping problem associated with the plan diagram of the Land Use Element. FISCAL IMPACT: None WPC 1242P LILL,1 ■