Critics Decry Proposal to Revise Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Plan : Growth: Business owners say their ability to expand would be limited if 2,100-acre area is rezoned.

A plan to rezone more than 2,100 acres in Chatsworth in an attempt to push major commercial and industrial projects to nearby Porter Ranch or Warner Center would increase traffic by failing to create jobs for new residents, critics said Thursday.

Opponents also argued during a more than two-hour hearing before the Los Angeles Planning Commission that the proposal discriminates against small to medium-sized business owners by limiting their ability to expand.

“I’ve owned my property for years,” businessman Harvey Sklar said. “Now that I’m getting ready to build, I can’t because of this.”

Government places “restrictions and restrictions and restrictions on business,” he said. “Why don’t you leave us alone and let us do business?”

The zone changes proposed would affect about 1,000 property owners and roughly halve the amount of development now permitted in the area south of the Simi Valley Freeway between Topanga Canyon Boulevard and Tampa Avenue. The area is now occupied by small manufacturing plants and office buildings.

“What we are recommending is for an increase in housing and a decrease in industrial uses” in the area, said city Planner R. Nicolas Brown.

He said the proposed revisions to the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch District Plan would carry out a city plan adopted in 1960 that calls for scattered dense commercial and industrial centers surrounded by residential neighborhoods.

Brown said the proposal would alleviate traffic in the area, not increase it; reduce air pollution from industry and automobiles, and provide additional open space.

But the only one of more than 20 speakers to agree with Brown was Phyllis Winger, planning deputy to Councilman Hal Bernson, who represents the area. The proposal, she said, would decrease future traffic in Chatsworth and provide better planning for the area.

Attorney Fred Gaines, representing the Valley Industrial and Commercial Assn., estimated that 150,000 jobs would be lost to the area over the next 15 or 20 years if small businesses in the area are not allowed to expand.

If the proposal is approved, new residents by the thousands will be forced to drive to areas such as the Santa Clarita Valley and downtown Los Angeles to work, adding to traffic congestion near the Simi Valley Freeway, said attorney Arthur K. Snyder, who represents a lumber company in the area.

“Downsizing looks great on paper,” said community activist Walter Prince, “but it won’t have any impact on traffic.”

Charles Smith, owner of 36 acres in the area, said he has waited for more than 12 years for a plan to be completed so that he could build on his land. “It’s now designated open space,” he said. “You’ve placed a highly desirable property in limbo.”

Planning commissioners ordered the planning staff to prepare a report by July 9 on the effects of the proposal, including the jobs-to-housing balance. Chairman William Luddy scheduled another hearing on the proposal July 23.

“I’m not convinced this solves any traffic problems,” Luddy said, adding that the industrial job base must be preserved.

“I’m disturbed that we’re literally pulling the rug out from a viable industrial base,” Commissioner Suzette Nieman said.