Burbank Rejects Plan to Make Project a Gated Community

Siding with residents who argued that it would divide their community, the Burbank City Council has unanimously rejected a proposal to turn a 129-lot subdivision into the city’s first gated community.

More than two dozen people turned out at Tuesday night’s council meeting to oppose a plan by Cayman Development Co. to put gates across two roads leading to their 117-acre development in northwest Burbank.

Citizens and public officials said barriers around the enclave of $500,000 to $1-million homes would impede a quick response by police and firefighters and create two communities.

“It’s a bad idea,” said Burbank Councilman Ted McConkey, who joined Mayor Bob Kramer and council members Stacey Murphy, Bill Wiggins and Dave Golonski in voting against the request. “We need inclusion, not exclusion.”

The president of the Irvine-based development company urged city leaders to allow the gates, arguing that it would increase property values, generating additional tax revenues for the city.

“We sell a product and the product is gated communities,” Dave Eadie said. “It allows for a greater degree of safety and less random traffic.”

Burbank city planner Rick Pruetz said pedestrians and bicyclists would have been allowed into the development, but unauthorized motor vehicles would have been prohibited.

One of the advantages of a gated community was that Burbank would not have to enforce parking rules or repair and maintain the streets, he said.

But those arguments did not appear to convince Burbank residents, who overwhelmingly denounced the project during public comment.

“The developer says to make his property more desirable, you have to reduce vehicular traffic,” said Dave Piroli, who lives two blocks below the development in the Verdugo Hills.

“Our neighborhood is going to have to absorb their traffic from this project. So where are our gates to keep them out?”

Public safety officials expressed reservations over the proposal, which Burbank Fire Chief Mike Davis said could potentially hamper rescue efforts.

“Had the political choice been to allow the gates, we would have worked with the developer,” Davis said. “But as a general rule, we are against anything that increases our emergency response times. And this is an example of a measure that potentially would have done that.”

One council member expressed his concern that access to the area might be blocked anyway.

“The fact that the council did not approve the gates last night doesn’t mean that there will be unrestricted public access in the future,” Wiggins said. “If I were buying a million-dollar piece of property up there and was responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the streets, the first thing I would do as part of a homeowners group is spend several thousand dollars a year to restrict access.”

“I think you will see the residents do just that when they move in,” he added.

Wiggins said that although the council turned down installation of gates to the property, he sees no legal reason residents could not take other measures to restrict access because the developer and homeowners will continue to own the streets. “It’s their property. It’s not a public street,” he said.