See how the General Plan was truly a Community effort & must not be ignored by City Officials & Staff
In 2001, the City embarked on a process to update the City General Plan, which had not been updated in over 20 years.
A General Plan Advisory Committee, composed of a cross section of community groups and interests, was formed in September 2001.
The "GPAC" held many public meetings over the next year.
The General Plan Advisory Committee sent a survey citywide in 2002. The purpose of the survey was to guide the General Plan update process and determine community will.
Of 1940 surveys sent out, there were 557 responses.
Statistically, this is an extremely high response with valid results.
| See how the General Plan was truly a Community effort & must not be ignored by City Officials & Staff |
Originally, the plan was to count a survey as 2 if there was no second survey from the home. However, since the vast majority (96%) of households sent in just one survey, the surveys counted as 1 each.
Interesting results:
* 25% of residents have lived here 31 - 72 years.
* By a 6.3 to 1 margin, respondents felt the City should discourage non-residential development
* Respondents want greater enforcement of ordinances. 71% favor increased enforment of weed clearance. 66% want increased code enforcement on unapproved grading and building.
* By a 4.4 to 1 margin, respondents want the City to oppose development of several thousand homes on the Shell property (AERA)#and oppose access to Harbor Blvd
*Foilage is a great concern, with 71% favoring an ordinance protecting views from neighboring landscaping#.
* By about 3 to 1 margins, residents want the height of structures on ridgelines# restricted and that the Wildlife Corridor expansion should be encouraged.
# the link is to another page on labraheights.net about the topic.
The survey results are below:
Survey questions arranged in the order they were asked
Survey questions arranged by the ratio of agree/disagree or disagree/agree
Demographics - parcel size, view, school age children
Demographics - years of residency
| Regarding existing conditions in La Habra Heights, would you say that you agree with the following: | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree | Blank | Ratio |
| a. La Habra Heights is becoming overdeveloped | 244 (44%) | 77 (14%) | 221 (40%) | 15 (3%) | 1.1:1 |
| b. There should be some type of limit on home size. | 243 (44%) | 51 (9%) | 252 (45%) | 11 (2%) | 1.0:1 |
| c. The height of structures on highly visible ridgelines should be restricted. | 370 (66%) | 48 (9%) | 128 (23%) | 11 (2%) | 2.9:1 |
| d. The City should increase code enforcement to prevent unapproved building and grading. | 367 (66%) | 67 (12%) | 112 (20%) | 11 (2%) | 3.3:1 |
| e. Remodels of homes on pre-incorporation, non-conforming lots should be allowed to meet relaxed standards. | 362 (65%) | 48 (9%) | 135 (24%) | 12 (2%) | 2.7:1 |
| f. La Habra Heights should discourage non-residential development. | 452 (81%) | 23 (4%) | 72 (13%) | 10 (2%) | 6.3:1 |
| g. The City needs an ordinance protecting views from obstruction by neighbor landscaping. | 396 (71%) | 46 (8%) | 104 (19%) | 11 (2%) | 3.8:1 |
| h. The City should set architecture design standards for new construction and significant external remodels. | 196 (35%) | 62 (11%) | 288 (52%) | 11 (2%) | 1.5:1 |
| i. Revenue generating commercial development should be allowed on Harbor Blvd. | 174 (31%) | 61 (11%) | 314 (56%) | 8 (1%) | 1.8:1 |
| j. The City should oppose development of several thousand homes on the Shell-Exxon/Mobil property east of and taking access from Harbor Blvd. | 392 (70%) | 69 (12%) | 89 (16%) | 7 (1%) | 4.4:1 |
| k. The City should encourage expansion of the Wildlife Corridor. | 353 (63%) | 75 (13%) | 118 (21%) | 11 (2%) | 3.0:1 |
| l. The City should expand or enhance its trail system for walking, biking, and horse riding. | 332 (60%) | 85 (15%) | 136 (24%) | 4 (1%) | 2.4:1 |
| m. The City has adequate park and recreational facilities. | 376 (68%) | 66 (12%) | 108 (19%) | 7 (1%) | 3.5:1 |
| n. We need a fully staffed fire station in the East Heights. | 164 (29%) | 217 (39%) | 162 (29%) | 14 (3%) | 1.0:1 |
| o. Fire protection and emergency medical response is adequate. | 366 (66%) | 121 (22%) | 51 (9%) | 19 (3%) | 7.2:1 |
| p. The current weed abatement program is adequate. | 355 (64%) | 45 (8%) | 138 (25%) | 19 (3%) | 2.6:1 |
