Showing posts with label annexation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label annexation. Show all posts

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Naked Came She Into The World...

.
(answer at bottom of post)

... and, because of her unremitting perversity and her obtuse, foot-dragging blockade of all efforts to remedy her nuisance, she left me no alternative but to practice tough love on her.

She could have relocated her catering truck & commissary business to a legal property and likely continued it for many more years (stoned or otherwise.) But, no... instead she chose to take early "medicinal marijuana" retirement and shut the business down.

Of course, publicly she claims the economy did her in. Privately she bends every stranger's ear (as in: yard sale visitors) with her life history and the biggest sob story ever - her version - that she has to move away because her despicable, evil neighbor is:
  • harrassing her by spying on her (midnight business operations, icemaker noise nuisance, yard radio nuisance), and
  • calling the cops on her for every little thing (loud yard radio, no building permits, too many dogs, unsecured marijuana, dead cars), and
  • maintaining a lawsuit against her for her "grandfathered" business (not grandfathered, illegal mobile home, illegal business use in zone, illegal business expansion, noise nuisance, etc.)

"Poor little me! Why is he doing this to me? I'm a good neighbor. (Just ask the people of Tracy)" the little lamb continually bleats in her assumed plaintive tones.

Pish!*

Truth can stand repetition; repetition, however, cannot make a lie into truth.
If her story had a grain of truth in it, she would be offering hard evidence of "grandfathered" status (ie., pre-annexation County of San Joaquin documentation.)

If her story had a grain of truth in it, she would be able to demonstrate to code enforcement or the police that she was in compliance with whatever charge.

If her story had a grain of truth in it, she would have petitioned for a harrassment protective order against me.

What she does know is that City of Manteca officials are so slack in their job performance that the only proofs and surveillance to be had are what I gather myself.

What she does know is that she hasn't a legal leg to stand on and her illegal business use is going down, as are all her other illegalities.

What she does know is:
  • I am not buckling under to her shrill, strident, oft-repeated falsehoods, and
  • I am not going away, and
  • I am sick and tired of her lies and deceit, her noise, her lawlessness, her arrogance, and all of her other [not!] endearing qualities.

Kicking and cursing and making all sorts of other retaliatory noise and spreading all sorts of false gossip [false gossip? Sorry for the redundancy...], this sickly, mouthy, streetworn pish peddler is finally tucking tail and slinking away.

Slink faster!

And don't let the gate slam shut on your tail! (Wait! On second thought...)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Naked came she into the world... and she will leave this corner of it
stripped and spanked.
.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* pish (interj) an exclamation of impatience or contempt; (vb) to make this exclamation at someone or something.

.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Sun Post Story and Council Meeting Agenda Item

Wow! This is the third media exposure this week regarding my case. Cheryl Winkelman did a wonderful job putting the dry facts of my report together with the personal impacts of such a horrible nuisance continuously inflicted by my insensate neighbors.

Page 7

Page 8





I took a few minutes to carefully read Cheryl's article after I picked up several copies of the paper from the Sun Post office downtown. Then I stopped by City Hall to drop one copy off and to review the meeting binder made available to the public in the City Clerk's office.

My request at the February 17th meeting asked that my - intact - report be part of the next meeting's binders. Ms. Tilton did ask the council members to bring back their copies of the report for that purpose, but the public binder in her office did not have my report. My intent is to have the research report become part of the public record.


The Council meeting agenda item reads, "Receive report on complaints filed by Richard Behling regarding property at 810 Fishback Road, review the actions taken by various City departments and consider providing direction to staff as appropriate." Nowhere is my report mentioned. The only "report" backing up the agenda item is Police Chief Bricker's rehash of his December 3rd "closure" letter, with a few additions. I guess that's OK, because it demonstrates publicly to the Council just how little City Staff accomplished over the year - hampered as they were by the unverified misconception they were dealing with an allegedly GRANDFATHERED business.

My best approach is merely to say, "Where the Chief's report leaves off (Dec 3), my report begins (researched in Dec and Jan.)" That cuts off the contentious piecemealing and unproductive wheelspinning of the past. That refocuses everyone's attention back on the proofs of the fraudulent grandfathering claim made by Allen & Brassey. No emotional rancor - just calm logic as I lead them, step by step, through their re-education of common law and municipal code.

Despite the City's Spin Doctor's posturing and meally-mouthing, I believe everything is now in place for the "showdown" at City Hall predicted by the press.

.

Friday, February 20, 2009

A Few Key Documents From the Report

{Click on the highlighted links for the larger versions}


First up, the County Recorder's filing showing the annexation finalizing in December 1986.


Next is the deed where the Mego's, still living at 810 Fishback in April 1987, purchased a new home on the other side of Manteca. After this purchase they would have put up the property for sale.



This second deed is when the Mego's sold the property to Lynda Allen & Theresa Brassey in November 1987.


Sixteen months later is the Fictitious Business Name published notice from March 1989, where in Allen & Brassey lied about their principal place of business.



Lastly, the hand-redrawn chart of the business operation of TLC Catering from the new beginning in Manteca through 2008 (current.) Most of this data came from the Health Department permits the two women relied on so heavily.




Enjoyable, no?




.



Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The Grandfather of All Reports

Here we go... Settle in for a nice story.



Allen & Brassey: TLC on Fishback Street


Documented Narrative

In 1969, Dale & Georgia Mae Grubb purchased 8.78 acres at 18590 S. Fishback Road, two blocks south of Manteca city limits, from the Marshall’s and the Montgomery’s.[A] As is sometimes the case, seven years later one set of older parents (dad, 81; mom, 76) came to live with them, so they put a mobile home on the property.[B] The County's Planning Department issued Dale Grubb a mobile home permit in April 1976,[C] and the dwelling was numbered as 18594 S. Fishback[D]. This temporary permit required two annual signoffs: a declaration of continued necessity and current California DMV registration. The last entries on the permit were in 1981. The Grubbs sold their 8.41 acres in 1983 (they earlier deeded .37 acre to Sandra Daniel in August 1976.) It is obvious the permitted use of the mobile home was discontinued, but it was never removed from the property as the permit required.

Elsewhere in San Joaquin County, somewhere between Manteca and Tracy, Lynda Allen and Theresa Brassey ran some kind of catering truck or vending machine business. One man remembers these two women selling foodstuffs from a small vending truck at his employer’s place in Tracy (West Star, a sheet metal shop) and also servicing stationary vending machines. A second man guesses that one of their customers was the Tracy Defense Depot, based on a later Fictitious Business Name filing. A third man remembers these women parking their trucks, with the TLC Catering “brand,” on a property on Airport Way in unincorporated Manteca and he did mechanical work on the trucks at his shop on Wetmore Street. His memory of them is clear because they always paid his bills late.

