Cleaning Up Some of TLC's Environmental Waste

.
Just to make sure the general public in Tracy and Manteca are protected from the lawless bent of my neighbors, I sent this letter to my helpful contacts at the Health Department to give them a heads up.

- - - - - - - - - - - -


San Joaquin County, Environmental Health Department
Attn: Jeff Carruesco, Program Coordinator
600 E. Main Street
Stockton, CA 95202

March 18, 2010

Re: Superior Court Case # 3-2009-00212085-CU-OR-STK,
Behling v. Allen, Brassey, TLC Catering and Commissary


Dear Mr. Carruesco,

The enclosed picture shows that Lynda Allen and Theresa Brassey, owners and operators of TLC Catering, have elected to cease business operations on their residential property located at 810 Fishback Street in Manteca and not move their operation elsewhere. If they have already contacted you with that decision, please provide me and my attorney with copies of all correspondence between the parties and the health permit cancellations for TLC Catering's MFPU's and the private commissary.

If they have not yet contacted you, please flag their account and provide the documents requested above as they become available.
. . .

Your department's files were extremely helpful to me in reconstructing the scope and duration of Allen's and Brassey's illegal operation. I only wish your department had been more diligent to verify their lack of property rights for this operation twenty-three years ago. Nevertheless, I am pleased that 1) the current poor economic climate, 2) my lawsuit against them for their lack of land use permits and causing a noise nuisance, and 3) their lack of business insurance have all combined to present this single option to the owners of TLC Catering and Commissary.

Sincerely,

A Few Key Documents From the Report

{Click on the highlighted links for the larger versions}


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

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

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

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

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

Enjoyable, no?

.

The Grandfather of All Reports

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



Allen & Brassey: TLC on Fishback Street


Documented Narrative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delivering the Report to the Manteca City Council

HUGE step forward! What a night! After months of research, writing, and preparation, last night I delivered "Valentines" to fifteen of my closest friends at City Hall during the City Council meeting.

While I read the two-and-one-half minute Introduction, the City Clerk handed out the pound-and-a-half books. The Introduction [see last post] is included in the book so all recipients can reread it at their leisure. The city personnel in attendance appeared surprised that someone was so well prepared in advance. Those not receiving books were curious as to its contents, but probably relieved they didn't have to deal with whatever problem it contained.

Just before the meeting closed Councilman John Harris acknowledged my need for resolution to this problem, and Councilman Steve DeBrum, acting as Mayor Pro Tempore, echoed that and offered to sponsor my item onto the city council agenda on March 3rd.

Today, I confirmed with the City Clerk that my item is indeed on the draft agenda. "Draft agenda" means the mayor and councilmen have the opportunity to "play politics" before the agenda is finalized mid-next week. So it's still a fluid situation until the agenda is published to the public.



Anyway, here is the Executive Summary of my report:



Allen & Brassey: TLC on Fishback Street


Executive Summary

The purposes of this research document are:

First, to establish from public records (apparently for the first time) the timeline of ownership and prior uses of the property at 810 Fishback Street;

Second, to document the unlawful commencement, enlargement, and continued operation of TLC Catering as an unpermitted, nonresidential use;

Third, to prevent this unlawful use from attaching to the land because of the major error classifying the property’s business use as “legal but nonconforming;” and,

Fourth, to ensure the comprehensive and complete rehabilitation of 810 Fishback Street to its residential-only status.


Research conducted in December 2008 and January 2009 produced these findings:

►Finding #1: There was no legal nonresidential use attached to the property prior to the December 17, 1986 annexation. (That is, no valid San Joaquin County Planning permits existed for any such use.)

►Finding #2: Allen & Brassey purchased the property eleven months after annexation and, therefore, have no claim to grandfathered property rights for nonresidential use. (The prior owners lived on the property until April 1987. Allen & Brassey’s deed was recorded November 10, 1987.)

►Finding #3: There has never been a valid Home Occupation permit, or its earlier counterpart, issued by the City of Manteca for a business use on that property.

TLC Catering’s use of 810 Fishback was not grandfathered through the December 1986 annexation, was never issued a land use permit by Manteca before 1992 to establish a legal use and, therefore, could not be grandfathered through the 1992 Home Occupation ordinance as a legal but nonconforming use. (That declaration in the June 29, 1993 letter from the City of Manteca was in error, based on unverified information from the lawbreaking owner.)

►Finding #4: Allen & Brassey’s jealously guarded Health Permits are sanitation permits.

