Manteca's Crack Code Enforcer

Under-staffed or under-brained?

(...but I just sent it to the last known owner instead of checking anything...)

Manteca Code Enforcement: Cosmic Entropy? *

.............................................: Comic Entertainment?
.............................................: Cannibis Enjoyment?

You say what, Mr. Cunningham (Scott)?

You, a bright C.E. brain? Clearly not!
Since your current employer
Allows cann'bis enjoyer
It's no wonder your work's gone to pot

Sheesh! Your skill set and methods are slim

Makes your chance of success flicker dim
Maybe look on the 'puter
For the foreclosure suitor?
Send your "We Notice Shit" on to him!

From the time of citation 'til now**

Musta smoked your Sierra High (r) grow?
Dumb! Ya gotta have vigor
Pulling Oaf-icial trigger
Coulda saved your embarrassing row

So this here's what I want you to do-

'Specially now that I gave you a clue:
1. Reverse all of these "crocks"
2. Send confirms to my box
3. Let me NEVER again hear from you!

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

* the degradation of the matter and energy

in the universe to an ultimate state
of inert uniformity

** 03Jan13 to 20Feb13,

seven weeks of pissing up the wrong tree!
.
.

Manteca City Governance

...

Citizen:

I have upset the tea of some “power-that-be”
Of a king with some fancy new clothes
It appears the shoe fit, but he’s shamed to wear it
Because then we would see his twelve toes

King:

The affairs in our gate (whether soon, more oft late)
We can see with these cool X-ray glasses
But the law, as they say, merely gets in our way
We prefer to kiss each other’s asses

Citizen:

My dear sirs, let us think – you provided the ink
To record your whole long list of crimes
Can one slander with truth? Or dress up the uncouth?
Or defame such depraved sods, betimes?

King:

We reject you… you… all! And your poison pen scrawl!
We demand you remove yourself hence!
There is nothing you say will impinge on our day
We paid our silv’ry coins – thirty pence

Citizen:

Should we follow the trails, what that money entails
And discover those masters of power?
When the towers of earth fall, to what god will you call?
Your reward will be: Kneel, blanch and cower!

...

Bumpy Times at Manteca City Hall

My short list of (known) totally useless city employees was recently pared by one-third.

Mark Nelson is out!

This was the man who held the title of Director of Community Development, a department head.

This was the man who, in a city council meeting, indignantly spluttered, "It is NOT my job to fix all the [planning] problems of the past!" (Gee, not even the ones that require no effort on your part?)

This was the man who, in the Manteca Municipal Code, Title 17, was given full and exclusive authority to review illegal land uses and summarily stop them until compliance with the code is achieved.

This was the man who, during the City Council meeting of March 3, 2009, sat by for forty minutes without uttering a single word regarding my fully documented illegal land use complaint. Instead he deferred to Rex (The Icepick) Osborn's smear campaign and John Brinton's CYA legal elucidations or obsfucations (I couldn't tell which. Oh, right. That makes it an obsfucation...)

Even with all three of those mentioned, combined, bumps on logs are more useful.

Second Lap Around The Dog Track

What rankles me is the total disregard of the "rule of law" by those who are supposed to uphold the law. It is as if these city employees make up whatever they want as they go along. Hence my objection to Animal Control's inaction and my appeal to the chief law and code enforcement officer of the city.



City of Manteca

Dave Bricker, Chief of Police
1001 W Center Street
Manteca, CA 95336

November 18, 2009

Re: Animal Control – review of action

Dear Mr. Bricker,

I am confused… but I know you have - or can get - the answer to this question.

Here is the language of MMC 17.07.030 The keeping of animals. “In any district on a lot with a principal permitted use, no more than six small animals may be kept, provided none are kept for commercial use. Not more than three of such animals may be dogs or cats over ten weeks of age…” [emphasis added.] Please note the absence of any reference to multiple homes on a single lot.

Attached is Animal Control courtesy notice # MACS002668N, which I believe is not in compliance with the subsection cited above. See the notation "Two Houses on Property" and beneath that an apparent allocation of three dogs to one house and two dogs to the other. It appears that P. Miller in Animal Control interprets the subsection to allow five dogs on a single R-1 lot.

Please let me know whether the MMC subsection is correct (3 dogs allowed) or the Animal Control citation is correct (5 dogs allowed).

Sincerely yours,


I stated the case as simply as I could. Here's to hoping it is simple enough.

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.

.

Manteca Code Enforcement Takes Baby Steps

Just yesterday my (street) mailbox contained some of the records I requested from the City of Manteca pertaining to the business/property next door. Most of it was the three case files from my complaints logged on the City's Government Outreach system this year, but the expanded version with case notes - finally! A couple new items of interest also popped up and lead into my "next steps" mentioned in yesterday's post.

(Other items I expected were not included. This may launch a side investigation into the policies and procedures of the City's code enforcement, which should be fairly easy since those documents were briefly reviewed by a grand jury two years ago.)