Lewis & Anne Mego were employed at the Livermore National Laboratory, he as a nuclear physicist, she as an administrative assistant. Moving from the Bay Area, they purchased the Fishback property from Dale & Georgia Grubb, recording the deed in November 1983.[E] What they did with Grubb’s abandoned mobile home is certain in two respects: 1) they did not remove it from the property, and 2) they did not operate a catering truck business from it. The couple lived quietly on Fishback Road while governmental agencies went about the task of helping Brocchini annex his land - and many other people's property - into Manteca city limits. Property holders were assessed a per-acre fee to pay the costs for the privilege of annexation.[F]

The Manteca City Council adopted a resolution during their October 27, 1986 meeting in order to apply for the annexation of the Pacific Road-Brocchini area, including the east side of Fishback Road.[G] San Joaquin County's Local Agency Formation Commission gave final approval to the project on December 17, 1986,[H] which date grants “grandfather” protection to previously lawfully established land uses.

An elementary school was scheduled to be built right behind the Mego's property (later the plan changed to Sierra High School) and in March 1987 the Mego's deeded all but one-half acre to Manteca Unified School District.[I] Grubb’s abandoned mobile home had to be moved about 100 feet west to remain within the Mego's new rear property line. Since one of the couple had reached that magic age where they could move into a gated retirement community, in April 1987 Lewis & Anne Mego purchased a new home from Homes by Pann,[J] moved onto Tiffany Walk in Manteca, and put the Fishback property on the market. The Mego’s had no business use of the property that could grandfather.[K] The noncompliant mobile home could not be grandfathered - only ignored by unaware owners and dismissed by irresponsible County Planning and County Building employees.[L]

This abandoned mobile home became a textbook case of an “attractive nuisance,” utterly irresistible to the pair of Allen & Brassey. They were drawn to the Mego’s Fishback property because of the affordable size and private location of the parcel and, undoubtedly, because Dale Grubb’s mobile home was still illegally on the property. (Hmmm, a quiet, backwater lot with an existing trailer to store our catering supplies and inventory - what a great place to set up shop! But the price the sellers want… hmmm... how can we swing that?)

On November 10, 1987 - eleven months after the annexation to Manteca was finalized - the property was purchased by Allen & Brassey. The deed was recorded along with a deed of trust for the promissory note payable to the Mego’s.[M], [N] With the recording of the deed, unsuspecting Manteca and unfortunate neighbors became hosts to a couple of parasitic entrepreneurs. Allen & Brassey immediately moved their business assets and operations onto the property from wherever they were previously based, surely ecstatic they no longer had to pay a business expense (rent) to house the trucks. These women played fast and loose with the rules, evaded regulations of any kind (they still do), and proceeded to operate their existing, unregistered business at their new location for the next sixteen months without obtaining a Home Occupation permit or its earlier counterpart. (See the TLC Catering Chart.)

Manteca renumbered the old county addresses to new city addresses. The main house that was 18590 became 810 Fishback,[O] and the unlawful mobile home at 18954 became 812 Fishback.[P]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Please PAUSE reading here.

The case of unlawful use of residential property has been made. Let Allen & Brassey choose - relocate their business to a commercial zone, or, go out of business. Either way, they must remove all current and abandoned business assets and cease all business operations.

If you proceed, please understand that what follows does not alter the facts outlined above. The remainder of this narrative is a tragically comic documentary of the confused nonsense displayed by city and county personnel in dealing with the situation. Despite its entertainment value, the purpose of the following is to ensure the complete rehabilitation of 810 Fishback Street to its residential-only status by detailing all the "arms and legs" of this cancerous catering company that is to be removed from the property.

RESUME reading . . .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Theresa Brassey, Lynda Allen (and a woman called Corky) finally recorded TLC Catering as a fictitious business name on March 15, 1989, the only such filing by them in the County Recorder’s Grantor/Grantee Index.[Q] The first publication of the notice appeared in the Manteca Bulletin on March 18, 1989[R], and has two other fictitious items besides the name: the business start date was listed as March 1, 1989, and the business address was listed as 27500 Chrisman Rd in Tracy. This would place their business in unincorporated County of San Joaquin, but that address does not exist in the County's current Graphical Information System, District Viewer.[S] All other similar addresses along the east side of that stretch of county road belong to the Tracy Defense Depot - likely a customer, maybe their best customer - but not TLC Catering’s business address. The most important reason the two scofflaws listed a county address was to evade Manteca’s requirements for a business license and a land use permit (precursor to a Home Occupation permit.)

Then the mobile gourmets really got busy. San Joaquin County, Environmental Health Department (EHD) records show TLC Catering swapping trucks and trading license plate numbers on existing Health Permits re-issued in 1989. With money obtained from who-knows-where, they purchased three large Mobile Food Preparation Units (MFPU’s), including at least one new 1989 Chevy.[T] These monstrosities are kitchens on wheels, each as large as a sizable motor home. Unfortunately, the perishable foods are ice-cooled rather than refrigerated.

Allen & Brassey did not have a Commissary Permit from EHD. This is shown in a March 7, 1991 letter from TLC Catering to EHD, which listed the four external commissaries utilized by the business at that time.[U] All of the commissaries listed were away from the property, the main one being a Save Mart supermarket in Tracy. Brassey failed to mention any utilization of their residential property as a commissary. Current correspondence from EHD indicates these “law-abiding citizens” did not move their trucks onto the property prior to acquiring the private commissary.[V] (That, however, only strengthens the case of illegal enlargement after warning.)

Both the County of San Joaquin and the City of Manteca adopted ordinances in 1992 establishing a special class of land use permits, known as Home Occupation Permits. It is for people who operate all, or part, of their approved business from their homes in residential zones. The wording of Manteca’s Code, Section 17.61.030, defines the concept of “grandfathering” for preexisting nonresidential uses:

“Nonconforming use” means any use of land or property that was lawfully established and in compliance with all applicable ordinances and laws at the time the ordinance… became effective, but which… is a use not listed as permitted,… or [is] subject to permit in the zone in which it is located. (emphasis added.)

An element common to all grandfathering provisions is a restriction on enlarging or expanding the protected use. Allen & Brassey added a fourth truck to the TLC Catering fleet on August 5, 1992.[W] It was a smaller Limited Food Prep truck, also a 1989 Chevy. The application listed Bonnie Jean Carson of Lathrop as the driver and California Commissary at 2440 Airport Way in Stockton as the commissary.

Why bring up grandfathering in relation to the 1992 Home Occupation ordinance when it has already been proved that operating and expanding TLC Catering on the property was an unlawful land use from the moment Allen & Brassey moved in five years earlier? The top four reasons are: #4) The recently added fourth truck was crowding the half-acre lot; #3) The new ordinance prohibited the business from having non-resident, non-family employees; #2) These employees were parking their cars on the street in front of neighbors’ houses, and the neighbors complained; and, the most important reason, #1) Without properly verifying the property purchase date and any County Planning permits, code enforcement investigators believed Allen & Brassey’s fraudulent claim that the property’s use was lawfully established. After evading City regulation for five years by falsely listing a county address in their public filing of fictitious business name, these two shysters dodged another bullet by constant repetition of their lie about the business being grandfathered. Their constant chant, “We have operated our business on the property ever since we moved in,” is entirely true – except they moved in after annexation. The public documents show that Allen & Brassey were never on the property before December 1986 and never had a Manteca permit to use this property for business purposes before the 1992 ordinance - but that never stopped them from promoting this falsehood.

