Staff is still not playing straight about the property takeover on South Glenoaks (updated)

So why can’t the City of Burbank just be honest about what’s really going on here? Or at least be straight to their own oversight body? There’s no use insulting everyone’s intelligence! And what’s happening with this scheme is not even necessarily a bad thing.

Is it any wonder that we just can’t trust staff any more on most of the items that come before our city council (if we ever could)? On tonight’s agenda they’re trying to get them to vacate an alleyway behind the 100 block of South Glenoaks. Here’s a portion of their summary:

Richard Raad/Rare Enterprises LLC., applicant for V-362, is requesting the vacation of a portion of the public alley which comprises approximately 950 square feet located at the rear (easterly) side of his property located at 140, 144, and 150 South Glenoaks Boulevard, to improve building and site security. The site is approximately 7,360 square feet that contains three single-story buildings (Exhibit A).

The Cabrini Club Inc., applicant for V-402, is requesting the vacation of the public alley which comprises approximately 500 square feet located at the rear (easterly) side of their property located at 128-134 South Glenoaks Boulevard to improve building and site security. The site is approximately 3,500 square feet that contains a two-story building (Exhibit B).

Ok, so we’ve got about 1500 square feet of alleyways that the nearby property owners want, and that the city wants to relinquish. Sounds like a routine request.

Not necessarily a good one, but it’s not an unusual claim to process. Most people don’t know this, but the cities don’t own their own streets and alleyways. The land upon which they sit is actually owned by the adjacent property owners, and the public access is guaranteed by an easement. This means that those lucky Kenneth Rd. and Bel Aire Dr. homeowners also own the street property right in front of them half-to half.

So both Raad and the Cabrini Club want to take over their old easements. But check out the phony rationale — and it is indeed phony:

Public interest supports the vacation (abandonment) of the alley in question in that this alley is presently a dead-end alley without any turnaround, which precludes any emergency vehicle use of the area; only serves the back exits of the property owned by the applicants; and provides direct access to no other properties. Because of the dead-end configuration of the alley the public has no reason to use this alley for vehicular or other purposes. As such, this area has become a spot for vagrants and recalcitrant behavior. These vacation requests are to vacate the public alley use of this property which will function to enhance security within the vacated area by the possible installation of lighting; gates at one or both ends; and signage.

Bullshit. There are no security problems there — at least no more than in most places around Burbank. What Raad and Co. really want to do is consolidate all of that stray footage so that he/they can develop it someday, and probably very soon. That’s what Warner Brothers did when we relinquished our easements on both Warner Blvd. and the Pass/Olive cutoff.

So who’s fooling whom? This is all about providing future development opportunities for a much bigger and more intact parcel, and not some wacky fear of a hobo or two who wants to hang around Glenoaks.

Worse, what about the adjacent property owners on the other side of the same alleyway? Why are Raad and Cabrini getting ALL of that square footage? The other side should be holding half of the easement.

And it gets even odder: are these even conventional easements in the first place? Doesn’t the city actually own this ancient property instead?

The reason we ask this question is because we had heard many years ago that people like Marv’s Toys had also tried to take over their own little alleyways to nowhere, but were told at the time that this property was actually owned by the City of Burbank. So what evidence can staff offer to us now that we have an easement situation in the first place? On the very same street?

Look, if people want to develop their own properties then so be it. And if they want the city to drop easements on old streets and alleyways in order to do so better then let’s talk about it. But no one needs to lie about what’s really going on here in order to mislead the public about the true story.

After all, if “economic development” is such a good idea then why hide it?

**UPDATE**

Naturally, no one bothered to ask Raad tonight if he was planning to build on his new acquisition the same way that Warner Brothers did 2X when we also gave them a couple of streets for “security” purposes.

One LOL moment though was when Gary Bric said that he personally saw broken bottles and hypodermic needles in that same alleyway. Funny– he must have been to a Quinceañera or two down at the K of C, because if there’s any major police problems over there it’s been those and other rent-outs. And why’s he now taking on Ed Guerrero about Stacey Murphy? He shouldn’t be either defending her or playing down her problems. Guerrero actually made sense about South Glenoaks and the ridiculousness of this phony safety and security premise behind the vacation.

Put up more lights he said. But buckling up on security in a dank old alley won’t get you a bigger lot to build upon. That’s what this was all about.

About these ads