Keep in mind that this parking covenant in Toluca Lake was set up for the sake of the neighborhood, and not the old “Greene” store. So the council should maintain it still — and then enforce it

Bound to be lost in the upcoming council discussion over staff’s proposal to relax an old parking covenant in the Alameda/Riverside Drive area is that the City of Burbank actually once required these spaces in order to relieve the parking strain on the surrounding neighborhood. 

Sure it was the 1960s, and of course the original subject business is long gone. But TL is more crowded than ever, and the replacement businesses on that old property still have a need for non-public-interfering offstreet parking. Perhaps greater.

This whole situation raises an interesting question. Do any of those  “Greene” replacement businesses know that their property owner has always had the right to allow their employees, clients, and customers to park on the adjacent property because of this old covenant? So are they? Or do they park on the street instead.

If so, this is not good– and it also shows how much more conscientious the city was 50 years ago in seeing to it that our TL businesses provided enough parking on their own.

Which it should do still. Our current city council needs to have the adjacent property owner maintain this old unreleased covenant for his neighbors, and then make them use it. This is a great opportunity for them to make sure that there are at least five or six cars that don’t need to be on the street somewhere bothering the neighborhood. We also don’t follow this historical rendition too well when it comes to the supposed mutual understanding about the covenant itself, or the agreed-upon missing release from 1969,  at least with the way staff tries to play it all off in their report. Too many unanswered questions.

Of course, being that this is the new Burbank, we can already hear some of our council members now. “Well, if the two businesses are ok with this change, then who are we to get in the way…?

“It’s fine with me…

“People.”

They’d be missing the point. It’s not between businesses. It’s between businesses and neighborhoods.

Advertisements

20 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

20 responses to “Keep in mind that this parking covenant in Toluca Lake was set up for the sake of the neighborhood, and not the old “Greene” store. So the council should maintain it still — and then enforce it

  1. Re: the $50,000 donated to Yes on Measure B from Visit Burbank a.k.a. Burbank Hospitality Association. https://burbankviewpoints.com/2016/12/06/50000-in-public-funds-used-to-campaign-for-yes-on-measure-b/

  2. Burbank Bill

    Wow, Telamon is just so disrespectful. Frotos asked for an agenda item to look into this sleazy 50k deal involving public money being used to promote measure B and puffers response I. Wow, must be an election year., he’s right, It is and we will vote him OUT

    • semichorus

      Staff of course will claim that it’s not “public money,” but if it’s the result of revenue collection, it is. The administration and disbursement of it also involved staff time. That alone is a no-no.

      I wonder how the FPPC considers T-BID money. That’s the real question, and they must have a quick and easy obvious answer. Probably, “no way can it be used.”

      Yes, Talamontes is Exhibit No.1 as to how public pensions need to be cut. What a spoiled individual.

      • Actually, we researched this question before taking the issue to the Council, and there’s little doubt as to how the FPPC will view TBID funds.

        In 2001 the California Court of Appeal heard a case in which the issue was whether the Brown Act applied to the board meetings of a property owners association (POA), which had been created in conjunction with a business improvement district (BID), and to which the city had delegated administrative authority over BID funds.

        The court held the Act did in fact govern such meetings. In arriving at its decision, the court observed that while the city delegated administrative functions to the POA, the city retained ultimate control over the administration of the BID funds so as to safeguard the public interest. Because the city retains such control, the POA was in fact an agency of the city, and was thus bound by the same laws and regulations as the public entity that is delegating its authority. Epstein v. Hollywood Entm’t Dist. II Bus. Improvement Dist., 87 Cal. App. 4th 862, 873 (2001).

        The situation here is quite similar: The BHA is a municipal corporation created by the City Council, for the sole purpose of administering the tax revenues the City collects from local hotels as part of a TBID (as authorized by the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Cal. Sts. & High. Code § 36600 et seq.). According to BHA’s corporate filings with the California Secretary of State, the association’s address is 275 E. Olive Avenue (i.e., City Hall), and its agent for service of process, Susie Avetisyan, is a city employee. Thus, from a legal standpoint, the Burbank Hospitality Association is an agency of the City of Burbank, and is therefore bound by the same laws that bind the City of Burbank.

