11-10-1975 - Special 2 Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 10, 1975.
• The adjourned regular meeting of City Council called to order at
4:30 P.M. by Mayor Ken Chappell in the City Manager's conference
room.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Chappell; Councilmen: Shearer,
Miller, Browne, Tice
Others Present: George Aiassa, City Manager.
George Wakefield, City Attorney
Lela Preston, City Clerk
Ramon Diaz, Acting Planning Director
Richard Bonaparte, Special Services Officer
RFVTFWOF REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE KEEPING OF HORSES:
R-A Zone Mr. Diaz, Acting Planning Director
referred Council to the reports they
received from Staff at their meeting of
October 14 and'the proposed changes underlined. Referring to
the R-A Zone in particular, Item 5, Section 9203.d 5, stating
this has caused some enforcement problems. Staff is proposing
that the animals listed in Section 9203.d - 2 and 3 -"that those
animals shall not be maintained or permitted to roam within 5'
of any property line except when the animal is being placed onto
or removed from the premises." Explained that anyone maintaining
or keeping such animals must do so in compliance with the L.A.
County Health Code and regulations.
Further explained that what is attempted
here is to clearly define the area in which the animals could be
kept. The L.A. County Code calls for 351, the 5' from a property
line is to keep horses from getting up to the property line,
hanging its head over the fence or being a nuisance to the
neighbor in any.manner. The County code does not call for the 5'
from a property line. The County code says "maintain" which is
in some cases broadly interpreted and in others it means
"stabled". Staff wants to be very clear about that in West
Covina and are saying horses can roam or can be rode within 5'.
Right now there are no limitations as far as roaming or riding.
Discussion followed an this phase;
Councilman Shearer was concerned about the wording and wondered
if the last sentence should say "...in addition anyone keeping
.... must do so in compliance with.....". The City Attorney
agreed that would make it clear that the 5' was not in addition
to the 35' but could be included within the 35' which the County
• requires. Councilman Shearer suggested that this change be made
and Council indicated agreement.
Mayor Chappell asked if this goes into
effect will it apply to everyone in the City now or will there
be a grandfather clause? Mr. Diaz stated there was a 6 month
grandfather clause applying in both R-A and R-1 zones.
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. MEETING Page Two
REVIEW OF REGULATIONS RE 11/10/75
KEEPING HORSES
The Mayor pointed out that in reality
this will force everyone having a horse in West Covina to
build a fence 5' from their property line to contain the
horse; Mr. Bonaparte said it would probably be handled on a
complaint basis only - to many people they could care less
• if a horse comes up to the property line but there are some
that complain and in that particular case we would ask them
to move it back.
Councilman Shearer asked if this was
going to cause the same problem previously encountered of
"selective enforcement"? Discussion followed with staff
explaining that the code does not require that a separate fence
be put up but that the owner of the horse keep the horse 5'
from the property line and this can be done by the use of a
wire, electrified if needed.
Councilman Shearer asked Mr. Wakefield
if say mutual property owners both having horses agreed that the
5' restriction is rather silly could there be an exemption made?
Mr. Wakefield stated that could be developed; Councilman
Shearer felt that might solve the problem of selective enforce-
ment. Mayor Chappell asked Mr. Bonaparte, Special Services
Officer, if he saw any problem in.the enforcement of this?
Mr. Bonaparte answered "with the change suggested to clarify it
I see no problem." The Mayor asked how many people have
complained --a half dozen? Mr. Bonaparte answered unfortunately
that is probably true but just one complaint can cause a big
problem. Council indicated they could live with the 51.inter-
pretation.
• Mr. Diaz stated on both R-1 and R-A
staff is proposing that parcels within both zones that do not
meet the above zoning standards on distances, health department
codes and the 51 and whatever ratio is agreed to shall have 6
months in which to achieve compliance. One problem Mr. Bonaparte
has had in enforcing compliance is that on lots that have less
than an acre in R-1 and less than 209000 square feet in R-A the
statement is brought up that we have had horses here since the
year 1, and there is no way to prove it one way or the other
and this proves that within 6 months or within a year - if
Council prefers - that from this time on you have to be in
compliance, and this ties in with the new ratio we are proposing.
Council then discussed some of the
problems of enforcement 'in the annexation of Valinda; future
possible annexations discussed with reference to this proposed
ordinance as compared to the present County ordinance. Staff
stated this would be a little stricter than the County
ordinance on paper; Mr. Diaz explained in further detail referring
to particular areas.
Ratio Changes: Mr. Diaz clarified the differences that
exist now between the R-A and R-1 zones.