The case file notes allow me to follow the developmental thought processes of City personnel. They appear to be coming along - slowly and with hesitating step - but still need my guidance in where to search next and how to interpret the things they find. These same people who dismissed my noise complaint months ago because the case was very "complex" are still resisting the rigorous analysis (missing when needed about 15-22 years ago) necessary to sort out the complexities of the governing common law of grandfathering and the applications of zoning ordinances of both the County of San Joaquin and the City of Manteca. These "discoveries" strengthen my resolve to pursue this ancient case to conclusion.

Because I can do code enforcement's work only on a part time basis (as they appear to do also), it will take a bit of time to factor this information into my case notes.


(I'm still standing - and looking forward to the next round.)

.

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!...)

Can Whales Vomit?

Gotta love Manteca City Hall's technological progressiveness. Quoting the Chief of Police, "While we have initiated an on-line reporting system through the Department's web page that allows victims of an incident to create their own report, during the past year we have received only 486 of our 10,803 reports via the on-line system." That means 95.5% of reports are taken are on-scene, or on the telephone, or when someone sends a letter or shows up at City Hall in person.

Yeah, these are the same tech folks who have TWO systems - the internal one where drafts of proposed ordinances for City Council consideration are found, and the external web-based site which just has city propoganda and the above-mentioned "reporting solution" - and the two systems do not talk to each other.

Anyway, my recent attempts to file reports in the 4.5% group (on-line) resulted in brush-offs marked by brevity of words and devoid of actions. Here is code enforcement's anonymous response to the last request:

-----Original Message-----From: Manteca Help Line [mailto:manteca@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:13 AMTo: Richard BehlingSubject: Manteca-CRM: Closed Request # 198750 [3437656466356137]

Dear Richard,

Your request # 198750 has been resolved with the resolution:

This is a duplicate request and the issue has been looked into.


Realizing that ALL of my requests directed to code enforcement will be deep-sixed, I returned to each of the three case closures and completed the satisfaction surveys, on the hope that someone else in system followup reads them.


Satisfaction Survey - Request #: 197457 [Abandoned structures/walk-in freezers]

I expect a code enforcement officer to actually know and apply Manteca's Municipal Code. To say, "I have been told by planning...", simply does not make the cut.

I believe a non-compliant situation still exists. The intent for which these codes are adopted is nullified when complaints are handled so sloppily.

Other than that, Why does the complainant have to be fully identified, while the respondent city employee hides behind the anonymity of a computerized system and does not sign the response?



Satisfaction Survey - Request #: 197462 [Abandoned vehicles]

The response does not appear to reference the relevant code sections and a non-compliant situation still exists.


Satisfaction Survey - Request #: 198750 [Abandoned vehicles]

This closed request was an expansion of an earlier request closed too hastily without appropriate action. The statement that "...the issue has been looked into" is a euphemism for "I made it LOOK like I did something." The non-compliant situation still exists.



It totally escapes me what codes these do-nothings are so busy enforcing (or willing to enforce) that they give a pass to the illegal business still operated by TLC Catering, along with its accumulation of castoff and abandoned equipment and vehicles.

And the city wonders why only 4.5% of complaints/reports/and such come through their wonderful new system. Have they considered the "human element" of their system? Maybe the whales are still grazing the greenbacks (you know, "lettuce", "vigorish", etc.)

May they swallow more than they can stomach.

Chumming for Whales

This script is so predictable it does not take a mentalist to recite the lines before the (very bad) actor speaks them.

• Months ago, a code enforcement officer said to me, "Anyone can have a commercial icemaker on their property."
• During the same conversation he said, "The activity going on next door is not a business."
• Last week, a code enforcement supervisor tells me, in essence, "Anyone can have several giant metal freezer boxes on their property."
• And I am now informed (below), "Anyone can collect abandoned catering trucks on their property."

These are the "quality of life" issues as determined by code enforcement officers of the City of Manteca.

This latest exchange took place over a "Papa Bear" sized catering truck, a "Mama Bear" sized vending vehicle, and a "Baby Bear" sized Buick Regal, all parked along one edge of the property next door. All have "For Sale" signs in the front windshields, but nobody can see them because they are totally faded, scootched down sideways behind the windshields, the windshields so dirty it's hard to see them, and they cannot be made out from the sidewalk in any event. Just giant metal boxes on wheels, no longer used in the unlawful TLC Catering business.

The City of Manteca has an on-line program for communications from the citizenry. At city council meetings, the administration simply cannot figure out why so few complaints come through the system versus people calling the police department. Well, here's an example of the shallow and specious responses one gets from the one in charge of code enforcement.

-----Original Message-----From: Manteca Help Line [mailto:manteca@user.govoutreach.com]Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:43 PMTo: Richard BehlingSubject: Manteca-CRM: New Request # 197462 [3132316139643362]

Dear Richard,

Thank you for contacting the City of Manteca. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you and assure you a positive experience with us.

The Problem you submitted was:

Request type: Inoperable Vehicle on Private Property

Description:

1. Abandoned mobile food preparation unit (catering truck).

CA license # 4A09350, no current tag. Cast-off from unlawful business operation. Permanently located alongside parking spot of remaining operational truck and used as unauthorized storage unit.