Physical addresses supplied to the Health Department facilitate inspections for sanitary conditions; the permits do not grant land use permission in any jurisdiction.

Conclusion

In simplest terms: They never were legal - they are not operating legally now – and, they never can become legal under current ordinances.

The Manteca Municipal Code, Chapter 17.25 Home Occupation Permit, states: “In no case shall a home occupation be conducted without prior issuance of a home occupation permit… [and] all activity relating to the existing home occupation [for which no home occupation permit has previously been issued] must cease until such time a valid home occupation permit is issued…”

My intention has never been that they go out of business, but it is definitely my goal to see that they do not continue unlawfully to operate their business next door to my residential property, thereby allowing the noncompliant use to attach to the land mistakenly classified as a nonconforming use.

In order to effect a comprehensive rehabilitation of this residential property to its business-free state, an awful lot of shit has to be shoveled. With no grandfather protection and no home occupation permit, every piece of currently used (and previously used but now abandoned) business equipment is on the property illegally, and the TLC Catering and Commissary business operation is an illegal land use.

The same jeopardy applies - twice over - to the mobile home abandoned by a former property owner. The unpermitted structure should not be there at all and Allen & Brassey are utilizing it as part of their unlawful business use. It must be removed from the property.

Recommendations

1) The City of Manteca correct and re-issue the letter of June 29, 1993 (see Exhibit Y), reclassifying the business use as noncompliant, and begin the process of conforming it to current ordinances.

2) These property owners have a choice to make – and, it is their choice.

Option #1 - Move all business operations and present and former business equipment to another property in a commercial zone and continue in business.

Option #2 - Go out of business - and remove, through selling, scrapping, or storing off-site, all present and former business equipment from the Fishback property.

Because of the unimaginable length of time they have been operating illegally from the property, a reasonable deadline (no more than a few months) could be given to find a new location and make the move.





The "story" and its references are in the next post.





.

Peeling the Onion

There is a teaching axiom that goes: Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em; then tell 'em; then tell 'em what you told 'em. This repetitious procedure has worked for my noxious neighbors for twenty-two years - their lies have become ingrained in the psyche of all inhabitants of City Hall. My uphill battle is to expose the foundational lies and yank the rug out from under all of the specious defenses the city uses against me.

After the little set-to with Manteca's Chief of Police last November, where he tried to quarantine me from all City departments with his "closure" letter, I went for ALL the marbles. This weekend I am finalizing my report of the research I've conducted over the last three months and delivering it - all 22 copies - at next Tuesday's Manteca City Council meeting.

The following short introduction of the report will be given during the public comment portion of the meeting, before the report is distributed.




Manteca City Council
Introduction to the Report
Allen & Brassey: TLC on Fishback Street


Manteca City Council Meeting
Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Honorable Mayor, Councilwoman, and Councilmen,

Almost a year ago, Rex Osborn responded to my initial complaints regarding my neighbors’ noisy business operations and equipment with, “This is a complex case,” and, “We are trying to please you, and still not interfere with the rights of you neighbor.” For many tedious months since, a resolution to this “complex case” has defied the best minds in Manteca city government… and my ice-cooled neighbors are still infringing on my rights.

Both my neighbors and the City have been my adversaries since I began this quest. Because of senior staff’s prejudice in this case, based on decades-old misinformation and supposition, they have not been cooperative and I had to “audit around” them in order to “peel this onion” layer by layer. Whenever I begin to feel forgiving toward my neighbors, or tired of this fight, or some City functionary tells me to kiss off – on official letterhead, no less! - without fail my neighbors’ commercial icemaker runs all night and ruins my sleep. That infernal machine always renews my resolve to see this thing through.

I am here tonight to personally deliver to you the report that could not be written by your staff because of its “complexity.” (To submit this report through City Administration would ensure that you never see it because of their prejudice.) It has newly obtained documents, from original public sources, which bring the events of 1986 through 1989 concerning 810 Fishback Street into clear view and completely erase all of my neighbors’ fraudulent claims of a grandfathered business use of their property. Combine that with the absolute absence of any land use permits issued to them by the City of Manteca and… you will get the picture. I drew one for you.

It is clear to me that your staff won’t move without direction from you. I request that this report be included – intact - in your next City Council meeting binder and a presentation or public hearing be set for this item on the next City Council agenda.



The report itself I will publish here next week after it has been delivered to the City Council.