These women were not asked the question, When did you move onto the property? Any observant code enforcement officer who bothered to verify their story could have ended this travesty many years ago. (Lest any current pots start calling the former kettles black, the identical “softball Q&A” took place just last April with the present code enforcement officers.[X] ) In the absence of any proactive code enforcement, Manteca badly bungled its first citizen-complaint-driven opportunity to enforce zoning law compliance by these two charlatans. Even worse, in an error of mind-boggling proportions, Manteca handed these women the KEYS TO THE CITY in a June 1993 letter saying they had “legal, nonconforming” status.[Y] They must have been euphoric! Untouchable goddesses! They had successfully snuffed their nosy neighbors and hornswoggled those pestilent Manteca regulators! "Life is good!" Allen was heard cackling.

(Note: The letter is not a permit and only legally established uses can be grandfathered.)

Yet the TLC Life just kept getting better! Emboldened by Manteca's emasculation, three months later Allen & Brassey assumed home occupation (land use) permission from Health Department (food sanitation) permits and made an application payment to EHD to establish and operate a private commissary, naming their property at 810 Fishback Street as the location for inspections.[Z] (The current Manteca code enforcement officer opined that Allen & Brassey were merely attempting to “legalize” what they had been doing “since they moved in.” When did they move in? Sorry, but they still need a land use permit.) The nine months following September 1993, was likely the period when a walk-in freezer and a refrigerated shipping container were hauled onto the property, refrigerators and freezers were plugged in everywhere, lights and floodlights strung up, and an ancient, noisy icemaker was improperly installed. The illegal mobile home, that longstanding error, was swallowed up in the larger commissary operation, pieces of which were scattered all around the property. The following June, the Health Department plan checks were done and in July 1994, EHD issued a Commissary Permit to the owners of TLC Catering. Again assuming nonexistent permissions, Allen & Brassey began taking commercial deliveries to their property, something expressly prohibited for home occupations. They were now set with four catering trucks, a fully equipped private commissary, and commercial vendors whose big trucks delivered supplies and services to their doorstep... they were unstoppable.

===== Current note regarding commercial deliveries =====

Despite poor, little Lynda Allen telling code enforcement on 11/17/08 that she "now buys supplies on a nearly daily basis from Costco,"[AA] she failed to mention that TLC Catering is still on the weekly delivery routes of three large food vendors. For twelve years these delivery trucks made stops at 812 Fishback to sell products to the commissary for the four catering trucks in use; then three more years for just two catering trucks; now only one. To service the trucks and commissary:

· The Crystal Dairy[BB] (now owned by Foster Farms) refrigerated truck arrives - brakes squealing - every Monday morning at 3:00 a.m.

· The Hostess Cakes[CC] (Interstate Bakeries Corp.) truck delivers weekly, usually on a Friday, arriving between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m.

· Oroweat[DD] (Bimbo Bakeries USA) makes an unattended delivery around 12:00 noon each Monday, where the Oroweat driver opens the security gate and drives onto the property.

· A very special vendor, Darling International Inc.,[EE] the nation's largest recycler of inedible animal by‑products, makes time in its Manteca route schedule for an as-needed pickup of TLC Catering’s waste cooking grease, which is stored in barrels on-site until pickup. (Dairy operators also use this vendor for the hauling away of "downer" cows.) A very large pumper truck has been observed twice, months ago at 10:45 p.m. and more recently at 3:00 a.m., for a very noisy forty-five minute vacuum collection process.

===== End current note =====

So impervious were they to lawful regulation that Allen & Brassey failed to re-file Fictitious Business Name (FBN) statements as required every five years. By law they should have re-filed in 1994, 1999, 2004, and 2009. Whether TLC Catering is a legal business or not; whether they hold a valid Home Occupation Permit or not; the State of California requires every person doing business for profit, under a name other than his or her own, to file a Fictitious Business Name statement and re-file every five years thereafter.[FF] If any of the information changes (such as the business' principal address), then re-publishing the notice in a newspaper must also occur. One legal consequence of failure to file current FBN statements is that any legal action, as plaintiff or defendant, cannot be maintained under that business name in court.


The City of Manteca took Allen & Brassey (or was it TLC Catering?) to Small Claims court in June 1996 over unpaid garbage bills for both 810 & 812 Fishback.[GG] No FBN was entered on the initial court filing. Four years later, in August 2000, the judge ordered the debt erased and ordered the City to exempt (the owners? the business? the address?) from the city’s garbage collection program. What defense was offered? What was the basis for the exemption? The answers are most likely buried in papers somewhere in Manteca's City Attorney's office. One guess is that Allen & Brassey put up their well-worn “legally grandfathered business” defense against the City for past and future fees. (Oh, the irony! Manteca must have forgotten the KEYS TO THE CITY letter they gave to these fighting hens. On the other hand, Allen & Brassey should have been barred from a TLC Catering defense in the absence of a current Fictitious Business Name statement.)

One costly bottleneck still existed for TLC Catering / Allen & Brassey. Their PG&E bill must have been astronomical because, on top of their household and water well pump usage, they were also running all the business appliances: standard refrigerators and freezers, industrial walk-in refrigerators and freezers, an inefficient outdoor icemaker, floodlights and strings of yard lights, besides the hot water heater for the mobile home/commissary and plugging in the parked MFPU's. In April 2004, they had their next door neighbors, Roger & Flora Stewart of 786 Fishback, obtain a Manteca building permit for Power Independence of Stockton to put up seven massive solar panel arrays and install the wiring and 10,000-watt control system to handle all these electrical needs.[HH] Of course, the installation was on 810 Fishback - not as permitted for 786 Fishback - so just how the City and the Stewarts were conned by these con artists is a mystery. Final inspection took place in September 2004.

TLC Catering gave up two EHD catering truck permits after 2003 and another permit after 2006. One truck and some commissary equipment (the illegal mobile home, standard refrigerators and freezers, and, most regrettably, the noisy icemaker) continue in operation. Unused business vehicles, large walk-ins, and other equipment encumber the property[II], like so much flotsam and jetsam, mixed in with other vehicles and a restaurant business-specific enclosure or “corral” for waste grease barrels. Unpermitted and otherwise shoddily built covered patios are attached to the illegal mobile home and the legal outbuilding. (Falling into that last category is the “sound-enhancing” plywood box around the icemaker, designed by an unemployed truck driver and constructed by him as a paid but undeclared employee.) Because Allen & Brassey evaded city refuse pickup for yet unknown reasons, commingled household and business trash piles high in an open pickup until hauled off to the county transfer station.[JJ]

[A] Grantor/Grantee Index, Deed to Grubb, Recorder’s Document # BK3321PG143, dated July 22, 1969.

[B] Mobile home, DMV license plate # FQ1259.

[C] San Joaquin County, Mobile Home Permit, April 1, 1976. Two pages.

[D] City of Manteca, Engineering Department, Engineering Grid # 24 D.

[E] Deed to Mego, Recorder’s Document # 83084852, dated November 25, 1983. Three pages.

[F] Revised Annexation Proposal, Memorandum of January 16, 1985. Four pages.

[G] City Council Minutes, 10/27/1986, Resolution R7838 adopted. Three pages.

