William Baker’s professional recording firm Pawnshop Studio has occupied a unit at 14819 Oxnard Street in Van Nuys for 20 years. His is one of an estimated 186 businesses that could face displacement as part of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s so-called “Option A” site for a required maintenance and storage facility to serve a light rail system proposed by the agency for the east San Fernando Valley. He and about 60 others were hopeful they could convince Metro to scrap Option A at a meeting on Oct. 10. But they left disappointed. “I think the people at the helm of this project are insincere about their conversations with (the business community),” Baker said following the information session with Metro. “They regurgitate the same answers over and over again with no sincerity – they’re just going through the motions.” The agency held the meeting to engage informally with business owners who had expressed concerns during its previous five public hearings on the transit project. Most of those present represented companies that would be forced to move from their properties if the agency’s directors approve an option to build a light rail system between the Metro Orange Line station in Van Nuys and the Sylmar-San Fernando Metrolink station in Sylmar. “I honestly think that although this is a good question-and-answer, it’s not on the record, so it’s basically something to appease us,” said Ivan Gomez, owner of specialty hardware manufacturer Pashupatina in Van Nuys. His location is also within Option A, which comprises 58 parcels northeast of the intersection of Kester Avenue and Oxnard Street. “This is a dog and pony show,” Gomez added. Options B and C for the maintenance site also contain properties housing businesses, though so far it appears their owners have not organized to oppose the project. Occupants at any site will only be displaced if the board elects to build the light rail project, noted Karen Swift, Metro’s community relations manager for San Fernando Valley. The board could also opt to build another bus rapid transit line, make adjustments to existing infrastructure or do nothing, according to the project’s environmental impact report. “Remember, nothing has been decided yet – we are still in the planning stages,” Swift reiterated throughout the Oct. 10 meeting. “We want to hear your thoughts on this process. … That’s why we’re doing this.” Community of businesses Too much is at stake to stand by while the agency decides how it wants to proceed, insisted Peter Scholz, owner of Showcase Cabinets in Van Nuys. The cluster of businesses within Option A considers itself a tight-knit community, he explained, with many having relationships spanning decades. “We work off each other,” Scholz said. “It’s not about the money. You can’t replace these relationships.” Showcase Cabinets often receives and refers business from other companies in the neighborhood, allowing them to act as a “one-stop shop” for customers who drive in from Los Angeles. For instance, a client may visit Scholz for new cabinets, then go next door to Pashupatina to design specialty pulls and knobs. The same client can then have the cabinets painted at Valley Painting Service down the street. “They can go to any one of us and it’s convenient,” Scholz said. “If this is taken away from us, it’s going to be a great loss.” While state and federal policies on relocating private entities to make way for public projects guarantee remunerations for businesses that are forced to move, a tight commercial real estate market makes it unlikely that local businesses will be able to find comparable industrial properties nearby, noted NAI Capital real estate broker Chad Gahr. “The vacancy rate in the east San Fernando Valley is 1 percent or less,” Gahr said. “If you’re in Van Nuys and are going to be displaced and are looking to relocate to similar quarters, you’d be lucky if you’d find one that would work. Right now the options are basically zero.” If the light rail project is approved, Metro will enlist the services of relocation consultants to work with each business that is forced to move, the agency said during the Oct. 10 meeting. All businesses will be entitled to compensation, regardless of whether they own or rent the properties in which they operate. Site D Gomez and Scholz would prefer to see the maintenance facility set up in a place that will have a much smaller impact on surrounding businesses. Their proposal for an alternative location, dubbed “Site D,” would have the rail yard built on 47 acres near 7600 Tyrone Street. The property is split between the Department of Water and Power and a location of salvaged automobile seller Copart, which conducts auctions there. “It’s basically an empty dirt lot – DWP hasn’t done anything with it,” Scholz said. The acreage between the two sites would be more than enough to house the maintenance facility, with room left over for a community green space, he added. Scholz and Gomez managed to garner enough support around Site D that Metro was prompted to contact the utilities department about its intention for the property. The agency received a response just before the meeting on Oct. 10, according to Metro Senior Executive Officer Manjeet Ranu. “Late this afternoon we got a letter from DWP that says they have specific plans and a construction timeline for use of that property,” Ranu said during the forum. If Metro were to buy the land from the department, the DWP in turn would need to encroach on other private entities – which could include businesses – in order to meet its needs, explained Walt Davis, Metro project manager for the east San Fernando Valley. “If we were somehow able to get that property from them, that forces them to have to identify a right-away acquisition,” Davis explained. “It would be kicking the can down the road.” What’s next While the dream of Site D appears to be dead, Gomez and Scholz are not giving up just yet. The two plan to bring their concerns before Metro’s board at its monthly meeting Oct. 26. They also have been circulating an anti-Option A petition, which has garnered more than 300 signatures so far, and are in the process of hanging bright yellow banners that read “No to Option A” on the exterior of businesses that would be displaced. “I still have my hopes that if we get (our proposal) to the right people they might make a better decision,” Gomez said. On the other hand, Panorama City Neighborhood Council member Michelle Klein-Hass is determined to see the light rail and its maintenance facility land in Panorama City, which falls within the bounds of Options B and C. The jobs that the project could bring would be a boon for the area’s residents, who also depend heavily on public transportation. “All we’ve gotten is a lick, a promise and buses. We need this,” Klein-Hass said. “The people of Panorama City that we represent, they need jobs.” After decades of being abandoned by large employers – such as the Schlitz Brewing Co. in 1982 and the General Motors Co.’s Van Nuys Assembly in 1998 – the region yearns to be transformed into a “destination,” she added. “You’ve heard a lot of very privileged people crying into their beer about how they’re going to lose their businesses, and here we are … working class, predominantly Latino, predominantly immigrant communities that are going to be robbed of having their shot,” Klein-Hass said. “And I won’t give up my shot.”
