I encourage all in the community to remember during the November election that Planning Commission Chairman and City Council candidate Blair Farley voted no on the zone change, and Commissioners and council candidates Fred Speaker and Barbara Delgleize voted to change the zoning to benefit Hearthside at the expense of the people of the city.
The majority on the Planning Commission just did a huge favor for the developer. Hearthside officials admit in their own documents that they may not emerge from bankruptcy and may cease to exist as an entity. If the City Council upholds this zone change, and the developer is forced to sell its assets, the land will be worth more with the residential zoning. Hearthside Homes is not too big to fail, and the city has no obligation to bail them out.
I also take issue with the characterization of this development as "green." The developer can call it anything they want, but how can a development be green if it is going to be built on land that was zoned as open space recreation? This is no infill project; it is construction on the Bolsa Chica Mesa near a designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.
Removing open space is no benefit to residents
The city is saying it's a public benefit to remove five acres of planned open space parkland and to build instead 22 private "green" residences.
Does that make sense to you? A 2009 study proved that living near green open space reduces people's rates of 15 ailments, including asthma and diabetes. Living near 22 energy-efficient houses benefits whom, exactly?