[H] LAFCO Certificate of Completion, Recorder’s Document # 86105713, dated December 17, 1986. Seven pages, including other material.

[I] Grantor/Grantee Index, Deed to Manteca Unified School District, Recorder’s Document # 87025020, dated March 23, 1987. Two pages.

[J] Deed to Mego, Recorder’s Document # 87028587, dated April 2, 1987. Two pages.

[K] Email from Crosby, County Planning Department, dated August 14, 2008.

[L] Code enforcement case notes, CE-08-753, 11/20/2008, 9:01 a.m., with Rick Matuska.

[M] Deed to Allen & Brassey, Recorder’s Document # 87103627, dated November 10, 1987. Three pages.

[N] Deed of Trust to Mego, Recorder’s Document # 87103628, dated November 10, 1987. Three pages.

[O] Letter from Hulsey, City Engineering, dated December 30, 1986
.
[P] Letter from Hulsey, City Engineering, dated January 7, 1987. Two pages, incl. picture.

[Q] Grantor/Grantee Index, Fictitious Business Name, Recorder’s Document # 98000597, dated March 15, 1989.

[R] Manteca Bulletin, March 18, 1989, Page B-4, Public Notice.

[S] Screen prints from San Joaquin County District Viewer for Chrisman Road in Tracy, California. Two pages.

[T] Code enforcement case notes, CE-08-752, Vehicle Information, License # 4A09350.

[U] Letter from TLC Catering (Theresa Brassey), dated March 7, 1991, to EHD.

[V] Email from Jeff Carruesco, EHD Program Director, dated 1/27/09.

[W] EHD Application for a new food vending truck, dated 8/5/92.

[X] Code enforcement case notes # CE-08-182, 4/17/08.

[Y] Letter from Cantu, Manteca Planning Department, dated June 29, 1993.

[Z] EHD Account Statement, dated 08/15/94. Commissary application payment posted 09/17/93; Commissary permit posted 07/13/94.

[AA] Case notes, CE-08-753, 11/17/08, 2:01 p.m.

[BB] Picture of Crystal truck, and information from Foster Farms Dairy website. Three pages.

[CC] Information from Interstate Bakeries Corporation website. Two pages.

[DD] Picture of Oroweat truck, and information from Bimbo Bakeries USA website. Two pages.

[EE] Information from Darling International Inc. website. Two pages.

[FF] Fictitious Business Name Statement form and instructions. Two pages.

[GG] Small Claims Court register page for Case # MS-34246, filed June 21, 1996. Two pages.

[HH] Manteca building permit, dated April 2004. Two pages.

[II] Annotated pictures of TLC Catering’s operations yard. Two pages.

[JJ] Picture of Manteca’s refuse pickup “opt-out” program for unlawful businesses.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

What Do Pit Bulls, Used Cars, Annexations & Code Enforcement Have in Common?

City of Manteca senior staff are schizophrenic. Of course, its a "trickle down" effect because our Glorious City Council enables them to pursue their pet projects with a free hand, while totally ignoring the festering boils infecting various neighborhoods.


This explains why an unenforceable pit bull ordinance gets adopted 5-0 over the objections of some who have state law backing them up. (Can anyone say, arrogant?)


This explains why code enforcement and planning force a used car dealer to put in "beautifying" downtown landscaping, while ugly, illegal uses of many residential properties - and much illegal business - runs rampant throughout the city, even after code enforcement and planning/zoning are handed the evidence on a silver platter. (Hmm... kinda like "whitewashing the sepulchre.")


This explains why the whole MUSD property must be annexed - along with taking away the protest rights from the East Louise/Airport Way residents - in order to clear a path to the future annexation of a large industrial park. (Restated: My public legacy - your private expense.)


This explains the campaign rhetoric of one councilman, Steve DeBrum, "We must continue to augment an aggressive code enforcement program with a complaint-driven system in order to ... [blah, blah, blah]" and the emphatic public statement of the Director of Community Development, Mark Nelson, "It is not my job to perpetuate the mistakes of the past!" versus the whining, handwringing refrain from code enforcement, "There is nothing we can do."



See the advantages of a huge "committee" run by politicians? They can lay claim to all the credit on one hand and deny any blame or culpability (or responsibility) on the other.





.

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

JACKPOT! (Ka-ching... ka-ching... ka-ching...)

Nothing is sweeter than revising assumptions and revisiting unchallenged claims - and blowing those claims to hell!



Here I recap my progression from naïveté to hardened cynicism...






1. I originally assumed TLC Catering was a legal business, with law-abiding owners who had the necessary neighborliness to mitigate any noise or other nuisance their business might generate in a residential area. My neighbor, Lynda Allen, immediately gutted that assumption with her caustic and intimidating communication tactics. She stridently chanted her mantra, "I have a legally grandfathered business," while clutching and waving some yellowed papers in her ancient fingers. The City of Manteca had apparently given her some reason to believe that. Who was I to argue with both neighbor and City Hall?


2. I assumed a "legal business" would be subject to a City of Manteca noise ordinance. After suffering an insufferable summer of sleep deprivation caused by an equally ancient Scotsman commercial icemaker, improperly installed outdoors and too close to my fence line and house, I was driven to file a series of written complaints outlining the depth, breadth, and seriousness of the problem. The city ignored my initial letters and public statements at city council meetings. This led me to stumble upon the fact that this was a "new" noise ordinance, and never would apply to a grandfathered business. My research began in earnest. For many months - and until it was too late - the city did not even try to measure the noise nor to enforce the "old" ordinance.



3. I assumed a "legal business" would be subject to a City of Manteca business permit. Manteca personnel dispatched that thought with the simplistic argument that the "activity next door was not a business" and did not need a business permit because TLC Catering did not transact any retail sales in Manteca's city limits. The city has NEVER issued TLC Catering a Business Permit for Revenue, and still refuses to acknowledge all of the non-retail activities of an actively operating business by requiring a Business Permit for Regulation Only.



4. I assumed a "legal business" would be subject to a City of Manteca permit for a Home Occupation because business or non-business activity of a non-residential character in a residential zone requires one (also known as a Conditional Use Permit prior to 1992.) TLC Catering has NEVER had such a permit. Code enforcement officers, Manteca Chief of Police, Manteca planning (zoning) personnel, and the Manteca Director of Community Development have all waffled so badly with mealy-mouthed answers to this one that I am still unsure if they know what Municipal Code sections apply.



5. My research turned up a 1993 letter from the City wherein TLC Catering's operations were declared a "legal but non-conforming use" of property. (This must be where Lynda Allen's mantra came from.) I assumed that the TLC Catering commissary business expansion, which occurred in 1994, would be restricted from grandfathering according to the letter's explanation, or at least be subject to Manteca's 1992 Home Occupation ordinance. That supposition was blasted when a code enforcement officer took it upon himself to misinterpret common law and write, "I am not necessarily in agreement..." (I know where this one is going...)



Finally, I revisited the original assumption - grandfathering at annexation.



