Stable Owners Fear L.A. County Zoning Plan Could Be End of the Trail

A proposed zoning amendment that could restrict land use in parts of the Santa Monica Mountains has caused confusion and outrage among owners of horse stables who say they could be put out of business if it is approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

But officials with the county Department of Regional Planning say that, even if the amendment passes, it probably would not affect existing property owners.

The amendment’s intention is to preserve environmentally sensitive land, county officials say.

A public hearing is scheduled in Los Angeles on Monday at 9 a.m. at the Regional Planning Commission office, 320 W. Temple St., Room 105.

“There’s a lot of confusion and a lot of paranoia,” said Frank Meneses, a regional planner with the county. “[The stable owners] are saying we want to ban horses from the county and that’s not true.”

*

The controversy involves the number of horses that can be kept on each property in rustic Triunfo Canyon and surrounding areas, known for their wildlife, horse trails and ranches.

Under its current classification as a resort and recreation zone, property owners are allowed to have two horses per gross acre. The proposed measure would change some of the area’s classification to a light resort and recreation zone and would allow two horses per “usable” or “net” acre--land actually available to horses, excluding slopes and structures such as houses and barns.

“I’d have to move and so would a lot of my neighbors,” said Boyd Zontelli, who keeps 15 horses on his seven-acre property on Lake Vista Drive. “They [the county] would subtract the footage of my house, the slopes and my barn. It would be a terrible thing.”

If passed, the amendment might require a conditional-use permit to open a stable in the future, at the discretion of the Planning Commission.

The measure would also forbid golf courses, athletic fields or any development that might significantly alter the environmentally sensitive land.

*

County officials maintain that, even if the proposed zone is created, it would not apply to current residents.

In fact, the exact wording of the proposed zoning amendment says: “The decision to create the new R-R-L zone rather than modify the existing R-R zone was made due to a need to retain the R-R zone.”

It continues: “It should be noted that the new zoning designation created by this ordinance amendment will not automatically change the zoning of any [existing] properties. Instead, zone changes to properties found suitable for the new R-R-L zone would have to be initiated in the future.”

The Regional Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors would ultimately decide which properties would be targeted, said Laura Shell, planning deputy for Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who represents the area.

“It would be a two-part process, where the property would get a public hearing before the Planning Commission,” Shell said. “Then it would have to go to the Board of Supervisors.”

*

A motion by Yaroslavsky initiated the amendment a few years ago and led the Board of Supervisors to urge the Regional Planning Commission to update zoning regulations in rural areas to better balance development, recreation and environmental interests.

The vote came in response to a long-brewing dispute between the owner of a now-closed 23-acre party retreat called Fantasy Island and its neighbors.

County officials said the resort and recreation zone, which dates back to the 1920s, hampered them in controlling events at the controversial venue popular for weddings and bar mitzvahs.

“Our goal is simply to fine-tune the existing R-R zone,” Shell said. “We love the rural nature of that area and we’re trying to preserve it.”

*

But more than 50 neighboring horse owners are fighting the proposed amendment by circulating hundreds of fliers contending that the county proposes to eliminate their rural way of life by perhaps zoning horses out of the county.

“It’s a foot in the door against horsemen,” said Ruth Gerson, who has lived in the area for 24 years. “Even if it doesn’t affect the people who are already here, why should new people not be allowed to have as many horses?”