Burbank Rejects Plan to Gate Subdivision

Siding with residents who argued it would divide their community, the 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 its 117-acre development in northwest Burbank.

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

“It’s a bad idea and it’s terrible timing,” said Burbank Councilman Ted McConkey. “We need inclusion, not exclusion.”

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

“We sell a product and the product is gated communities,” company President 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 gated 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, Pruetz said.

But those arguments did not appear convincing to Burbank residents, who overwhelmingly denounced the project during more than two hours of 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 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 proposed changes, 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,” Councilman Bill Wiggins said Wednesday. “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.

Wiggins said even though the council turned down installation of the gates, 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.