- - - - - IF:



* Prior to December 17, 1986,

* A catering truck business was operating on that property, and

* It was doing so legally,



- - - - - THEN, it would be grandfathered for:



* The continued use of that property,

* At no greater than existing level and scope of business use,

* By the current and subsequent property owners,

* Until the non-conforming use ceases.



JACKPOT!



Until now, I have never argued that TLC Catering was an illegal business; only that its use of residential property was illegal. I have questioned the legality of the business expansion resulting in a full commissary on the property. But now it appears that the entire business - all operations, assets, equipment (especially the icemaker), and large and small business jetsam - is illegally occupying a residential property.


The only question remaining is: Did Lewis Mego and Anne Mego, the former property owners, operate a legal catering truck business on the property on December 17, 1986, and until they sold the property to Lynda Allen and Theresa Brassey eleven months later, on November 10, 1987?


If the Mego's had a catering truck business AND a legal land use permit from San Joaquin County, then that business use would be grandfathered. However, all indications so far are that my neighbors purchased the property from the Mego's and THEN began to establish an unpermitted and illegal business operation on residential property within Manteca city limits.



.


Stay tuned for the next episode of this long-running soap opera...


.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Fire Drill at the Health Department

Following up on my second public records request to the Environmental Health Department (EHD), the program coordinator and I played “telephone/vacation tag” for a few weeks before we spoke.

My intent with this visit was to copy the entire contents of the five file folders (three inactive trucks, one active truck, and one active commissary) and review everything at home.

At 10:00 a.m. on the morning of December 10th I was at the EHD copier. At 10:05 a.m. the fire alarm went off and all employees and visitors had to evacuate the building and walk three or four blocks to the designated assembly site at a parking lot under the cross-town freeway. It was NOT a drill because a fire truck responded to the alarm. The story I heard was that someone had burned something in the break room microwave. Of course, out in the cold, I had to give the program coordinator a ribbing by accusing him of doing anything to avoid giving me access to the records. I did finish copying the files after the all clear was given.

That night I went through each page, individually, and teased its story out and into my notes. I was heartened to find that the pages I obtained last August to create the “Timeline” were sufficient to prove my “expansion” argument, but more pleased with creating a chart, with ALL the intervening data, that made for a compelling visual.




The chart depicts the three critical dates in 1993 and 1994 that prove TLC Catering both enlarged AND expanded its business use of the property AFTER being explicitly told the prohibition against enlargement or expansion in the Cantu letter. The result was well worth the second visit to EHD (even with parking fees, copying fees, fire drill, etc.) and the night of analysis and charting. Now, when the right time comes to present the case, I won't have to "spell it out" because I've "drawn them a picture."

My problems are: 1) I have been crediting City of Manteca officials with far too much ability to understand law and read written words; 2) expecting the City of Manteca to know what's in their files, or even to locate them, and to be even remotely helpful in aiding a thorough investigation; 3) the EHD (the grandmother) and the City of Manteca (the grandfather) do not combine their separate dealings with TLC Catering (the spoiled, manipulative child) in order to operate from "the big picture."

Anyway, next steps involve receiving the last-requested public records from Manteca, interleaving already received building permit information into my "Timeline," requesting DMV records for license plates on certain catering trucks and the commissary trailer, and searching within Manteca's 1986 annexation records to verify any "grandfathered" levels of legal but non-conforming use.


(Damn! I'll miss that icemaker when it's gone!...)


(NOT!...)

Monday, November 3, 2008

K.I.S.S. (for Manteca City Hall)

Well, THAT election is over. The radio pundits said, "We have to educate the voters!" My observation is that educating voters is virtually identical to graduating seniors from high school.

The candidates I voted for did not win. {~sigh~} One incumbent is returning to the Manteca City Council. The other may or may not, depending on the final count, because there was only a seven-vote spread last night between second and third. The official canvasse will take a few days.


Back to "educating" Manteca city managers again, I took up the pen (or, keyboard) and sent a letter to the Director of Community Development (a.k.a., Planning Director.) This is the guy who is supposed to be in charge of everything zoning related, including home occupation permits. After meeting with two of his guys last week and leaving only three documents with them, I now included an entire copy of my report and the report of last week's meeting.




November 5, 2008

Mr. Mark Nelson
Director of Community Development
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337

Dear Mr. Nelson,

I am requesting a home occupation review by the Director of Community Development, under authority granted him by the Manteca Municipal Code, Section 17.25.020, regarding the following illegal home occupation expansion:

While still part of unincorporated County of San Joaquin, Lynda Allen and Theresa Brassey, owners of TLC Catering, began parking one or two catering trucks on their residential property at 18594 South Fishback Road. From the beginning they operated with only two permits: 1) a business license from the City of Tracy, and 2) a Health Department permit for each truck from the County of San Joaquin, Environmental Health Department (EHD). For whatever reason, the County of San Joaquin allowed that use of residential property, but never issued any Conditional Use permit.

On December 17, 1986, the property was annexed into the City of Manteca and the address was changed to 810 Fishback Street. The city "grandfathered" the existing business use (that is, the parking of trucks); the city did not "grandfather" the business as a whole.

In 1991, a TLC application to EHD indicated they were still using outside commissaries to re-supply the catering trucks.

In 1992, the City of Manteca adopted its Home Occupation Permit ordinance.

Sometime in early 1993, a complaint was lodged against TLC Catering and City personnel responded with some type of enforcement action. This incident caused TLC to request a determination of legal status from Manteca's Planning Department. The City's letter was issued on June 29, 1993, and clearly explained the doctrine of "grandfathering"; that is, TLC could continue to park their trucks on the property, but no more than existed in 1986, and no other business use of the property would be permitted.

(The content of the complaint, the resolution, and the file copy of the determination letter were requested months ago, but the City files have not yet been produced.)


On September 17, 1993 - only eighty days after the letter - TLC made a very risky business decision. Against the instruction they just received, they decided to increase the number of trucks and to build a commissary for all those trucks and to do all this on-site, on their residential property, to avoid renting commercial space elsewhere.

This business enlargement is illegal because of the "grandfather" restriction on business use expansion AND because this 1993-94 commissary project is subject to Manteca's 1992 Home Occupation ordinance. Lynda Allen, Theresa Brassey, or TLC Catering did not even bother to apply for a home occupation permit.

Manteca Planning Department and Code Enforcement were A.W.O.L. while TLC Commissary was born. On July 13, 1994, EHD issued a Commissary Permit to TLC Catering, after much of the following was accomplished.



  • A portable building (with building permit?) was brought onto the property to serve as the dry commissary.

  • A metal walk-in freezer and a full size steel shipping container (building permits?), with roof-mounted compressors, were installed to store frozen products.

  • Various refrigerators to hold perishable ingredients for use in the mobile food preparation units (catering trucks).

  • Commercial delivery trucks from Crystal Dairy, Hostess Cakes, and Oroweat make regular deliveries to the property at 3:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and other times.

  • The crowning achievement was to acquire an antique commercial icemaker to produce up to 400 pounds of ice a day for use on the ice-cooled trucks. (Not rated for household use and wrongly located, all the noise goes to the neighbors!)

  • In addition to all the commercial equipment, sheds, porches, and coverings (more building permits?) were constructed all around the property to protect their investments from the elements.