2. Abandoned mobile food vending truck.

CA license # 3V60905, no current tag. Cast-off from unlawful business operation.

3. Abandoned automobile – Regal.

CA license # 732PGK, no current tag.

When a person signs up and logs in, the messages are tagged with all that indentifying information. But the city employee who responds to it is anonymous unless he/she signs the response. In this case - nothing - and this message was irresistable to one who speaks with a mellifluous voice like unto God.

-----Original Message-----From: Manteca Help Line [mailto:manteca@user.govoutreach.com]Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 2:44 PMTo: Richard BehlingSubject: Manteca-CRM: Closed Request # 197462 [3132316139643362]

Dear Richard,

Your request # 197462 has been resolved with the resolution:

All vehicles on the property are whole and complete and are operable. Current registration is not required unless a vehicle is to be operated upon a public roadway.

How disingenuous is that answer? Any moron, myself included, knows he can't drive without tags! The whole point of the complaint is to get an officer, well-versed in the Municipal Code and its intent, to apply such code to the situation at hand. An even larger issue is this: Equipment formerly used in the unlawful business cannot be "legalized" merely by abandonment, because it then becomes "abandoned." Duh... like, do I have to explain the code to him?

(Of course, this anonymous soul seems to need all the help he/she can get.)

-----Original Message-----From: Manteca Help Line [mailto:manteca@user.govoutreach.com]Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 6:14 PMTo: Richard BehlingSubject: Manteca-CRM: New Request # 198750 [3437656466356137]

Dear Richard,

Thank you for contacting the City of Manteca. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you and assure you a positive experience with us.

The Complaint you submitted was:

Request type: Abandoned Vehicle

Description:

See Request # 197462, closed prematurely.

Thank you for verifying the operating condition and registration status of the three vehicles listed in the complaint. However, your report does not answer to the definitions spelled out in Manteca’s Municipal Code, Section 8.20.010, A. and D., for abandoned and inoperative vehicles.

These three vehicles are not registered, appear by sight to have been left to the elements, and cannot be lawfully operated upon any highway. Section 8.20.020 recounts the city council making the finding that since the 1980’s the accumulation of abandoned or inoperative vehicles on private property (three’s a crowd!) tends to reduce the value of private property and to promote blight and deterioration and declaring such storage a public nuisance.

The one possible exemption is if “A vehicle” [singular] is completely enclosed within a building in a lawful manner where it is not visible from the street or other public or private property. That would apply threefold to this accumulated fleet, yet the subject property has no such structure or facility.

For the twenty-two months I have been personally aware of these vehicles, there has never been any apparent good faith effort to dispose of them. Indeed, the sun-faded and obscured “For Sale” signs in the windows are truly only diversionary window dressing.

Quit dithering around and issue the "ten-day notice of intention to abate and remove the vehicles."

From my experience with the "Make-The-Citizens-Think-We're-Listening" reporting system, I would strongly discourage anyone from routing any messages to code enforcement for the present... unless you like chumming... and get a nibble like I did.

Manteca Trick or Treat

O.K., back to a more-or-less recounting of my prodding the City of Manteca to enforce codes they adopted…

After sending my research report to Mr. Steve Pinkerton, city manager, on September 2nd I waited for the City Council meeting on October 6th.

When Friday morning, October 3rd rolled around, I downloaded the city council agenda for Monday’s meeting. The item I requested was nowhere to be found, so I emailed Mr. Pinkerton and asked about it.

Surprise! I got a return telephone call, after which I wrote up these notes:

- - - - - - - - - -
Notes from October 3, 2008 - Rex Osborne called at 1:15 p.m. in response to my mid-morning email reminder to Steve Pinkerton.

1. He offered me a researching job (in partial jest?) in light of my letter and report of September 3rd.

2. The city manager, department heads, and code enforcement, (but not the city attorney,) had met about my complaint. (By deduction, just prior to the meeting in #3, below.)

3. The city has met with TLC regarding moving or enclosing the ice machine. (From tracking my neighbor’s icemaker operation, the meeting took place toward the end of July.)

4. The city is bringing in an acoustics firm to measure the sound levels and timing of the ice machine.

5. It is possible that “sunset” dates may apply to the grandfathered conditional use of the property.

6. It’s not likely that my item will ever make it to the City Council agenda, but will be handled administratively.

7. The city will assist if I go to court to obtain an enforceable order against my neighbors. City attempts to maintain “neutrality.”

8. My inquiry about a definite time frame (end of year? or, next summer?) was given an indefinite answer.

I changed the conversation focus, and asked about abating the entire commissary, including the ice machine, which was the major finding of my research submitted to the city manager on September 3rd.

9. The letter from Ben Cantu to TLC is not in the city files - it was prepared at TLC’s request for TLC to show or to give to EHD only.

10. The city attorney has not reviewed the Timeline of business expansion yet. He also was not at the (July) meeting.
- - - - - - - - - -


On Monday morning I again emailed Steve Pinkerton and included my notes from Rex’s phone call. In it I rejected the city’s illegal “offer” and outlined my “deal” to abate the commissary, including the icemaker.


