Foothills Sentry February 2021

Foothills Sentry Page 4 February 2021 JOHNSON MOTORCARS 31 Years of Specializing in the Service and Repair of Mercedes-Benz Gary Johnson 714-997-2567 982 N. Batavia # B13, Orange, CA 92867 gary@johnsonmotorcars.com By Jim Mamer The January issue of the Sen- try had the most accurate and ef- fective first page in memory. On page one there were two photos of the Bond Fire, and directly un- der that the article with the title “Canyon residents rally to protect each other against Bond Fire as communication systems fail.” My wife and I live in Modjeska where the power was turned off the evening of Dec. 2. On Dec. 3, at about 1:30 a.m., our block captain woke us by pounding very loudly and persistently on the wall of our house and yell- ing that the fire had reached the ridgeline and we had to go. In compete darkness, half asleep and very sleep-confused, we began to round up our three frightened cats (not as easy as one might expect). Then, given the obvious emer- gency, we took what we could and began the hour-long search for a place to stay. Surprisingly, the most disturb- ing part of this was not the fire. It was the darkness and the lack of any useful means of communica- tion, which had made it necessary for neighbors to go door-to-door, pounding on walls. I understand that Edison has painted itself into a corner. For most of our more-than-20 years in the canyon, it seems that Edison has done only a minimal amount of maintenance and invested very little in technical upgrades. I could cite multiple examples, but one should do. About seven years ago, I noticed a pole cracked at its base and leaning toward the neighbor’s home. Even then, Edison resisted doing anything for days. First, it insisted it was not its pole. Then, after I pointed out the “E” at the end of the ID number, the company suggested they it do nothing until Cox and AT&T removed their wires. Edi- son clearly said that it would not contact Cox or AT&T. I had to do that. In the end, it took more than two weeks to sort out. All that changed after Los Angeles County sued Southern California Edison (north of us) in 2019. “Our Edison” began to do more proactive maintenance. And it has become super-sensitive to wind. We, like most residents in the canyons, have received doz- ens of messages warning that, “Due to forecast fire weather con- ditions, Southern California Edi- son continues to explore a poten- tial Public Safety Power Shutoff of electrical lines in your area.” The Santa Ana winds are nothing new and, at some point, one expects Edison will find a way to live with them without the constant power shutoffs, but it is near impossible to get the utility to answer questions. It has very polite operators answering the phones, but these people have no power to address concerns and will not give me access to any of the executives. I have tried to communicate with higher-ups numerous times. I have emailed and I have called, but I have never gotten any response from anyone with knowledge of what Edison plans for the future. Edison didn’t even bother to show up at the meeting held (in the canyon) near the end of the Bond Fire and many, if not most, of the questions were directed to it. Some of my neighbors expressed discomfort with the anger exhibited by some during the meeting, but I believe the anger was to be expected. Questions to Edison: As was made clear in Decem- ber, cutting power does not al- ways prevent fires. What is Edi- son doing right now, and what is planned in the near future to make it unnecessary to shut off power during most windstorms? Are there computer-based sys- tems that would make detection of problems with power transmis- sion lines apparent? In December of 2019, the biggest fire up north is said to have started when a guy-wire and a jumper wire made contact. Could the power compa- ny have had a system in place that could have warned of the danger? Jim Mamer lives in Modjeska with his wife and three cats. They have been canyon residents since 1996. He taught government, history and economics until he retired in 2011. Guest Commentary Edison outages put canyons in darkness and danger Conflict on Cambridge Street: neighbors fuming over dorm housing makeovers Longtime Cambridge Street resident Mike Cash prepared the following info to let his friends and neighbors know about the construction and plans threaten- ing the single-family area. We’ve all noticed the reconstruction at 570 N. Cambridge St. The company that purchased this property is Young Lewin Capital. It has turned the single-family home into a 10 bedroom/10 bathroom dorm with two parking spots. The garage is now also a room with laminate flooring, couches and a TV. This is what Young Lewin Cap- ital says on its website: “570 N. Cambridge Street is located 0.4 miles from Chapman University. We have received city approval for a 6 Bed/6 Bath house expan- sion that is nearing completion and a 4 Bed/4 Bath ADU. The 6 Bed/6 Bath house is pre-leased at $8,340 monthly ($1,390/bed- room). This property is located adjacent to several others that we either own or have in escrow. We ultimately intend to acquire dou- ble-digit properties on this specif- ic block to create a student hous- ing assemblage which we believe will give us numerous strategic advantages.” Members of a Chapman University fraternity moved into 570 Jan. 15. Young Lewin also owns 552 N. Cambridge St. The company is using AB68, the California “ADU law” to turn our neighborhood into dorm row, and our city planners have approved this. I’m told that the plans for 552 N. Cambridge are pending approval. The developer has stated that it plans to own 10-plus properties in the immediate area to convert to dorm-style facilities. It’s time to contact our city council, mayor, city planners, city manager, city attorney, build- ing department and code enforce- ment, etc. Contact info may be found at CityofOrange.org. Records show that 570 N. Cambridge, originally a 3- bedroom, 2-bath, 1,776-sq.