  • Plugging in the trucks at night, floodlights, strings of yard lights, and all the commercial appliances draw power... LOTS of power. Seven massive solar panel units were installed and wired into the property grid.

  • Solid wastes from the catering trucks were (and are) stored on-site in an open pickup truck until taken off-site to the refuse transfer station.

  • Liquid wastes from the catering trucks were (and are) stored on-site in barrels until taken off-site by a pumper truck.


    Please correct this unconscionable situation. This is a power assigned to the Planning Director by city law. I am not seeking the closure of the commissary, merely its relocation to a properly zoned location. This is not code enforcement's call; they will be obligated to carry out the decision, but they do not make the decision.

    Enclosed you will find a copy of the report, with footnoted attachments and other enclosures, received by Mr. Pinkerton on September 3rd. In addition are my notes of my October 29th meeting at City Hall with Mr. Meissner and Mr. Rey.


    Respectfully submitted by,

    _____________________
    Richard W. Behling


    Enclosures: Timeline Regarding 810 Fishback Street, with footnotes and attachments.
    Review of EHD Public Records.
    Commissary Operations Observed.
    Abatement Options and Special Conditions.
    Notes on Meeting with Mr. Meissner.


Let's see how much more time Mr. Nelson needs to wrap his head around the facts.


Actually, Mr. Nelson was just appointed as a big cheese with the Redevelopment Agency (RDA.) Since my neighborhood is blighted by an operating business, with business noise and abandoned business equipment littering one particular parcel, perhaps the RDA could redevelop that parcel back into a residence? Hmmm... our tax dollars at work.


(I hope he gets it done before the infamous O. Rex [spawn of the insatiable T. Rex] trundles himself down the hallway at the smell of new blood.)


Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The Timeline of TLC's Illegal Business Expansion

Today I climbed the pole for my yard light in order to take aerial pictures for a later project. It is an old wooden pole and, beginning about twelve feet up, has those climbing lag screws that linemen used to use before lift baskets. I hope the light bulb never burns out, but I will have to rewire the light someday.


This picture is an overview of the neighbors business yard, in the back of their half-acre lot.




Back to the very core of my complaint to (and about) the city.

Immediately following the cover letter to the city manager were these two inclusions - the footnoted research report and the discussion regarding the health department source. You'll see that fifteen years ago code enforcement fell asleep, like Rip Van Winkle, but I'm still trying to wake him up.


Timeline Regarding 810 Fishback Street

December 17, 1986 - the City of Manteca annexed the area including 18954 S. Fishback Road
[A] and re-numbered the property as 810 Fishback Street. The existing business use was noncompliant with City zoning ordinances for an R-1 district, and was “grandfathered” or allowed, but limited to current level of business use at date of annexation. [B]

March 15, 1989 - Fictitious Business Name was recorded for TLC Catering.
[C] It is unknown whether previous filings were made, but no subsequent filings are in the Grantor/Grantee Index of the Recorder's Office after the five-year expiration date.

March 7, 1991 – TLC Catering application letter to EHD listing the four external commissaries utilized by TLC Catering at that time.
[D] All of the commissaries listed were away from the property, the main one being a Save Mart supermarket in Tracy. All of these commissaries are businesses, as are the pre-approved commissaries listed on EHD's website. [E]

1992 - The City of Manteca adopted into its Municipal Code, Section 17.25 Home Occupation Permit, with which TLC Catering was noncompliant to an even larger degree than before.

June 29, 1993 – Legal status and limitation letter from Manteca Planning Department to TLC Catering, at the business' request.
[F]

September 17, 1993 - The owners of TLC Catering made application payment to EHD to establish and operate a catering truck commissary, naming their property at 810 Fishback Street as the location.
[G]

July 13, 1994 - EHD issued commissary permit to the owners of TLC Catering.
[H]

July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995 - EHD permits allow three MFPU’s, and one new commissary.
[I]

January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999 - EHD permits allow three MFPU’s, one Limited Food Prep Vehicle, and one commissary.
[J] [K] This is the highest number found for permits issued in a given year.

December 9, 2002 - First commissary inspection on record in EHD files, even though the commissary permit was issued July 13, 1994.
[L]

November 18, 2003 – Permit renewal invoice for 2004 reduced to two MFPU’s and one commissary.
[M]

December 9, 2003 - First commissary inspection reference to ice - "Ice for cooling only."
[N] Sometime prior to that inspection a secondhand Scotsman/Follett icemaker was acquired for commissary use, and improperly located and installed so as to create a noise nuisance for neighbor.

Between September 2002 and May 2004 – According to aerial photos, sometime within those twenty months, seven massive solar panel arrays were acquired and installed to handle the electrical needs of the commissary business, the MFPU business, and all personal household uses.
[O] [P]

Commissary inspections - December 21, 2004, January 31, 2006, February 20, 2007, January 29, 2008.
[Q]

August 18, 2008 – Current EHD listing shows only one MFPU and one commissary now active.
[R]

- - - - - - - - - -
Endnotes:

[A] Linda Lund, Commission Clerk, LAFCO. Email of August 22, 2008. (Manteca annexation #106, 1984-4, Brocchini – Pacific Road, Resolution R-7838.)

[B] Benjamin Cantu, Senior Planner, City of Manteca. Letter of June 29, 1993.

[C] County Recorder, Grantor/Grantee Index.

[D] Theresa Brassey, one owner of TLC Catering. Letter to Dan Guerra, of San Joaquin County, Environmental Health Department.

[E] EHD website, Program Forms.

[F] Ben Cantu, ibid. (See document B.)

[G] EHD statement of 8/15/94, invoice #004168, dated 9/24/93, payment of $234.00 posted on 9/17/93.

[H] EHD statement of 8/15/94, invoice #013551, dated 7/13/94. (See document G.)

[I] EHD permit letter, issued 10/5/94.

[J] EHD Invoice #051871, dated 11/16/98, in the amount of $700.00.

[K] EHD permit letter, issued 1/19/99.

[L] Entire Commissary File copies. (See document L-7.)

[M] EHD invoice #IN0113520, dated 11/18/03.

[N] (See document L-6.)

[O] San Joaquin County, G.I.S. aerial photo, September 2002.

[P] San Joaquin County, G.I.S. aerial photo, May 2004.

[Q] (See documents L-5, L-4, L-3, and L-2.)

[R] EHD Facility Ownership Information File. (See document L-1.)

(Referenced documents to be edited in when - or if - I get around to them.)



Immediately following the researched timeline was this discussion regarding the significance of the files held by the County's Environmental Health Department.


Review of EHD Public Records for TLC Catering

August 20, 2008 – Research visit to San Joaquin County, Environmental Health Department (EHD) offices, to review the public records for TLC Catering. Copies of certain items pertaining to this matter were obtained. References to EHD permits and inspections are used to establish operating business timelines.

One particular document has singular and stunning relevance. This letter was written in 1993 by Benjamin Cantu, in his capacity as Senior Planner, City of Manteca Planning Department, to Lynda Allen, one of two TLC Catering business owners, and is highly significant for three reasons. First, its mere existence indicates that Manteca City Planning undoubtedly has certain files which apply directly to this matter. These files could help establish the pre-annexation level of business use (ie., the number of catering trucks being parked on the property.)