        Because the City of Burbank could not legally contribute to the Yes on B campaign, neither could the Burbank Hospitality Association, and I would be somewhat surprised if the FPPC did not reach a similar conclusion.

        • semichorus

          I would suspect so. These monies are in fact a “tax” on the businesses, and thus public monies under the clear administration of a public agency.

          Staff of course thinks it’s private money brought together for a private interest, and thus it’s A-OK for them to spend it any way they want. Interesting too about the Brown Act application to this POA, which means that unless they agendized and discussed this expenditure in public there’s a clear violation there as well, beyond the council’s obvious decision behind the scenes to agree to this political donation.

          How sleazy. It sounds like a slam dunk, and makes you wonder what else goes on in these BIDs. Albano should be fired over this.

          So Will — you still impressed by her counsel? She must know how to easily flatter you for changing your mind about her as soon as you got up there.

          • Anonymous

            This city counts on citizens having their blinders on and not challenging their rule bending and breaking. I have witnessed shocking things that the city gets away with because people are afraid to challenge for fear of retaliation.
            Truthfully, I witnessed something sinister evolving on the last city council meeting but, even I while having the privilege of being anonymous, will leave this one alone. You can only be so stupid.

          • BurbankBuddy

            good work by Sousa and the gang. The fact that MAYOR Tellamoron’s first response to David Spell was to have Albano talk to him privately after the meeting, as if he had a small parking complaint or something. These are serious allegations. And begs the question, what other similar things have gone on ????

            • semichorus

              Someone well funded enough to pay for good attorneys could have shut down that Measure B election. It was frustrating to watch those multiple violations going on, knowing that a couple of good briefs could have stopped those clowns in their tracks– especially the council pre-approval process. I also think a good case could have been made that “city election” means something, and that using another old ordinance to bundle the Measure B vote into a consolidated election could have been prevented.

  3. Carlos

    Today is the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan. A day to remember those who died to protect our freedoms and defend our Constitution. A day to remember the importance of Peace through strength and a day to show pride and support for our citizens who serve in our military for the protection of us all.
    #GodBlessAmerica
    #MAGA

  4. Anony Miss

    You predicted before the council meeting that the council would say that the the two businesses are fine with change and who are they to get in the way.
    Did anyone notice the not so subtle reference of the way Nazis slowly took over? Dr. Gordon and David Paroli both made a point of it. This attitude of the city leaders discounting the concerns and fair governing of the people is slowly building. Those two guys who made the video are good men. They are rare to dare speak up and take a stand. They have many good points.
    Talamantes accusing Frutos of saying something because it is election year. He did that to Gordon a few weeks ago. Yes Talamantes, it’s election time.

    • semichorus

      Isn’t it sad to see that the city councils of the 1960s showed MORE concern for neighborhood parking than these current lamebrain ones? They’re the ones that required the covenant in the first place for that old store. Can you imagine such a requirement now?

      These current clowns are COMPLETELY missing the point about that covenant. It has nothing to do with the businesses– it’s the NEIGHBORHOOD that it was intended for.

      And parking over there is a bigger problem than ever! Staff is also being dishonest by not telling us the whole story about this sudden “need” to relax the requirement. The owner obviously wants to sell the property without any parking encumbrances.

      What a horrorshow Burbank has become. And these assholes will go OUT OF THEIR WAY to now do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I and others urge them to do. No matter how good our explanations and logic.

      Do you see why I long ago gave up trying to affect change here? Burbank is a stupid, spoiled, careless, and most likely corrupt little town chock full of morons and (at best) hopeless, arrogant mediocrities.

      Speaking of which, Vice-Mayor Rogers is famous for this kind of arrogant obstinacy, btw. Even if he agrees with someone he doesn’t like, or knows they have a good point, his ego prevents him from doing what it is that THEY urge. Instead, he’ll immediately do or advocate the exact opposite. Or ignore the issue completely and go on the personal attack.

      He did it with Ted McConkey all the time.

  5. Anonymous

    Funny thing the city for years held hearings and special parking considerations for that place in the 90’s. Not ONE staff member even found this covenant it was the owners who found it.

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s