It's nice when everyone is singing from the same page in the same hymnbook, so, to help the City council along a little bit, each of these people and organizations will receive a copy:

Distribution List

1. Willie Weatherford, Mayor
2. John Harris, Councilman
3. Vince Hernandez, Councilman
4. Debby Moorhead, Councilwoman
5. Steve DeBrum, Councilman

6. Steve Pinkerton, City Manager
7. Joann Tilton, City Clerk
8. Dave Bricker, Chief of Police
9. Rex Osborn, Police Department, Public Affairs
10. Greg Baird, Police Department, Code Enforcement
11. Mark Nelson, Community Development Department, Director
12. Mark Meissner, Community Development Department, Planning Manager
13. Lantz Rey, Community Development Department, Associate Planner
14. Alma Martinez, Community Development Department, Planning Technician
15. John Brinton, City Attorney

16. Jeff Carruesco, San Joaquin County, EHD, Program Coordinator
17. Greg Olivera, San Joaquin County, EHD

18. Lathrop-Manteca Sun Post, W Yosemite Ave, Manteca, CA (with press kit CD)
19. Manteca Bulletin, 531 E Yosemite Ave, Manteca, CA 95336,
209-249-3500 (with press kit CD)
20. Manteca Live! Joe DeAngelis (with press kit CD)
21. Tracy Press, 145 W. 10th St., P.O. Box 419, Tracy, CA 95378-0419,
209-835-3030 (with press kit CD)
22. The Record, Stockton, CA, 209-943-6397 (with press kit CD)

Honorees

Sheila Foster, Elia Court, Manteca, CA

Patty “Pit Bull” Letawsky, PO Box 177, Wilton, CA 95693


The first honoree on the list is a woman who stood to plead for help from the City Council to move her complaint along. She told the very familiar story of code enforcement officers seeing the same things she sees - a neighbor fixing cars and large appliances in his garage, these large articles strewn all around his property, day and night visitors racing their car engines, and amateur neighborhood surveillance to document possible drug dealing - but turning around and telling her there is nothing they can do.

Aiee! All they have to do is ask this guy for his business license! If he doesn't have one, start citing him, then fining him. How hard can that be!?

The other honoree is a young woman who spoke during a public hearing to dissuade the council from adopting a pit bull ordinance with "iffy" parts. She returned to the podium during the public comment portion to berate the City Council and Administration for being the "most dismissive" of any public body she has ever dealt with, bar none. (Not that it did any good... they just dismissed her.) She followed that with a similarly worded letter to the Sun-Post editor and, even though she is not a Manteca resident, I take heart from her fearless forthrightness.


.

Now you see them... Now you don't!

Someone mentioned the Grand Jury to me, so I got to poking around in their reports. I discovered that two years ago the City of Stockton came under Grand Jury investigation for complaints about their code enforcement practices. The upshot was that code enforcement was "uneven" at best and at other times practically confiscatory, serving as a substitute for eminent domain actions by the Redevelopment Agency. Cases were processed differently in part because Stockton had no internal policies and procedures to implement their Municipal Code (or city law.)

Doing what Grand Juries do, they interviewed a bunch of Stockton bureaucrats and reviewed any available documentation - minus the policies and procedures noted above. Then the Grand Jury recommended (that is pracically an order) that Stockton write the policies and procedures that code enforcement personnel and cases are supposed to follow.

Two things caught my eye. First, one official interviewed during the investigation - and during the follow up by the next year's Grand Jury - was the head of Stockton's Redevelopment Agency two years ago, and is none other than the City of Manteca's spanking-new City Manager, Mr. Steve Pinkerton. He was front and center in that little fiasco up north.

Second, the Grand Jury listed some of the documents reviewed, particularly the code enforcement policies and procedures from other cities in the county, including Manteca. One of Stockton's lamest excuses recorded in the Grand Jury follow up report was that the documents from the other cities were not useful models because those cities were not comparable in size. I certainly wish the Grand Jury had attributed that remark to the backward-thinking public servant who uttered it.

Anyway, I sent off a request to Manteca to obtain a copy of those documents which provide guidance to Manteca's finest (oops... second finest) as they approach and resolve the problems which generate complaints. I wished to see for myself why my complaints seemed to be the problem down at Police HQ :(

Wouldn'tcha know it? The new Manteca Chief of Police, serving directly under the new City Manager, has apparently (lost, can't find, maybe they evaporated?, we don't know) the code enforcement policies and procedures which the Grand Jury reviewed in the very recent past.