Second, the letter creates an indisputable benchmark as to when and how much the owners of TLC Catering knew concerning their rights, obligations, status, and restrictions under the City's zoning ordinance for home occupations (nonconforming since the 1986 annexation, doubly nonconforming after the 1992 home occupation ordinance was adopted.) Correspon­dence with Mr. Cantu on August 22, 2008 indicates that the owners’ request for the letter of clarification of legal status was prompted by a complaint, investigation, and action taken against the owners of TLC Catering.

Third, the letter was hole-punched and filed in the Environmental Health Department files for TLC Catering, showing that EHD was definitely in the communication loop, but still issued an increasing number of health permits, including a new on-site commissary. Why this particular letter was in EHD files is a puzzle, but EHD’s actions are consistent with its mission.

EHD permits have no bearing on zoning or home occupation permit decisions made by city or county jurisdictions. However, it is obvious that the business owners relied on them as authority to expand their business on their property, even after being explicitly told by the City of Manteca on June 29th, 1993, that they could not do so. Just two and one-half months later they applied to EHD for a health permit to operate a home-based commissary, had it permitted by July, 1994 (see EHD statement and 94-95 permit), and subsequent EHD inspection reports verify its operation.

The two conclusions I have reached from my research are: First, the business use of 810 Fishback Street is “grandfathered” only to the extent of its use at the time of annexation to the City on December 17, 1986. According to what I found in the EHD files, that use consisted only of overnight parking of MFPU’s (also known as, Mobile Food Preparation Units.) The number of units in 1986 is unclear, but reached the number of four valid MFPU permits issued in 1994.

Bear in mind that an EHD MFPU permit only grants authority to operate a unit in a sanitary manner. An EHD permit does not grant authority to park a unit on any given property, even though an address is specified for inspection purposes. Local zoning laws control the land use (R-1 residential, in this case.)

Second conclusion: Because nonconforming uses are prohibited from expanding, it follows that the substantial enlargement of scope, business assets and operations since annexation, resulting in a fully operational on-site commissary, is illegal and must be abated. The deliberate and contrary decision by the owners to develop a commissary on their property came almost immediately after a City Planning Department letter of legal status and restrictions was delivered to them. In fact, the most damning aspect of this violation is that the letter had been prepared at one of the owners’ request and they still went against the instruction.

Again, bear in mind that an EHD commissary permit only grants authority to operate such a service business in a sanitary manner. This EHD permit does not grant authority to operate this service business on any given property, even though an address is specified for inspection purposes. Local zoning laws control the land use, both generally and more particularly by the Home Occupation ordinance adopted by the City in 1992 (Municipal Code 17.25), the year prior to the owners’ EHD commissary application.



This research proves that my neighbors and certain city personnel are guilty of rather serious errors, omissions, and misinterpretations. There is also the possibility of "protection" being afforded by patrons of TLC in the city's bureaucracy, as well.

Friday, October 17, 2008

TLC Catering - "Don't need no stinkin' permits!"

OK, the lights came on, but my troubles weren't over quite yet.

This letter - from the city itself - is the keystone of my case against the city and my neighbor. Other documents, from the health department files and from other city and county sources, establish other aspects of the problem, but the letter makes sense of all of it.

I found this singular piece of evidence the day before my second attorney consultation. The city never did - and never would - issue a home occupation permit for this business use of the property. The commissary did not exist at the time of this letter.

In addition, the following email exchange shows that the county never issued any conditional use permit to that property or owners prior to annexation.

From: Richard Behling
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:50 PM
To: 'mnelson@ci.manteca.ca.us'
Subject: Request for copy of a specific home occupation permit

Dear Mr. Nelson,

I am directed to you - and I am sure you will direct this request to the very best person possible.
I am seeking copies of public documents, specifically the home occupation permit and its underlying application:

1. Issued by the County of San Joaquin (and grandfathered into Manteca),

2. In the name or names of: Lynda S Allen, Theresa A Brassey, and/or TLC Catering,

3. Located at 810 Fishback Street (or its earlier county address, 18594 South Fishback Road.)

Since City annexation of that parcel, all such requests of the county are directed back to Manteca offices. San Joaquin County has a longstanding reputation for requiring business licenses and home occupation permits for everything, so this should be fairly easy to determine if the home occupation permit ever was issued and still exists.

I would be pleased to pick these copies up in person as soon as they can be obtained by calling me. In the event this permit never was issued, please commit that result to writing and contact me as above.

Thank you.

Richard W. Behling


- - - - -

From: Martinez, Alma [amartinez@ci.manteca.ca.us]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 5:03 PM
To: Richard Behling
Subject: FW: 18594 S. Fishback

Here is the email from the County Planning.

Thanks,
Alma Martinez

Planning Technician
Community Development Center

- - - - -

From: Patrick Crosby [mailto:pcrosby@sjgov.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:56 PM
To: Martinez, Alma
Subject: 18594 S. Fishback

Hello Alma,

I checked computer records, which go back to 1992, and our address files. I was unable to locate anything for that address. I also looked under the names Lynda S. Allen, Theresa Brassey and TLC Catering, in several variations. I was not able to locate any records for any of them.

Thank You,
Patrick Crosby
Assistant Planner
San Joaquin County Community Development
1810 E. Hazelton Avenue
Stockton, CA 95205
209.468.8597
209.468.3163 - Fax
pcrosby@sjgov.org
http://sjgov.org/commdev


For the entire run of their business, the owners of TLC Catering relied only on obtaining the sanitation permits required by the county health department, and never obtained permission to park their catering trucks or develop and run a full-service commissary on the property zoned as single-family residential.


All 22+ years...

Monday, October 13, 2008

Chasing the rabbit down the hole

Ouch! That verbal slash-and-burn taught me not to engage my neighbor again. But, where does one go with an unresolved noise complaint? Why, City Hall, of course!

On March 4th I visited the city's Planning Department with the intent of obtaining a zoning variance and a permit to build a freeway-style sound wall between me and my neighbors, high enough to block the roof-mounted condenser noise and long enough to provide a "noise shadow" for my house. The Associate Planner with whom I spoke redirected me away from that costly (and probably unfeasible) plan and toward filing a noise complaint. Just bring him a letter and he would enter the complaint onto the city's government outreach website. I returned the next day with my first letter to the city. Sure enough, on March 11th he opened the complaint. It all appeared so easy - an appropriate person from the city would investigate the problem, resolve it, and close the case number on the system.


Here is my letter:

March 5, 2008

City of Manteca, Community Development Department
Attn: Lantz Rey
1001 W Center St
Manteca, CA 95337

Re: Complaint of noise from 810 Fishback Street and TLC Catering, property and business owned by Lynda S Allen and Theresa A Brassey.

Dear Mr. Rey,

I appreciate you and others in your department taking a few minutes yesterday to help me examine my options concerning my neighbors. It is not my intent to put them out of business, but it is my intent to get some peaceful relief from the noise caused by it.