The only differences, between the two
zones are now in the R-A you can maintain a horse, goats, swine,
• bovine animals if you have 20,000 square feet of area and can con-
form to the other distance requirements. In the R-1 you can only
maintain horses if you have at least one acre irregardless of how
large. In the R-A the ratio is 20,000 square feet and the
computation is that the number shall not exceed 3 per acre. In
the R-1 you have to have a minimum of one acre and l horse per
half acre and the acre is computed by staff at 439560 square feet
rather than the commercial acre of 409000 square feet. What is
2 -
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. MEETING
REVIEW OF REGULATIONS
RE KEEPING HORSES
Page Three
11/10/75
proposed here is to make both ordinances the same as far as
ratio. In the R-A zone we are really not changing anything;
1 horse for each 201,000 square feet, 2 horses for 35,000 and
.3 horses for each acre. On parcels of more than one acre we are
recommending that an animal may be kept for each 59000 square
. feet with a maximum number of 10 animals on 2 acres or more.
Staff contacted Cal -Poly Horse Farm and read them these suggestions
and they said "yes, these distances were good and the breakdown
was proper."
Mr. Diaz further explained what this
does: It opens.up R-1 area - 20,000 square feet lots 2 horses.
Pointed out the lots across from West Covina High School - R-A
can now have horses. Mayor Chappell asked if there were any
horses in there now - Mr. Diaz replied there were not. Council
suggested rezoning that area to R-1 thereby solving the horse
problem. Other areas in the City discussed by Council and staff.
Mr. Bonaparte discussed some of the complaints received and
the areas that now have horses and Would not be allowed to have
horses under the proposed changes; also pointed out areas that
possibly would be allowed to have horses and do not have horses
now. Council indicated a great concern over opening up other
areas for the keeping of horses, areas that have never had
horses. Mr. Diaz said staff considered the possibility of an
overlay zone possibly applied on Area Districts 3, 4 and 5. Open
discussion followed by Council and staff. Sizes of lots on
Vanderhoof discussed and those in other areas of the city;
Councilman Tice suggested a possible permit procedure;
Councilman Shearer against the permit procedure stating his
reasons; City Attorney said he thought zoning for a horse by
• contract or permit should not be permitted; explained some of the
various problems; permit by distance is not a problem if you have
two neighbors agreeing but saying you can have a horse is another
thing.
Mayor Chappell asked - are we getting
complaints now - what caused the proposed recommendation of
209000 square feet? Mr. Diaz stated primarily two things. One,
the problem of enforcement and the other was the general feeling
that the areas east of the City boundaries, areas now in the
County, staff thought would be in the best interests of the City
to annex or at least look at for possible annexation and the
current horse regulations as written now would prevent or
discourage those areas from coming into the City and considering
the area in general staff felt these regulations would fit.
Mayor Chappell asked Mr. Wakefield: On an annexation when we
all agree that they come into our City as now constituted
wouldn't that allow them to continue to have horses?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes, Mr. Mayor, the underlying
statutory provisions of annexations is
if the City has a prezoned area it
comes into the City with the same limitations as exist in the
unincorporated area at the time. On the other hand that is not a
permanent thing at all and from the standpoint of the property
owner once he gets into the City the City might then change the
• requirements or change the zoning applicable to his property, so
he doesn't have any real assurance that things are going to stay
that way forever.
Councilman Browne: Say we annex a property and the owner
sells, would the new owner be under the
annexation provision?
- 3 -
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. MEETING Page Four
REVIEW OF REGULATIONS -RE 11/10/75
KEEPING HORSES .�
.Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, the zoning rights run
with the property and not the indivi.-
dual.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I am not satisfied with this
• aspect. I would vote again-s-t it on the
basis the map is not complete, that
there are sprinklings of 20,000 square foot lots throughout the
City. I do recognize the problem we face. I think some provi-
sion tied in with Area Districts, not the size of the individual
lot, and it would have to be the majority of the lots in the
area, whatever district, it should be on that basis or some
variation east or wherever - there may be an overlay provisions
to give the opportunity, and it may be a rare one but it is
those rare cases that can cause Mr.. Bonaparte and Council pro-
blems. I don't know what the answer is but I think some tie in
with the area concept rather than the size along with the 5'
I would be receptive to that.
Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, I think Councilman Shearer
has expressed my feelings on this. I
would have to vote "no". I am inclined
to think it should be set on certain areas of the City.
Councilman Browne: I would go along with that also, Mr.
Mayor.
Councilman Miller: Mr. Mayor, the 5' provision I can
visualize at this point but I am very
hesitant on the square footage. If we
went to some kind of an overlay or area provision I still don't
like to categorize area;; in just part of the City eligible for
horses and other areas are not. I don't think that is being
consistent either. I am not saying that we lower the standards
for the genera3.city, I think we have it proper the way it is.
I am assuming.that will not rule out. the eligibility in other
parts of the City if they maintain an acre. If you go Area
District you are saying they will have a lower standard and the
other areas in the city will have a higher standard - isn't
that what you are saying?
Mr. Diaz: No, what we are saying is if an indivi-
dual has a 40,000 square foot lot in the
R-1, say west of Citrus Avenue, since
the surrounding lots are probably going to be in the 7500 and 9500
area that he should -have at least an acre before he can have a
horse, but east of Citrus since generally all the lots are of
20,000 square feet and horses were already kept there, as is the
case now, it would be more consistent to have the 20,000 square
feet because you have 20,000 square foot lots all around you.