(Here's one for all you conspiracy theorists out there: Maybe there is a very clever plan afoot to gut code enforcement and collude with the County to do "eminent domain lite" on certain properties out by the MUSD HQ, in order to get a "good-for-the-city-and-all-citizens-in-it" northerly annexation [dubbed Centre Pointe - where do those final e's come from?] to go through without creating a prohibited "annexation island.")

Machiavelli would be so proud if city officials actually were trying to do something so underhanded; but less proud if the gumshoes are merely picking gum off thir shoes.


emails below
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Richard Behling
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 6:23 PM
To: 'GrandJury@courts.san-joaquin.ca.us'
Subject: Request for Manteca Code Enforcement policies and procedures

Dear sirs,

I read the 2006-07 Grand Jury report on Case #04-06, City of Stockton Code Enforcement. Of particular interest to me was the mention of GJ review of Manteca’s Code Enforcement policies and procedures. I sent a request to Manteca’s City Clerk to obtain a copy, but she replied that such items could not be found. (See emails, below.)

Does the Grand Jury still have a copy of Manteca’s Code Enforcement policies and procedures? Could I obtain a copy from those?

Or, perhaps the Grand Jury could refresh Manteca’s memory of the documents in question. Mr. Steve Pinkerton is Manteca’s new City Manager and he was personally involved in the City of Stockton case mentioned above.

Sincerely,

Richard Behling


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


From: Richard Behling
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:48 AM
To: 'Tilton, Joann'
Subject: Request for code enforcement policies and procedures


January 6, 2009

Joann Tilton,
Manteca City Clerk
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337

Re: Public records request
Dear Ms. Tilton,

The 2006-07 Grand Jury reviewed Manteca’s code enforcement policies and procedures as part of their investigation of the lack of the same in Stockton. Their Final Report for Case #04-06, City of Stockton Code Enforcement, can be found at this Web-address: http://stocktoncourt.org/grandjury/2006-2007.htm Specifically, refer to the sixth bullet point on report page 51.

I, too, would like a copy of Manteca’s code enforcement policies and procedures. Please return them via email, or mail them to the address above at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully submitted by,

Richard W. Behling

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Tilton, Joann [jtilton@ci.manteca.ca.us]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:34 PM
To: Richard Behling
Subject: Request for code enforcement policies and procedures


On January 6, 2009 you request copy's of Manteca's code enforcement policies and procedures, via email.

My research of my records and via the Police Chief shows we do not have the documents (policies and procedures) being requested.

I provided the Police Chief with the 2006-07 Grand Jury report you emailed to me and he is not familiar, nor could he find the information mentioned on page 51 of this report.

Thank you for your patience while awaiting a response.


Joann Tilton, MMC
Manteca City Clerk
1001 W. Center St.
Manteca, CA 95337
(209) 239-8467 (Phone)
(209) 825-2333 (Fax)
jtilton@ci.manteca.ca.us

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.)

.

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!...)

Blind Men and Elephants

In the realms of the brain-dead, the half-wit is king!

Manteca’s Police Chief, David Bricker, sent me a letter telling me (again!) that my case is dead and closed - never to be re-opened - don’t contact us again – call an attorney – have a nice life. He was sounding very much like he had been promoted to City Manager, having the authority to direct and speak for all city departments. While suffering through a Pavlovian rush of endocrine secretions (adrenaline, testosterone, etc.), my mind dissected the idiotic letter and its status quo non-solution. Innumerable mental, verbal, and physical responses to the letter spun in a whirlwind (most were illegal, of course.)

(Because I cannot get the thumbnail/expansion thing to work, a transcript of the letter is below.)

Manteca Police Department
1001 W. Center Street, Manteca, CA 95337 (209) 239-8401

December 3, 2008

Mr. Richard Behling
786 Fishback Ln.
Manteca, CA 95337

Dear Mr. Behling,

This letter is to serve as a closing document regarding our investigation into the matters you have brought to the attention of the City of Manteca. Your concerns have been thoroughly investigated by the various City departments having jurisdiction over the issues.

The property you brought to our attention is, in our opinion, a “legal non-conforming” property and the City of Manteca has no intention of changing that designation. Regarding the complaint that the current owner of the property is producing excessive noise, we also find that there is no violation. Regarding the complaint that the owners constructed an alternative power source illegally has been investigated and they are in compliance. Regarding the complaint of abandoned or inoperable vehicles on the property, all the vehicles were found to be functional though not regularly used and parked entirely on private property.