October 6, 2008

Mr. Steve Pinkerton, Manteca City Manager
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337

Dear Mr. Pinkerton,

I appreciated your follow up to my inquiry last Friday. For your information, below are my notes from the conversation I had with Rex Osborne.

Rex’s news was “old news.” He appeared to be offering me a deal whereby TLC Catering could continue to operate its illegally established commissary in exchange for building a sound containment structure around the ice machine. I will not agree to this arrangement, because it does not remove this business blight against my residential property. Further, it does not meet the city’s own home occupation or conditional use codes, and any attempt on the part of the city to issue such permits at this late date will be challenged.

More importantly, why haven’t my report findings been reviewed during the last month? Is the City Attorney not available? I allowed you a month of review time in order to synchronize with the city council meeting schedule, yet almost five weeks have been wasted before I’m told nothing has been reviewed and you will not take up this item in public.

Here’s my deal. (Option #1) If you will go public, I will allow you another two or three more meeting cycles. Merely specify the meeting date chosen to me by this Friday, October 10, 2008. (Option #2) If you elect to retain exclusive administrative control, I can only allow you two more weeks (Friday, October 17, 2008) before again retaining legal counsel of my own – and we will go public anyway. Under either option, either confirm my findings and take action to remove the illegal commissary operations, or refute my findings with contemporaneous documentation from your own files or from the business owners.

It is a sorry state of affairs should I have to pay for legal counsel to prosecute, and should taxpayers (myself included) have to pay legal fees for a City Attorney to defend, in the same action. I, the victim of the city’s negligence, am being “double-dipped” and the city cannot remain neutral.


Respectfully submitted by,

_____________________
Richard W. Behling



Another telephone message from Rex Osborn in the afternoon. He said he had read what I sent Steve Pinkerton and appeared most anxious to make corrections to my notes. (It’s too bad, though, that Rex relies on his superior verbal skills rather than putting anything in writing.) He again referred to something about a sound meter. Just prior to leaving for the city council meeting, I emailed the following to both Pinkerton and Osborn:


Mr. Pinkerton and Mr. Osborn,

Thank you, Rex, for your return phone message at 1:22 today.

Two quick points (please, pardon the bluntness):

Rex, forget the noise meter. The ice machine will go away with the other commissary equipment.

Steve, whether you and/or John Brinton review my report or not, if your chosen Friday deadline is missed, we’re off to court.


Richard Behling


Both Friday deadlines (October 10th and 17th) passed with nary a peep, so on Monday, October 20th I consulted with my attorney for a third time. He lectured me about not getting on the agenda. We called the City Clerk’s office and learned that a councilman needs to sponsor an agenda item.

(Oddly, the very next day, TLC Construction Company sprang into action and hammered up their Cheap Trailer Trash Sound-Enhancing Plywood Edifice.)


It was still my turn in this chess game.

- - - - - - - -
Notes on meeting with Mark Meissner, Planning Manager, and Lantz Rey, Associate Planner.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 1:15–2:00 p.m., Planning Department Conference Room at city hall.

I went to the Planning Department in order to schedule a short personal appointment with Mark Nelson, Director of Community Development. When asked the purpose of the meeting, I gave my name, the topic of an unpermitted business, and three documents - the 1993 Cantu letter, the 1993 EHD statement, and the email from San Joaquin County planning. After many minutes, I was allowed to meet with the two listed above instead of the director.

The meeting started with Mark and Lantz rehashing the “noise problem” and how I was not cooperative with the code enforcement attempt to use a $400 rental sound meter. Mr. Meissner said my actions made no sense.

My response: Manteca code enforcement, Rex Osborn, knew of the need in April, but wrote, "...case and complaint closed with no further action." Several plywood sheets were hammered up by the neighbors, serving as the only communication with me. Such inaction forced me to continue researching and consulting with an attorney. On August 20th I had already found documented evidence of TLC's illegal business expansion. Therefore, when Rex made his “offer” of icemaker noise abatement in October, I rejected it in favor of commissary business abatement, icemaker included.

Mr. Rey mentioned the icemaker would probably stay, even if the commissary operations ceased. I told him the icemaker was an integral part of the operation; of all equipment to be removed from the property, that one topped the list.

The email from the county, saying a search turned up no land use permits, was dismissed by Mr. Rey as possibly not comprehensive. I told him my August inquiries established a base from which he could use his official access to corroborate my work. The validity of the 1993 Cantu letter was undisputed, but they did not understand the significance of the 1993 EHD statement. (This is exactly why I asked for a face to face meeting.) I pointed out that the dates and entries meant the commissary expansion occurred the year AFTER Manteca adopted its Home Occupation Permit ordinance, and this business expansion clearly qualified as requiring a permit. I had to explain the health department’s policy of “non-involvement” with applicant’s dealings with other regulatory bodies; EHD assumes all other necessary permits are in place.

These three documents are copies of attachments included in my report to Steve Pinkerton, City Manager. They claimed they already had a communication from the City Attorney about the lack of standing about the “noise problem” but, when pressed, they admitted no communication regarding the absence of a Home Occupation Permit. (Meaning: my report still has not been reviewed. Hmmm… September 2nd to October 29th is… 57 days!) They made the excuse my complaint was not the only work they had to do; they admitted that the city files had not been located, nor even looked for.