I purchased and took possession of my property at 786 Fishback Street on March 5, 2007. Several daytime visits to the property the month previous with a realtor did not reveal the extent of the noise problem from the adjoining property, and it was omitted from the seller's disclosures during the purchase. The first few nights in my house were eye-opening, but the summer of 2007 was completely miserable. Here are some things I learned during my one year of living next door:

1. A retail business (one or more catering trucks) is housed at 810 Fishback Street, operating under a home occupation permit "grandfathered" by City of Manteca when this area was annexed from the County of San Joaquin in 2005 (Area 148, 2005-03, Airport Way/Yosemite Avenue Island.)
2. An outbuilding close to the common property line fence has a refrigeration unit on its roof, above the fence and overlooking my house and yard. It cools a walk-in refrigerator to support the retail business. The unit cycles on and off as necessary to maintain storage temperatures – obviously moreso during the summer than the winter. Hot summer days – and nights – cause it to run almost continuously.
3. The walkway between the outbuilding and the fence houses a commercial style icemaker (compressor, storage bin, etc.) The walkway is partially closed off at the end with siding to protect the icemaker and is covered with a corrugated fiberglass roof, from the outbuilding's eaves to the fence, which effectively focuses the compressor noise toward and over the wooden fence. As ice melts or is removed to stock the truck(s), the icemaker cycles on and off to produce more ice – again, moreso during the summer than the winter. The owner has stated that to run the icemaker during the day causes it to overheat, therefore it is run mostly at night. In production mode, the icemaker runs about a 20-minute cycle – 7 minutes on, 13 minutes off, 7 minutes on, etc.
4. Weekday preparation of the truck(s) begins at 12:00 midnight and aims for a 4:00 a.m. departure. The one-person task produces negligible noise, except for the transfer of ice from the icemaker to the truck(s). Scooping ice into 5-gallon plastic buckets and dropping the insulated access door back into place produces quite the racket just prior to 4:00 a.m. In addition, the unit cycles back on again to replace the ice used.
5. There are no midnight preparations for weekends and holidays, but the walk-in refrigerator is still temperature controlled and the icemaker will still produce ice as needed to keep food on the truck(s) cold.
6. The bedrooms of my house are on the side of the house facing the common fence, fourteen feet away. My bedroom windows are about twenty-four feet from the icemaker. Sleeping with the windows open is simply not an option. In fact, sleeping requires that my windows be closed and a fan be used to provide air circulation and “white noise” to drown out the "60-cycle hum" of two electric compressors a few feet away.
7. The two compressors are not synchronized or coordinated - each can start up at any time and is independent of the other. The unpredictability is as unnerving as the noise.
8. These compressors are not ordinary air conditioners used for the comfort, health, and well-being of residents of the house. I am sure some personal use of ice and refrigerated storage exists, but the machinery's primary purpose is the conduct of business.
9. The portion of my yard between house and fence is virtually useless to me due to the noise produced by the compressors.
10. As an informational note, there is another walk-in box with a roof-mounted compressor in the same area. It is shielded (weather and noise) toward my neighbors’ house, but not toward my yard. To my knowledge, this third compressor has not been operated during the last year, but a date stenciled on it (8-29-05) indicates when it was last serviced.

The rules changed for TLC Catering when Manteca annexed these parcels, and "grandfathering" a permit for this type of home occupation in a residential area does not give them a free pass on other ordinances. On Sunday, March 2, 2008, I spoke personally with one of the owners about the noise from the compressor units. Much to my surprise, I was met with palpable hostility. I was flatly informed that they ran a permitted “grandfathered” business and they would make no changes whatsoever (such as, restrictions on time of unit operation, location of units, etc.) When I mentioned the City of Manteca noise ordinance, the retort included the accusation, “If you’re threatening me …,” and the conversation ended badly and abruptly.

Research of public records on the San Joaquin County website and in the County Recorder’s Office in Stockton reveals a couple of doggedly determined women who will do whatever it takes to conserve their capital and preserve their livelihood. I admit an admiration for them and their achievement over the years. Kudos to them.

But none of this helps me sleep at night, and I have suffered mentally and physically for it. I really do not care what business activity goes on next door - if Manteca permits it. I just don't want to listen to it, especially the loud, incessant, bothersome cycling of industrial compressors outside my window during nighttime hours.

My only choice is to file this noise complaint with the City of Manteca and seek its assistance to resolve this problem.

_________________

Richard W. Behling

This is the Associate Planner's entry:

Request #: 127445 Entered: 03/11/2008 1:27 PM
Status: Closed
Request Type: Complaint
Topic: Noise (other than animals)
Incident Time: Continuous

Incident Date:
Description: From: Lantz Rey in the Planning Division

On March 5th I received a letter from Richard Behling who lives at 786 Fishback Road. Mr. Behling had previously been into City hall to talk with Planning about putting up a masonry wall between his property and 810 Fishback. Mr. Behling's complaint is that the 810 Fishback property is home to a commercial catering business. This business operates catering trucks and has a commercial commissary on-site. As such, the business has two or three compressors required to maintain the temperature in the walk-in refrigerator and automatic ice maker that operate through out the night. These compressors are less than 20' from his bedroom and are keeping him awake (outlined in the letter).

As outlined in the email sent to Rex Osborn this morning, the business owners have a permit from the health department to operate in this location. However, the business does not have a valid business license and (even if the use is grandfathered) is exceeding provisions of the noise ordinance.

Mr. Behling can be reached on his cell phone at xxx.xxx.xxxx.

Respectfully,

Lantz Rey
City of Manteca, Associate Planner


Things immediately took a turn for the worse on March 12th. A police officer was assigned to visit my neighbors and inspect their permits as part of the needed background information check. Based on later research, I'm confident they showed him health department sanitation permits and a business permit from a nearby town, and emphatically repeated that they had a legal, grandfathered business. They got him so riled up with claims that I was harassing them - calling the police on them being proof of it - that he exceeded his mission, came over to my place, and banged on my door. I was preparing to leave for a meeting elsewhere, but I spoke with him and gave him a quick tour of the physical layout before walking out front with him. The Alpha female intercepted us and verbally prodded me until I lost control for a moment. Her main techniques were to soundlessly mouth inflammatory words at me whenever the police officer was not looking at her, and to throw out accusations shotgun-style and retreat in the resulting confusion. The "Gotcha!" smile which flashed across her face claimed victory. (Note to self: In any meeting with the Alpha female, require a non-participating observer who has this woman in clear view.) She returned to her house, but peeked through the blinds as we continued our conversation. The officer told me he could do nothing about the noise on this or any subsequent calls unless I signed a citizen's arrest warrant. I had to go.


The officer must have stayed longer and again spoken with the woman because on the following Sunday morning two of the women were out installing one 4x8 sheet of 1/4-inch plywood next to the fence and directly in front of the icemaker. That single, thin sheet was supposed to block the noise?! This minimalist effort was something the officer mentioned to me the previous Wednesday. Whew! Talk about an evasive maneuver, designed only to head off any real solution. At first I was furious at the crushing cynicism and absolute stupidity of their action, but quickly changed that to laughter, thinking that anyone with any intelligence would see through it. Wait until you see who bought into this lie.