Illegal Mobile Home Demolished - 28 Years Too Late!

.
I got a text message yesterday. It asked, "Hey, is my mind playing tricks on me? The BDGs have torn down their mobile shack?

Mobile home - Before

Mobile Home - After

(BTW, that's their pot farm, out in the open still, all those cute little plants under the solar panels. The police told me they told Lynda to enclose and secure it. There's a reason marijuana is called "dope.")

It's about time the Barefoot Dirty Girls "get" the final aim of the lawsuit!

When Mellow Yellow and Ravaged Red moved onto the property November 13, 1987 - 23 years ago - they did so BECAUSE of the mobile home. From the transcript of the city council meeting, Lynda's answer on March 3, 2009 to the Mayor's question confirms that:

Mayor Weatherford: When you bought the property, did you have an intention to use it in a certain way?
Ms. Allen: Yes, it was all laid out. Yes...

The mobile home had already been on the property illegally for five years BEFORE the BDGs bought the place.

CLUELESS County of San Joaquin...




Then they moved their catering truck operation onto the property (without a Manteca land use permit) and used the mobile home as their commissary for six years (without a Health Department Commissary permit.) Oh, eventually they applied to the Health Department for a private commissary in 1993 - right after being told by the city that they could NOT expand their business use - then hauled all sorts of trailers, freezers, and an icemaker onto their property, and poured concrete and built several unpermitted sheds to cover all the crap, and dumped gravel over half the yard to turn it into a business compound.

CLUELESS City of Manteca...

It's about time this mobile home is gone! These charlatans saved a ton of money over those twenty-three years of hellish and illegal use, which kept them in business by undercutting the competition's operating costs and evading municipal regulations. (Their mantra: Nosy, whiney neighbors and officials be damned!)

Last week my attorney sent over a 30-day Notice to Inspect Property and a Demand For Production of Documents relating to the legality of the mobile home in my neighbors’ yard. The only document this mobile home possesses is the 1976 permit, above, which expired in 1982. This week the monstrosity, which enticed the two-legged rodents to take up residence in the first place, is finally being torn down.

Once the mobile home is gone, its address (812 Fishback Street) will be decommissioned by the City of Manteca.

This demolition assuages my fear that they were going to convert their illegal mobile home/TLC Commissary into Mellow Yellow's Pot Farm. The lawsuit will, of course, continue until the whole nonconforming operation is judged illegal and ALL the appertanant structures and equipment have to go. If new construction takes place for a pot farm enclosure, I will ensure that the BDGs have a Manteca building permit - just like when they tried to rebuild their back porch without a permit.



.

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...

.

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.)

.

EHD - Enablng Hardcore Dereliction

Somehow, TLC Catering has managed to stay in business. After seeing some of the shoddy, half-completed Environmental Health Department applications they have submitted over the years, I don't know how they do it, but at least they keep their EHD permits up. Perhaps they make EHD clerks and inspectors go blind by using the same magical fairy dust they sprinkle on Manteca city employees.

Following up on the property's building permits requested last week from the City of Manteca, below is a letter to the EHD seeking a corresponding history of program permits and health inspections. A copy of this letter is also going to the same City of Manteca official in charge of building permits and home occupation permits so he can see what TLC Catering was doing without the city's permission.


November 17, 2008

Donna Heran, Director
Environmental Health Department
600 East Main Street
Stockton, CA 95202

Re: Public records request

Dear Ms. Heran,
I visited your offices in Stockton on August 20th and reviewed the TLC Catering files you provided at my request. Your staff was helpful and the review productive.

Some needed items, however, were not found in those files:
1. The number and type of permits (program elements) existing on December 17, 1986.

2. A year-by-year history of the number and type of permits (program elements) issued from December 17, 1986 to now.

3. Records of the “Program 1680 Plan Check,” referred to on the attached Account Statement. The four hours billed between 6/1/94 and 6/9/94 I assume represent checklists of equipment, diagrams of placement, narratives of commissary processes, and reports of visual inspections prior to issuing the commissary permit on 7/13/94.

4. Annual commissary inspection reports from 7/13/94 to the first one in the commissary file, 12/9/02.

The subjects of the requested files and records are:

810 Fishback Street (Manteca after 12/17/86), or
18594 S Fishback Rd (SJCo before 12/17/86), and
Lynda S Allen and/or Theresa A Brassey (property/business owners), and
TLC Catering (business name).


Ms. Heran, I would be pleased to receive a written response as to when such records will be made available.

Respectfully submitted by,

________________________
Richard W. Behling



cc: Mark Nelson, Manteca Community Development Director


All of this effort is necessary because Manteca's code enforcement still spreads the patently absurd story that TLC Catering's operation is like that of a tradesman parking the company truck in the driveway at home for the night. (News flash! There is no company re-supply depot in the tradesman's garage!)

The owners of TLC Catering apparently don't know a grandfather from a grandmother, and have risked their entire operation on their deliberately ignoring Manteca's zoning laws.

Unfortunately, all the county and city officials, who have had to suffer the insufferable, got magical TLC fairy dust in their eyes.

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.)

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.

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...

Walking toward the light

The attorney thoroughly questioned me about my case. Many of the myths surrounding (and protecting) TLC Catering were identified. All of the communications from the city regarding the "not a business" across my fence became suspect. He felt that primary research needed to be documented and the argument tightened.

What became clear to me within that hour was the lack of land use permits for the owners to operate their business on residential property. These permits are issued by the county or city zoning departments, and were formerly called conditional use permits, until 1992 when home occupation ordinances were adopted by both jurisdictions and the name was changed to Home Occupation permits. He assigned me to go back and find that permit for that property.

For months now, I had been assuming city personnel knew what they were talking about, even if the resulting situation was not right. See? To Ass-U-Me is to make an ass out of you and me.

My second pass of research turned up inconsistencies in the history I thought I knew. My originally assumed annexation date moved fifteen years earlier, the various ordinance adoption dates thus became very important, and new information and records were coming from many different sources - the whole project was becoming unwieldy without a framework.

A timeline structure evolved. Various documents could now be treated as attachments to a simple flow, keyed into the narrative with footnotes. Now the interplay of jurisdictions, ordinances, and dates could be easily seen. It was like putting many pieces of a jigsaw puzzle into place. Besides the exhiliration of the emerging picture, it was extremely irritating that I was doing the work I had several times asked the city staff and city attorney to do - detail out my neighbors' "grandfathering" claim.

Something had been tickling my brain for a long while - and it finally came out. My neighbors were constantly claiming "grandfathered" rights to run their business and had permits to prove their claim. The trouble was the permits were from the county health department, not from the county or city. They were relying exclusively on a county department I had not looked at to this point - a department with public records!

Ahhh, what a treasure trove awaited me! First, though, you have to sift a lot of dirt to find the gold nuggets.

The earliest health department records were scattered and indefinite, but sufficient to show the progression of the business. I'm sure the owners' penchant for sloppy correspondence and incomplete application forms, etc., made life difficult for the regulators charged with making inspections and issuing permits. Let's just politely say my neighbors gave the barest minimum of attention needed to keep the health department issuing them those sanitation permits.

And what to my wondering eyes should appear but a tiny red sleigh and eight tiny reindeer! (Oops... wrong poem) This is weird!? This letter is written on city letterhead, addressed to my neighbor, and filed with the health department? I read the few short lines, examined the date and the signature - and I knew my troubles were over!