All in all, they kept parroting the “Rex Osborn Orthodoxy” of noise, noise, noise. Several times they accused me of “jumping around” from department to department. They called me uncooperative with their efforts to solve the noise problem. My neighbors have been visited several times, but never has anyone called me for a visit or a meeting. Several times throughout the meeting, I had to redirect them to the root cause of the problem – an illegal business expansion, icemaker included. No more commissary; no more icemaker; problem solved.

They accused me of trying to put these women out of business. I told them my very first letter of March 5th stated my wish for no noise; my second letter of April 4th outlined my aim of having the business moved, not shut down. I have now given them proof that the commissary should not be on that residential property.

- - - - - - - -


This meeting was a primo demonstration of mental gridlock at the top levels of Manteca city government. Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, the enunciator of antique and modern political machinations, would be so proud of their brush-off performance (much, much too little, and very, very late.)

Here we go again… more months wasted by our public indentured servants, who are hired for their brains and talents at salaries higher than most people, yet still cannot seem to keep up with anything more complex than… uh…uhn… Trick or Treat!

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.

Left behind - Manteca employees and others

Coworkers and friends continually tried to teach me one of the things I had to learn. Stick to the facts and lead the others to the conclusions on their own; leave personal attacks out of it.

Oh, but I so WANT to wring several necks, both across the fence and across town at city hall.

One piece of paper left behind when the research was mailed was this:

Acknowledgements and Apologies (almost in order of appearance):

Scotsman Corporation and Follett Corporation, for providing the damnably irritating icemaker, which day and night forces this chilling project forward.

Lantz Rey, City Planning Department, for steering me straight at the beginning - on a course that turned out to be circular.

Jeff Hooten, Manteca Police, for trying to make peace with a porcupine and get her to sing along with “The Sound of (Plywood) Physics.”

Rex Osborn, Code Enforcement, for his adept storytelling skills (Any ol’ permit will do…) and for continuously raising the hurdles (You want “Yes” as an answer?)

Greg Baird, Code Enforcement, for keeping me entertained with case-specific myth and conjecture - had it not been for his “over the top” comedy, I might have given up! (see below.)

Greg Olivera, Environmental Health Department, for explaining one-half of the problem – but without connecting it to the other half.

Vince Hernandez, City Councilman, for listening and rightly passing me back to staff.

John Nowak, Deputy City Manager, for his departure.

John Brinton, City Attorney, for make-believing we’re all in Oz. (“Pay no mind to the man behind the curtain!”)

David Bricker, Manteca Police Chief, for trusting his staff’s conclusions.

Alma Martinez, City Planning Department, for her cheerful attitude of service.

Joann Tilton, City Clerk, for easily keeping people and paper well organized.

Lois Sahyoun, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, for county ordinance information.

Linda Lund, LAFCo Commission Clerk, for fast and accurate annexation information.

San Joaquin County, Environmental Health Department, for getting a tiny bit better at recordkeeping over the years, and dealing with some tough customers with TLC.

Benjamin Cantu, City Planning Department (retired), for doing his job correctly and providing the paper key to unlock this nutty case.

Sandy Dwyer, MUSD Facilities Planning Director, for providing Sierra High School as a “can’t miss” real property landmark.

Ben Marrone, Manteca Sun Post newspaper, for exposing the real meaning of TLC.

A very special acknowledgement is reserved for “Deep Throat,” who convinced T,L&C a few weeks ago to stage a strategic partial retreat (an evasive maneuver similar to the plywood caper and the “professional timer” claim) in an attempt to manipulate sympathies and fend off real action. Thank you, “Deep Throat,” for the quiet nights and the 6:00 a.m. wake-ups.


Examples of comic relief by Greg Baird:

City’s answer: Anyone can have a commercial icemaker in their backyard.

My answer (in the form of a question, please): For real? Who would want or need a machine that sucks up electricity to make upwards of 400 pounds of ice a day? A) a three-person household, or B) a catering business which uses trucks that require ice to maintain proper food storage temperatures? I have personally witnessed very minor household usage, with almost 100% of the ice going into the truck.


Here’s another great one

City’s answer: All that business activity on the other side of the fence is not a business.

My answer: (stunned silence… Did I miss something here?)


See? That wasn't too bad was it?

Stupid neighbor stories

The second consultation with my attorney on August 21st consisted mainly of him telling me stories of cases he prosecuted in the past, where people inflicted all sorts of bizarre nuisances on their neighbors. His favorite one seemed to be about a guy in the country who deliberately built a small pen and raised a family of pigs in it - upwind of his neighbors. Several times he admonished me to thoroughly check out everything around a property before buying it to avoid getting into situations like this. I only nodded. Letting him tell stories of pig-headed a$$h@les seemed to get his lawyering juices going.

I really doubt I'm going to sell and buy houses on a regular basis. My first post introduced you to The Perfect Property.