-ft. residence, sold for $650,000 on Dec. 23, 2019. 552 N. Cambridge, with 2 bedrooms, 1 bath and only 1,025 sq. ft., sold July 31, 2020 for $684,000. Dear Editor: I believe that AB68 (accessory dwelling units) has been improperly considered by the city as a justification for allowing applications, plans and ADUs at 552 and 570 N. Cambridge St. The text of AB68 describes its applicability to single-family and multi-family zones. As this part of Cambridge is zoned R1-6 (single- family residential district), and not R4, the multi-family aspects of the Orange Municipal Code do not apply here. AB68, Section 65852.2. (D) (ii) states that the bill itself is applicable when “The lot is zoned to allow single-family or multi-family use and includes a proposed or existing single- family dwelling.” The properties do not meet the definition of a single-family dwelling. California case law has repeatedly determined that the term “single- family dwelling” designates the joint occupancy and use of the dwelling by all of those who live there. The word “single” precludes the segregation of portions or rooms for rental. It forecludes multiple occupancy of certain portions of the unit for rental as a segregated part, or parts, of the unit. “Dwelling” means the whole of the premises used for living purposes. It must include the use of the common rooms, by all occupants. It refers to, and reinforces, the concept of singular use, as opposed to multiple. The “dwelling” cannot be fragmentized into broken bits of housing for rental return. “Family” signifies living as a family; it inhibits the breaking up of the premises into segregated units. It looks to me like this situation is already covered by the Orange Municipal Code: Section 17.04.021 - “B” defines boarding house as a residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein three or more rooms are rented under three or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental manager resides within the residence. Section 17.13.030 says boarding houses are not permitted in R1-6 to R-15 zoning. The use of these properties by Young Lewin Capital is illegal and the approval by the city is also illegal. All pending and fu- ture applications, plans, permits must be immediately halted and the ongoing illegal use of proper- ty must be immediately stopped. Nathan Forrest Orange Dear Editor: I live at 543 N Cambridge. I raised three boys here, and they had a childhood with close- knit people living in a safe neighborhood. Sandy and I seldom worried about the boys, knowing that people were family- oriented. This was the primary reason that we moved to Orange. Our family enjoys the community feel and cherishes supporting it. There has been some major construction in our neighborhood that we thought were upgrades. As time went on, the size and scope of the work has grown from revitalization of a historic 1940s home to a university dorm room complex. The neighborhood is baffled that this was permitted, or even allowed in this zoning area. The property now has 10 dorm rooms with 10 bathrooms. I ask you: where are our elected officials, and how could they ever let this sort of thing just slip though? Then two doors down, 552 sells and it appears the intent is for a copy of 570 to take place at 552 as well. How was this allowed to hap- pen? What was the process for approval? Were zoning laws changed? If so, why weren’t the neighbors already living in the area consulted or informed to come to a city council meeting to voice their concerns? Even granny flats/small structures located in the back yard should at least resemble a standardized small home. Definitely not six dorm rooms, each having one bathroom. The university is down the street, and should make provisions to the existing dorms or have a backup plan that doesn’t include destroying the city or its surrounding neighborhoods. The garage at 570 is no longer usable as a garage. The car that could have been parked in the garage is now going to be on the street, making parking more difficult for the residents. People are also concerned with road safety, as Cambridge is a narrow road that will now be lined with cars on either side, making it so two cars cannot pass each other. This will become a larger concern when in-person learning is resumed at the two nearby schools. North Cambridge functions as a drop off/pick up queue for parents. I have owned my home for 30 years. Should I be kicked out of my neighborhood because of a handful of college kids with only a four-year investment in our community? Steve Thompson Orange Edison reports that it is in the process of hardening its grid, replacing bare metal wires with insulated wires. It expects to host a public meeting on the subject in the second quarter. The utility is also offering rebates on portable battery backups for computer equipment. 570 N. Cambridge Street