The plan, reduced from over a thousand homes, has been around since 1977 and has been opposed from the beginning by Fullerton residents who want the area to remain natural open space. Much of the change in size of the proposal is due to a US Fish and Wildlife directive which protects portions of the property as critical habitat for endangered species. Among the 30 or so residents who spoke Tuesday night only one favored the housing proposal, citing rights of the property owner.

Other comments included:

• Angela Chen Lindstrom held up an inch thick booklet full of grants and alternative funding methods for saving large pieces of open land and suggested the city work on finding funding to buy the property. “Why are we so ready to develop and not to preserve?” she asked. “Voters passed Prop 40 (which makes $40-million available) and Prop 50 (which makes $3-Billion available) for the creation of parks within the state. Whether, as taxpayers, you like that or not the facts are that the money will be spent either here or somewhere else. Why shouldn’t we capture some of it?”

• Several teachers and local business people questioned why the proposal included no new schools when “our schools at every level are already overcrowded.”

• One local elementary teacher said that her students learn about democracy and the right of representation. She called on the city officials and staff to pay attention to the concerns of the people.

• Councilman Wilson claimed “We are listening but someone should have asked Chevron if they wanted to sell the land because they might not and concerns about crowded schools are not under jurisdiction of the Council even though we have the power to either approve or oppose the project.” He suggested those worrying about the overcrowded schools take their concerns to the school district “but don’t be too hard on them because they have to make the best deal they can.”

• “Politicians should be here representing us not the oil companies. Of course it is in the best interests of our town to keep the land as open natural space. ”

• “Chevron has depleted the oil from the site over the years” said one resident “I think they have already received a fair return for the land.”

• One resident pointed out that developments of this size are a negative drain on City Services and it comes at a bad time for Fullerton which is already $150-million in arrears on infrastructure repair and already cutting back on City Services..

• Traffic: “The increase in traffic added to the increase expected from the 2,800 homes already approved by the city will be unbearable.”

• Water Concerns: “SB 221 & 610 require developers to prove there is adequate water for a development. Availability of water for the proposed development is questionable due in part to the aquifer overdraft of 400,000 acre feet (enough water to serve 800,000 families for a year) and the Colorado river cut back. Under current conditions Orange County is looking for ways to turn sewage into drinking water.”

• Horses: Several residents complained about the loss of the equestrian center that was promised on many occasions in earlier plans.

• Open Space: The lack of real natural space as opposed to what developers call open space such as dirt sidewalks running along busy streets or unbuildable fingers of terrain adjacent to houses.

• Animals & Plants: “Endangered plants and animals that currently inhabit the land need space.We need to look at the city as a whole, balancing development with open space including a free area where plants can grow to mitigate the carbon dioxide in the air.”

• Unstable Soils: The cut and fill proposal was critized by one citizen who said it “looks very like the Carbon Canyon development where each year all the back yards change spaces. If the City, County or State can help purchase the land we can have 100% trails, vistas, openspace instead of the 33% being offered by developers. Why hasn’t this been researched?”

• A vague answer was given to Dorian Hunters request for a list of the next steps for further public participation in the process. She suggested the city choose independent consultants which would work with city residents to develop the EIR and be paid from a fund deposited with the city by the developer. “Currently there is legislation that requires cities to hire their own consultants so that the direct developer control is broken,” she said.

• Another citizen asked, “How do you suggest we as citizens work with the developers and the city to save the Hills?” Her question was not answered.

• George Fullerton lookalike 2nd place winner told the crowd “Don’t be fooled that now you have expressed your concerns that the job is done. It is just beginning. The developers are out for the money and really don’t care what happens to our town.”

A Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by a Chevron consultant will be issued in the near future and the public will have a 45 day window in which to make comment. In addition, the city will be preparing a Financial Impact Report that is expected to address concerns that the development is a drain on city resources.

Not addressed was how citizens would be notified of the release of the EIR and Financial Impact Report. The interested public may keep informed by visiting www.coyotehills.org or perhaps the City of Fullerton website www.ci.fullerton.ca.us.