Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission reopens fencing standards debate, seeks final draft on chain link and decorative wall rules

La Habra Heights Planning Commission · February 25, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After prior council feedback stalled a code amendment, commissioners asked staff to circulate the last April draft of proposed front‑yard fencing standards; discussion centered on prohibiting chain link in street‑facing yards and requiring decorative finish and landscaping for any allowed solid wall.

La Habra Heights’ Planning Commission picked up a months‑old discussion on front‑yard fencing standards on Feb. 24 and directed staff to circulate the working draft for commissioners to finalize before forwarding to city council.

Staff summarized the options under consideration: maintain a maximum 42‑inch solid base with an open material above up to 6 feet; allow decorative solid walls only by minor exception or planning‑commission review; and prohibit chain‑link fencing in street‑facing yards. "At the time, the commission looked at prohibiting chain link," Rafferty said, describing prior meetings and council feedback.

Commissioners expressed a mix of aesthetic and enforcement concerns. One commissioner said a properly stuccoed or veneered wall with landscaping can improve curb appeal, while others warned exceptions for security or noise could become universal if not clearly defined. "If we're going to... allow a solid wall, it has to be landscaped and covered," the chair said. Several commissioners emphasized that preexisting noncompliant fences would likely be grandfathered and that enforcement resources are limited.

The body asked staff to provide the version that incorporated April revisions and to circulate it so members could prepare detailed comments. The commission did not vote on the code change at the meeting; it asked staff to return the revised draft for formal review and potential recommendation to council.