After showing him THE letter and a few other key pieces of evidence of my neighbors' illegal business expansion, his advice was for me to take one more step. He said the first question a judge would ask is, "Did you exhaust all adminisrative remedies." So, he wanted me to see if I could get this item placed on a city council agenda.

Here's my request letter to the city manager:



September 2, 2008

Mr. Steve Pinkerton, Manteca City Manager
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337

Dear Mr. Pinkerton,

I desire to have an item placed on a City Council meeting agenda within a month’s time. The item to be considered is: Abatement of Unlawful Business Use of Residential Property at 810 Fishback Street. Arthur Barnes, a Manteca attorney and my legal counsel, has advised me to make this one last administrative plea directly and publicly to the City.

What started out as a simple noise ordinance enforcement request last March 4th instantly turned into a massive game of “cat and mouse” between me and the City, and netted me nothing - except the necessity of personally doing the research that should have been done by City staff. I bring to your attention some old documentation, which you will find enclosed with this letter, and a refreshed view of a long-running and unmitigated nuisance. As the agenda item states, this is no longer a noise case, but a much broader land use violation of zoning laws.

The essential element of this case is that TLC Catering needs TWO sets of permission to operate their business on residential property: (1) the sanitation regulation provided by San Joaquin County, Environmental Health Department; and (2) the land use regulation provided by the County before 12/17/86, and by the City after that annexation date. Both sets of regulations must be satisfied; if either set is not satisfied, the project fails and proceeding with it is illegal. My document titled Timeline Regarding 810 Fishback Street is supported by source documents and my Review of EHD Public Records comments on those documents.

On 6/29/93, the City told TLC Catering that no land use permits would be forthcoming for expansion or enlargement of the business beyond what existed on the annexation date of 12/17/86. TLC Catering ignored that and beginning in September 1993, on the basis of an EHD permit application alone, developed a fully operational commissary on the property. They went beyond - way beyond - merely parking their vending vehicles on their property. It will be a difficult task to dismantle this entrenched commissary, from which TLC Catering has unlawfully profited for so long. My document, Commissary Operations Observed, is enclosed to aid in setting out the various elements of this task.

Was it a mistake for me (or anyone) to buy the property next door to this illegally enlarged home occupation? No. My mistakes were expecting law-abiding behavior from my scofflaw neighbors, and relying on City personnel to back up the City’s words with necessary action. Much blame is assigned to my neighbors for the nuisance, but the fact that this illegal operation has continued unabated for over fifteen years is a direct result of pure negligence on the part of the City. Lifeless surrender by current and former neighbors to this seemingly hopeless situation does not grant legal standing to the violation.

Mr. Pinkerton, I request that you have City staff bring forward all of their files relating to this property. I am making available to you all of the documentation supporting my report. Have your staff put their best research and analytical thinking into the abatement recommendations they must forward in a report to you for the City Council meeting. I have also enclosed my Abatement Options and Special Conditions for them to consider and use. I will be happy to meet with a small task force appointed for this purpose. Only thoroughly grounded research, publicly aired, will debunk the myths that have grown up around this property - and only real enforcement action will bring an end to a long­standing and flagrant violation of law and decency in my neighborhood and your City.


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.



The Timeline (research report), cover letter and other attachments totaled thirty-two pages. The request went Certified Mail with Return Receipts. Not content to let it go so easily, the following statement was made at the city council meeting that evening.




Public Statement - September 2, 2008

Mr. Mayor, City Council, and City Administration,

I agree with Mayor Weatherford; I vote for code enforcement [rather than a fire inspection position.]

Today I mailed to the City Manager a request to have an item placed on the City Council agenda within a month’s time. I mailed the request in order to obtain a signed Return Receipt from the post office - only one step away from a Proof of Service. I very much desire to hear how the Council will direct the City Manager to proceed with the item entitled, Abatement of Unlawful Business Use of Residential Property at 810 Fishback Street, a land use violation of zoning laws.

Why do I tell you this in advance? Because I do not want this matter to be disposed of quietly; I want the City Council to know of my request to the City administrator; I want my request and the City's response to be a matter of public record. What started out as a simple noise ordinance enforcement request last March 4th instantly turned into a massive game of “cat and mouse” between me and the City, and netted me nothing – that is, nothing except the necessity to personally do the primary research that should have been done by City staff. I discovered that, in 1993, City Hall's view of the situation and their instruction to TLC Catering was crystal clear. However, since 1993, TLC Catering has been building and operating an illegally located commissary for their catering business.

With the agenda item request, I enclosed copies of the source documents backing up my findings. My report will soon be in your hands. It will dispel the myths concerning TLC Catering as staff confirms my findings. (Hint: TLC does not stand for Tender Loving Care.) I expect to be consulted during the one-month window in which the staff report will be prepared; I also will be available at the City Council meeting during which I expect this matter to be finally settled.


Thank you for your attention to this matter.


Can you guess what kind of response I got?

