La Habra Heights council sends disputed Canola Road tree plan back to planning commission

Mayor John Pepisa opened a lengthy public hearing on a tree‑replacement plan for a new single‑family residence on Canola Road, where neighbors say mature screening trees were removed in violation of approved plans.

Multiple neighbors and nearby residents told the council the removals were deliberate and left their properties exposed. Stephen Blagdon, who identified himself as a Citron Road resident and city historian, told the council that the city’s earlier accounting decisions had left the fire department underfunded and framed the tree dispute as part of a larger pattern of weak enforcement. “If I steal your wallet containing $200 cash and I give you back 20, you haven't been made whole,” Blagdon said, arguing the city should record performance standards and allow affected neighbors to seek legal and financial remedies if required screening is not maintained.

James Crabb, a neighbor, described the loss of privacy and said “10 to 12 mature trees were taken out” and that the neighbors had documented stumps and regrowth they do not consider viable replacements. “We want our privacy back,” Crabb said.

The applicant’s team disputed intentional wrongdoing. Robert Ling, the property owner, said he observed grading and believed only one tree had been removed at first; he said he did not order crews to cut mature trees. Landscape architect Carl Garcia told the council the project has been in review since 2017, that plant materials on the proposed planting palette are on the fire‑department’s approved list, and that the revised plan adds larger 60‑inch box trees and six 24‑inch box trees for a total of 10 new trees along the southeast property line.

Council members pressed staff and the architect on whether the proposed planting could restore prior screening within the limits of local fire and defensible‑space rules that require canopy separation. Chief Steve Martin and staff said the city must comply with prevailing fire standards, including a 10‑foot separation rule that limits how densely trees can be planted and may prevent immediate restoration to the former dense screen.

Council member Greg moved — and the council seconded — a direction that the planning commission reconsider the matter and specifically examine remedies for the removed trees. The motion asked the planning commission to require an adequate setback from the shared property line, restoration of water and irrigation prior to planting, installation of mature evergreen trees (sized and located to achieve effective screening) that reach reasonable canopy size (15–20 feet) within no more than five years, and that all such plantings and irrigation be installed and operable before issuance of any construction permit (including for an ADU). The motion was amended to allow the planning commission to evaluate a masonry wall option (up to a 6‑foot wall closer than the usual 35‑foot setback) and instructed that the commission return the modified permit to the council for ratification.

The motion passed on a council voice vote; members recorded support and the item was sent back to the planning commission with the council’s recommended conditions.

What happens next: the planning commission will reconsider the permit and the modified landscape approach consistent with the council’s directions. The council instructed staff to include setbacks, irrigation restoration, requirements for mature plantings and a firm requirement that the screening be installed prior to any construction activity; the planning commission’s revisions will return to the council for final action.