Destruction of 100 Trees Fans Church Land Dispute

The felling of more than 100 eucalyptus trees--most from 80 to 100 years old--in the early morning hours on Tuesday sharpened a controversy between Anaheim Hills homeowners and the Mormon Church.

Development of the 11-acre parcel of land where the trees were located is the center of a dispute between a group of area residents and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which seeks to build a church on the property.

For homeowners, who describe their neighborhood as the only remaining rural land left in Anaheim, destruction of the trees represents the loss of the kind of scenic, semi-secluded environment that prompted most of them to locate in the area.

While homeowners say they are not anti-development, they have gone to court to block the church, and they contend that the city erred in issuing a permit for its construction without requiring an environmental impact report.

Temporary Halt

The two groups reached an agreement Wednesday that development would not proceed on the property until a Sept. 30 court hearing on whether the city should have required an environmental impact report.

But homeowners say the agreement came too late. The bulldozers had arrived before dawn Tuesday morning and the trees were gone by 8 a.m.

“No one had a suspicion that they would come and do this horrendous thing,” said Sonja Grewal, a member of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, the primary homeowners group opposing the church.

“I can’t believe that a church would be attached to something that I would call almost unethical. Somebody even called the police to try and stop it, but by the time the code enforcement people got here, the trees were all down,” Grewal said.

But Morris Thurston, attorney for the church, said his clients operated with a valid permit. He said the church had not planned any more development at the site before the Sept. 30 date.

“As far as we’re concerned, all appropriate procedures have been followed,” Thurston said.

The Anaheim Planning Commission, citing traffic safety concerns, twice denied a permit for the church’s construction. It was overruled by the City Council in April. While the homeowners’ coalition said a majority of residents opposed construction of the church, church officials say they have received 5,000 petitions from residents who supported it.

Gary Baum, the attorney for the coalition, said a full environmental impact report will show that development of the site will have a substantial and negative impact on the area.

The church has proposed building a 24,800-square-foot church and a 50-foot-high tower at the site in the 400 block of Fairmont Boulevard. The church will also provide more than 300 parking spaces.

Included with the conditional use permit issued by the City Council was permission to fell 145 trees on the site.

Baum said Wednesday that the grove of more than 450 aged trees surrounding the site is a nesting area for several species of birds protected by state law, including the red-tailed hawk, the red-shouldered hawk and the great horned owl.

“It’s my understanding that the developers may have violated state law by not informing the (state) Department of Fish and Game about the destruction of the trees and about the planned development,” Baum said.

Earl Lauppe, the Department of Fish and Game wildlife management supervisor for the Southern California region, said Wednesday that the city probably should have required an environmental impact report.

Such reports, Lauppe said, are sent to state agencies like the DFG for comment. Arrangements can then be made to remove nests before development, or the developers might be asked to delay any construction until eggs are hatched, he said.

But Lauppe said the developers did not necessarily violate the law by destroying the birds’ habitat.

“Protected species are protected from being shot or captured; it (the law) doesn’t refer to a bulldozer,” he said. “Unfortunately, when we have urban expansion, protected birds get displaced, and there is nothing we can do about it.”

Thurston called the homeowners’ concern for the trees a “delaying issue.”

“They don’t want the church building, but they would be happy to have more single family dwellings developed in the area that would destroy much more,” he charged. “They must have displaced some animals when they built their homes, so it’s not a fair argument.”

Thurston also said that the church had gone out of its way to design a structure that would meet the demands of the homeowners. He noted that the church had agreed to replace the felled trees with nearly 500 new ones.