A dim bulb comes on - and flickers

I heard nothing from anyone at the city about the Deputy City Manager’s so-called “report.” I am sorry to say that I had come to expect such sorry treatment at the hands of city leaders and employees. As the July 21st city council meeting approached, I prepared and delivered theser emarks:

Public statement at Council Meeting, City of Manteca, July 21, 2008

Mr. Mayor and Councilmen,

Seven invitations to a slumber party at my house were delivered today. Unfortunately, Mr. Nowak will not be joining us, but Mr. Pinkerton is welcome to an open invitation. Besides, each of you can also bring one or two of your closest coworkers. Our principal entertainment that night will be the Follett icemaker. Bring your own sound level meters - I’ve already got mine.

In the eighty-four (84) nights following an April 28th site visit by code enforcement personnel, there have been only fifteen (15) fully quiet nights. One full week of those was because the machine was broken, awaiting repair. Heaven (not Manteca!) intervened to remove the disturbance during the visit of my daughter, son-in-law, and two-year-old granddaughter last month.

Still, four times this last week I have again been forced to evacuate my bedroom and retreat to the living room to sleep. My neighbors continue to operate merrily along, just as they always have, disregarding neighbors, police visits, noise ordinance, and Manteca officials. I daresay no person at City Hall would put up with such insult and assault in their own home.

I understand there is a report being prepared regarding my public complaint. Is it confidential? May I obtain a copy of it?

California’s law prohibiting “annexation islands” hand TLC Catering a huge gift – jurisdictional uncertainty. Manteca is tip-toeing around TLC Catering as if it was a sacred cow wandering the streets of Delhi, India. Ignoring my right to at least ten hours of nighttime silence, you keep acquiescing to the “grandfathered from San Joaquin County” mantra of the owners as their defense. Fine! Using that same rulebook, look up San Joaquin County Code 9-839.5 (a), items 1 and 8, regarding Home Occupation Permits. The home occupation (read: icemaker) is not confined within a building (#8) and it emits sounds, noise, and vibrations (#1). Perhaps Manteca could pull their home occupation permit?

Get my drift? Manteca staffers should know these codes better than anyone. Figure it out – and quickly!


That last part – the suggestion that the city pull (void) the business owners' Home Occupation permit - was when I finally got on the right track, but I didn't realize it yet. After the meeting, the Police Chief verbally tossed me a few more tidbits of information (all red herrings) and suggested I sue my neighbors directly.

The public appearance – and another email reminder - prodded the Chief of Police to send ME a copy of his summary he sent earlier to the councilman. Still another email reminder went to the City Clerk, who had to track down that sorriest excuse of a “report” in order to send it to me.

Mistakenly believing the Police Chief and the futility of pursuing the city further, I made an abortive foray into the court system, which sidetracked me temporarily.

Shell game

After a weekend reunion away, a daughter, her husband, and a granddaughter came to stay with me for several days. The reminder to Manteca's Deputy City Manager must have worked because the ice maker didn't come on the entire four days of the visit. I was so impressed with the efficiency of the man, I sent him a profusely thankful email late in the week. The silence was blissful, the problem was solved, the ice maker was put down, the world was right. Coworkers commented that my demeanor improved considerably.

Free at last! Free at last! Lordy, Lordy, Free at last!

Saturday afternoon found me with shovel in hand in the yard, when I heard the most detestable and debilitating noise I could ever have heard - the ice maker had fired up again! I swung around to see a white-haired fixit guy standing on a stool in front of the infernal machine and coaxing it back to life. Talk about an emotional, freefalling, nausea in the pit of the stomach, elevator ride to Hell! Homicidal thoughts danced through my head - the repairman, the ice maker, the neighbors, anyone who got in the way. I put my shovel away and sat stunned, doing nothing, for the rest of the afternoon and evening. Nothing had been done, after all. The machine was merely broken, but repairable. Only divine intervention had silenced it during my daughter's visit.

Early Monday morning I retracted my "Thank You" email.



June 30, 2008

Mr. John Nowak, Deputy City Manager
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337

Dear Mr. Nowak,

Were you puzzled by my correspondence thanking you for swift and sure action in enforcing the nighttime noise curfew on my neighbors? Well, let me tell you that after a week of vacation with pure silence, I was even more puzzled when the icemaking machinery came on again last Saturday afternoon. My disbelief quickly turned into overwhelming frustration while I watched a repairman bring it back to life. I was stunned by the hard truth that no action by City personnel had been taken after all - it was merely a random electrical or mechanical failure that silenced it for seven days. Not only is the machine running again, but it is also jury-rigged to run 24 hours, day and night! Now you can see why I must insist on the machines' removal from next to my house.

My patience is at the breaking point. On July 5th four months will have elapsed since I first requested immediate relief under the City's noise ordinance - yet, for the last two nights I have again been forced to evacuate my bedroom and retreat to the living room to sleep. My neighbors continue to operate merrily along, just as they always have, disregarding neighbors, police visits, noise ordinance, and Manteca officials. I daresay, no person at City Hall would put up with such insult and assault in their own home. Also, I dare anyone at City Hall to defend four months as "immediate."

I fear you are reversing the order of the three abatement steps I outlined earlier: FIRST- cite the business for noise curfew violations after their April 28th warning and issue an immediate cease and desist order to permanently shut off the machine in its present location; SECOND- find a location and/or solution acceptable to all parties; THIRD- research everything else. The only research needed immediately is to clearly understand the November 2007 noise ordinance, specifically Section 9.52.040, Subsection J. Also helpful is Subsection D.


