Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
La Habra Heights council approves tree‑replacement plan for 1730 Canola Road after nine‑year project dispute
Summary
After months of review and a heated public hearing, the council approved a revised tree‑replacement plan for 1730 Canola Road with strengthened recording and maintenance conditions; the vote passed 4–1 following neighbor objections about the number and placement of removed trees.
La Habra Heights — The City Council voted to approve a revised tree‑replacement and landscaping plan for a new residence at 1730 Canola Road on April 13, adopting additional recorded maintenance requirements after neighbors argued the project removed more mature trees than the applicant acknowledged.
Council considered a staff packet that summarized the project’s Planning Commission review and recommended “option two,” a plan developed with the city’s fire‑safety reviewer to balance screening with fuel‑modification rules. Planning staff described eight conditions, including wet‑stamped site plans, independent verification of species and size, and recorded maintenance and irrigation schedules.
Neighbors and project opponents, including Carol and James Crab, told the council they believed the applicant had removed seven to 10 mature trees that had provided privacy, noise and dust buffering; they urged larger‑scale replacement and permanent recording of maintenance obligations. The applicants and their design team said they had worked with city staff and the fire department to arrive at the option that met safety requirements while providing as much screening as the code and fuel‑modification rules allow. The landscape architect said larger, fewer trees (versus many small specimens) were chosen to maximize canopy given fire‑safety spacing limits.
Councilmember discussion centered on enforceability of tree maintenance over time. The council adopted added language requiring wet‑stamped, dimensioned site plans suitable for county recording, a maintenance and irrigation audit schedule to be recorded with the property, verification by licensed professionals of planted stock at planting and a requirement that trees not be trimmed "in a manner that would defeat the screening purpose" described in the record. The council’s final motion also specified replacement timing for trees that die or are removed.
The motion carried 4–1, with Norm casting the lone no vote. The council’s approval authorizes staff to implement the Planning Commission’s option two subject to the augmented, recorded conditions; the entitlement remains tied to those conditions and is subject to enforcement if the conditions are not met.
The resolution number listed in the staff packet was cited in the meeting transcript with typographical inconsistencies; staff will clarify the formal record number and file the wet‑stamped exhibits with the Los Angeles County Recorder as required.
What happens next: The applicant must provide the wet‑stamped drawings and the licensed‑professional verifications before issuance of final permits and certificate of occupancy. If required conditions are not maintained, the city may pursue enforcement remedies including revocation of entitlements or injunctive relief.