Councilman Miller: That basically is what I was saying, but
going one step further, with the ordinance
you now have you ran into a problem of
compliance and many people broke the law, now we are adjusting the
ordinance to meet a legality, so they can be legal - and down the
• road apiece - whatever the changes are it is definitely going to
have to be sound, because whatever it turns out to be somebody
comes in and wants. a substandard you then start the process all
over again and now you are started down that road again. So I am
just saying you have to be aware of that. So with that in mind
at this point I will just be hesitant.
- 4 -
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. MEETING
REVIEW OF REGULATIONS.RE
KEEPING HORSES
Page Five
11/10/75
Mayor Chappell: Well Council has said this before and
we are now just saying it with a little
bit of variation, but we still do not
want horses all over town, we want them protected. We do know if
a realtor is asked "where can I go and have horses" - that is the
area they take them too. And I find no fault with that part of
• it because that is basically established, but to lower the limits
and then have horses cropping up all over the City - no way -
I don't want a horse next door to me and I don't know but what my
neighbor next door could comply with this recommendation.
Councilman Shearer: Going back to the map - are all of the
R-A zoned properties up there - and I
know they are not - so I wonder if we
should embark on this because in all of those green areas
if they have 20,000 square feet they can keep a pig in the green
areas. So I wonder if we shouldn't look now at rezoning those
properties because as far as I am concerned I don't think pigs
should be kept in the city at all, (Explained the problems
with keeping pigs, goats, etc.) I think maybe we should refer
this to the Planning Commission and staff - that maybe we should
rezone those properties. I don't think pigs and goats are
compatible in a residential community.
Mr. Diaz explained that at the request
of a citizen a.questionnaire was sent to twenty property owners
in a specified area asking them if they would want the property
rezoned from R-A to R-1 at no cost to them initiated by the City,
and we had 8 returns. Five of them said "no", three said "yes"
and of the three one was the citizen requesting it. From the
• standpoint of staff there is no dispute we would recommend re-
zoning all the R-A properties in that area to R-1 but the people
currently sitting on those R-A properties would object to it.
From the planning standpoint it is really the best way to go.
Councilman Shearer asked Mr. Wakefield can we tie the zoning change into a change of hands on the pro-
perty?
Mr. Wakefield: I don't see how you would do that really.
I have always believed, and not all
public attorneys agree with me, that the
right to keep animals in a particular zone was sort of like an
incidental use to the primary use of a property for residential
purposes and you didn't acquire any so called vested rights to
residential uses that were subject to being changed by the
appropriate change of the ordinances and if you prohibit a
certain incidental use in a R-1 zone it seems to me that what
you end up with is saying to those people that have goats or
swine at the time that in effect you have a nonconforming use
right, you have the right to maintain what you have. And then
you get into a problem of what limits there are to that use, is
it a perpetual one of nonconforming use or can it be limited to
the sale of property. And again, I am not at all sure that
you can by zoning controls make the right contingent upon who owns
the property. I think you have to decide whether it is an
• appropriate thing or it isn't.
Councilman Shearer: Could we make it then on the basis of
a continuing use? (Explained) If in the
sale of property someone didn't want to
keep sheep or whatever, then it would stop?
- 5 -
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. MEETING
REVIEW OF REGULATIONS.RE
KEEPING HORSES
Page Six
11/10/75
Fir. Wakefield: That essentially is what we have in our
nonconforming use provisions at the
present time. If the nonconforming use
is discontinued for a period of 6 months.then the right is lost,
someone else can't come back and reactivate the use. We do have
• a precedent on that. If you treat it as a nonconforming use then
the present provisions governing nonconforming uses would say if
discontinued for 6 months then it -is lost. (Referred back to the
Merced Horse Ranch problem.) Really I think if you wanted to
spell it out I would do it in a separate provision rather than
rely on the general nonconforming use provisions. If the main-
tenance of sheep, goats or swine was discontinued for 6 months
then the right would be lost. (Council agreed, saying this was
one of their big concerns.)
Mr. Diaz: Mr. Mayor,.what I would like to do - we
now have concurrence on two items - is
go back and rework this ordinance, get
the information Council asked for with regard to the map, showing
the number of lots and sizes, starting with east of Citrus and
get these proposed ordinances back to you in the form of a staff
report and if okay then set that ordinance for hearing before the
Planning Commission and if not then get your feedback on it
rather than going direct to the Planning Commission and then
getting your feedback on it. (Council agreed)
Motion by Councilman Shearer to direct staff at its convenience
to investigate the subject of the R-A Zones in the City with the
intent to rezone to R-l; seconded by Councilman Browne and
carried.
• (Mr. Bonaparte asked if Council wanted to see the R-A lots that
are big enough now to have animals on and Council said they
would like to have that information also.)
•
ADJOURNMENT Mayor Chappell adjourned the meeting at
5:45 P.M. to Council meeting at 7:30 P.M.
in the City Council Chambers.
- 6 -