| q. We have adequate police protection. | 339 (61%) | 80 (14%) | 121 (22%) | 17 (3%) | 2.8:1 |
| r. We need further traffic calming measures on Hacienda Road. | 177 (32%) | 122 (22%) | 242 (43%) | 16 (3%) | 1.4:1 |
| s. Driving in La Habra Heights is sufficiently safe. | 364 (65%) | 33 (6%) | 147 (26%) | 13 (2%) | 2.5:1 |
| t. The City should more vigorously enforce ordinances requiring brush and debris clearance along roadways. | 397 (71%) | 67 (12%) | 81 (15%) | 12 (2%) | 4.9:1 |
| u. The school bus system is convenient for our family. | 110 (20%) | 402 (72%) | 25 (4%) | 20 (4%) | 4.4:1 |
| Regarding existing conditions in La Habra Heights, would you say that you agree with the following: | Agree | No Opinion | Disagree | Blank | Ratio |
| o. Fire protection and emergency medical response is adequate. | 366 (66%) | 121 (22%) | 51 (9%) | 19 (3%) | 7.2:1 |
| f. La Habra Heights should discourage non-residential development. | 452 (81%) | 23 (4%) | 72 (13%) | 10 (2%) | 6.3:1 |
| t. The City should more vigorously enforce ordinances requiring brush and debris clearance along roadways. | 397 (71%) | 67 (12%) | 81 (15%) | 12 (2%) | 4.9:1 |
| j. The City should oppose development of several thousand homes on the Shell-Exxon/Mobil property east of and taking access from Harbor Blvd. | 392 (70%) | 69 (12%) | 89 (16%) | 7 (1%) | 4.4:1 |
| u. The school bus system is convenient for our family. | 110 (20%) | 402 (72%) | 25 (4%) | 20 (4%) | 4.4:1 |
| g. The City needs an ordinance protecting views from obstruction by neighbor landscaping. | 396 (71%) | 46 (8%) | 104 (19%) | 11 (2%) | 3.8:1 |
| m. The City has adequate park and recreational facilities. | 376 (68%) | 66 (12%) | 108 (19%) | 7 (1%) | 3.5:1 |
| d. The City should increase code enforcement to prevent unapproved building and grading. | 367 (66%) | 67 (12%) | 112 (20%) | 11 (2%) | 3.3:1 |
| k. The City should encourage expansion of the Wildlife Corridor. | 353 (63%) | 75 (13%) | 118 (21%) | 11 (2%) | 3.0:1 |
| c. The height of structures on highly visible ridgelines should be restricted. | 370 (66%) | 48 (9%) | 128 (23%) | 11 (2%) | 2.9:1 |
| q. We have adequate police protection. | 339 (61%) | 80 (14%) | 121 (22%) | 17 (3%) | 2.8:1 |
| e. Remodels of homes on pre-incorporation, non-conforming lots should be allowed to meet relaxed standards. | 362 (65%) | 48 (9%) | 135 (24%) | 12 (2%) | 2.7:1 |
| p. The current weed abatement program is adequate. | 355 (64%) | 45 (8%) | 138 (25%) | 19 (3%) | 2.6:1 |
| s. Driving in La Habra Heights is sufficiently safe. | 364 (65%) | 33 (6%) | 147 (26%) | 13 (2%) | 2.5:1 |
| l. The City should expand or enhance its trail system for walking, biking, and horse riding. | 332 (60%) | 85 (15%) | 136 (24%) | 4 (1%) | 2.4:1 |
| i. Revenue generating commercial development should be allowed on Harbor Blvd. | 174 (31%) | 61 (11%) | 314 (56%) | 8 (1%) | 1.8:1 |
| h. The City should set architecture design standards for new construction and significant external remodels. | 196 (35%) | 62 (11%) | 288 (52%) | 11 (2%) | 1.5:1 |
| r. We need further traffic calming measures on Hacienda Road. | 177 (32%) | 122 (22%) | 242 (43%) | 16 (3%) | 1.4:1 |
| a. La Habra Heights is becoming overdeveloped | 244 (44%) | 77 (14%) | 221 (40%) | 15 (3%) | 1.1:1 |
| b. There should be some type of limit on home size. | 243 (44%) | 51 (9%) | 252 (45%) | 11 (2%) | 1.0:1 |
| n. We need a fully staffed fire station in the East Heights. | 164 (29%) | 217 (39%) | 162 (29%) | 14 (3%) | 1.0:1 |
Item Description |
Yes |
No |
Blank |
| One Acre Parcel | 448 (80%) | 100 (18%) | 9 (2%) |
| View Lot | 253 (45%) | 88 (16%) | 216 (39%) |
| City Lights View | 373 (67%) | 34 (6%) | 150 (27%) |
| Hillsides View | 432 (78%) | 9 (2%) | 116 (21%) |
| School Age Children | 113 (20%) | 409 (73%) | 33 (6%) |
| Attend Public School | 81 (15%) | 72 (13%) | 403 (72%) |
| 2nd Survey for household | 11 (2%) | 532 (96%) | 12 (2%) |
|
How to read table 25% of respondents have lived here between 0 and 7 years. Another 25% have lived here between 7 and 19 years. Etc. |
|
How to read table 10 of respondents have lived here between 0 and 2 years. Another 10% have lived here between 3 and 5 years. Etc. |
Median Residency is 19 years. This means half have lived here 19 years or less, and half greater than 19 years.
Average = 20 years.