Respectfully submitted by,

Richard W. Behling

cc: Mr. Hernandez
Mr. Bricker

p.s. Did I mention immediate?




For the first time, on July 7th, I stood at the podium in the council chambers and addressed the council during the public comment portion of the meeting. In the allotted three minutes I recapped the case, demanded they get moving, and threatened them with...




Public statement at Council Meeting, City of Manteca, July 7, 2008

Mr. Mayor and Councilmen,

I bring before you a noisome problem, which often forces me to vacate my bedroom at some point during the night in order to get some sleep on the living room couch. The first part of the problem is an operating commercial icemaker on my neighbors’ property. In my opinion, it was wrongly placed. This multi-component machine is essentially right alongside my house, most particularly the two bedrooms’ windows. The machinery starts up at unpredictable times and runs for unpredictable durations, either making ice or keeping it frozen. During the quiet of the night, these jarring startups and cutoffs of electric compressors produce huge sound differences (read: sleep-disturbing). The owners’ scooping ice from the machine’s storage bin into several 5-gallon plastic buckets beginning at 3:30 in the morning is like icing on the cake. I lived - and suffered - with this for a year before saying anything.

Four months ago, in February, my neighbors dismissed my inquiries in a hostile fashion and adamantly refused to move the machine, alter their routine, spend any money to eliminate the noise, or discuss it further. During a code enforcement investigation two months later, the business owners lied to City officers about the existence or operation of automatic timer controls. For the last two months since they were warned, they continue to deliberately operate the machinery after 10:00 p.m. and before 8:00 a.m. Yes, it is a problem.

The second part of the problem is City officials’ refusal to cite the violations. Their interpretation of disruptive nighttime noise must derive from the old ordinance and be something akin to earsplitting or groundshaking. In stark contrast is the new ordinance’s wording of ”continuous, repeated or sustained” and “plainly audible.” The noise from these compressors certainly meets all of those criteria. Please notice - “loud” is not listed. My documentation of sleep loss is sufficient proof of the noise’s disruptive nature (prima facie evidence, I believe the lawyers call it.) Shame on my neighbors for nightly breaching the peace with their machines - and shame on Manteca for allowing it to continue, especially since it has been brought to the attention of several City personnel.

The so-called investigation took place on April 28th, at which time no “findings” of violations were made. In the seventy (70) nights following, there were forty-six (46) nights with observed violations of the curfew – and ten (10) other nights I was out of town.

I need immediate nighttime noise abatement (translation: Shut the machines OFF already!) Have code enforcement get that done first. After that I will entertain any long term solution that removes the icemaker machinery far away from its present location next to my house. Get moving on this - or the next document you see from me will be…

…an invitation to a slumber party at my house.






The public presentation did two things. First, it prompted the councilman to request a recap of the case from the chief of police.



From: Bricker, Dave [dbricker@ci.manteca.ca.us]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:25 PM
To: Richard Behling
Cc: Pinkerton, Steve
Subject: RE: Report on 810 Fishback Street property?

Mr. Behling,
Below is a copy of a email I sent to Councilman Hernandez when he first enquired about your problem after the July 7th Council meeting. I hope this answers more of your questions. I will be happy to speak to you about this again if you have questions. My office number is 239-8425.
Dave Bricker


Vince,
Just some background on this complaint. Code Enforcement has been dealing with this issue for several months. Mr. Behling recently bought a property on Fishback Rd. His next door neighbors have been at their property since before it was annexed into the City. They operate a taco truck in Tracy but not in Manteca. They have a Tracy business license but are not required to have one in Manteca. They do not prepare food or do business at the residence. The do have an out building with an industrial ice maker in it. They use the ice to keep items cool in the taco truck but do not sell ice so we cannot consider it a commodity for sale under our ordinances. The ice maker comes on at various times during the night and morning. The condenser for the unit is on the roof of the structure next to the property line in the direction of Mr. Behling's residence. While it is louder than I would like to have next to my house it did not meet the decibel level necessary to fall under the zoning ordinance as a violation and does not meet the definition under the new noise ordinance. The ice maker was at this location and operating when Mr. Behling bought his property. These are estate size lots and the neighbors were "grandfathered" into the City when their property was annexed. Code Enforcement, Building Inspection, and I believe Fire have all looked at the property and all agree that the owners are in compliance with the City Ordinances and State laws. We have suggested that Mr. Behling consult a civil attorney in an attempt to obtain a retraining order to compel the neighbor to move the ice maker or turn it off. He feels it is the government's responsibility to correct this problem. We have spent considerable amount of time trying to reach a middle ground between the two parties and have exhausted all of our alternatives.
Dave


Second, my presentation caused the deputy city manager to write his "report" of the case the very next day. I believe it was almost his last official act as an employee of the city before moving to a new job elsewhere. I was not the only one happy to see him go, especially after reading what he wrote.








All that time and energy wasted? For this? Man, I was going nowhere at all - and fast.