With regard to your currents complaints, we will not conduct any additional investigation regarding this property, nor will we accept any additional complaints from you regarding this property as to its proper use or noise.

As a result of our review of available information, our conclusion is that the City of Manteca needs to take no action regarding this property. This closure applies to all departments within the City of Manteca. There may be other civil remedies available to you. I would recommend that you consult an attorney for advice in this area.

Sincerely,

//s
David H. Bricker
Chief of Police

CC: All Departments and Parties Involved


Beginning to calm down, I recalled the ancient fable of several blind men encountering an elephant; whereupon, each man described the animal in wildly different terms based on feeling only one body part, such as trunk, ear, leg, or tail. I realized that Manteca’s current code enforcement minions are blinded by the orthodoxy of the myths surrounding TLC Catering, and their responses have all been to piecemeal the problem - each standalone piece being technically legal - and to ignore “the elephant in the room,” or the totality of the illegal commissary. It occurred to me that I am one step closer to “exhausting my administrative remedies,” a phrase my attorney said is necessary before suing.


You want a Yes? vs Won’t take a No!

Happily, I repaired to the keyboard to create this written response:

December 9, 2008

Mr. David Bricker,
Manteca Chief of Police
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337

Re: No more complaints re: 810 Fishback Street

Dear Mr. Bricker,

You have finally convinced me of the City's inability or deliberate refusal to comprehend the terms of "grandfathering" in this case. You quoted the "legal, but non-conforming" clause in the second paragraph of Mr. Cantu's letter of June 29, 1993 - a designation I did not ask you to change. However, my neighbors and all City departments completely ignore the restriction found in the third paragraph, namely, "The use may remain, but may not be expanded or enlarged." It is this illegal business expansion I have referred to repeatedly since last August. All additional equipment and processes after annexation are restricted from "grandfathering" and are subject to a Conditional Use permit (pre-1992) or a Home Occupation permit (1992 ordinance), which the owners never obtained - and, likely, could never qualify.

But, I am a reasonable man and I will acquiesce to your dictum by no longer filing complaints in this matter with the City.

From now on I will only make demands for public records under California's version of the federal government's Freedom of Information Act. Indeed, I have already done that on November 14th when I requested nine specific items from the City Clerk, who is the custodian of the City's public records. While walk-in freezers, additional vehicles, a solar power system, an excessively noisy icemaker, and the comings and goings of commercial suppliers delivering food products to the property at all hours - taken individually - may or may not be illegal, when the dates and circumstances of their acquisition are combined with County Health Department's permit and inspection records, the unassailable conclusion is that my neighbors consciously and deliberately made the decision to illegally "expand AND enlarge" the business use of their property. On November 17th I made a public records request for four specific groups of records from the Director of the Environmental Health Department to augment the records I obtained last August from that agency.

Because you mentioned several investigations in your "closing document," I now make a further public records request (this letter is copied to the City Clerk).

The subjects and scope of the requested files and records are:

810 Fishback Street,
Lynda S Allen and/or Theresa A Brassey (810 Fishback property/business owners), and/or
TLC Catering (business name),
From annexation to present.

This records request covers all City Departments, including City Council and City Attorney, and is for:

All correspondence (in whatever media), all business records, all applications submitted (including drawings or diagrams), all permits issued or denied (reason for denial), waivers issued (such as refuse pickup or liquid waste storage), complaints lodged by or against the property or owners (especially the 1992 complaint), investigations made and enforcement actions taken or denied (reason for denial), and all other relevant documents, relating to the property, its owners, the business use, and their neighbors. Specific communications subject to rapid destruction (internal emails, telephone and voice mail messages, memos, meeting notes, etc.) must be immediately protected in order to be made available.

(Joann, duplicates in this request of the items requested previously will not be necessary.)

Mr. Bricker, I have already taken your suggestion and consulted an attorney on three occasions. I have again visited the Environmental Health Department and will obtain copies of their entire files on the illegal growth of this operation. Following a City Council meeting many months ago, you offered the City's resources to assist in prosecuting this matter. I am now calling that marker due. Please furnish any and all documents relating to the subjects above.

Respectfully submitted by,


________________________
Richard W. Behling

cc: Joann Tilton, City Clerk (and please cc: All Departments and Parties Involved, as noted on Mr. Bricker's letter, enclosed.)

enclosure:



(Stay tuned for our next episode, “Fire Drill at the Health Department.”)

Freedom of Information and Public Records

And I thought I had it bad! For a real horror story, read this account of a long and costly wrangle to get public records from Jacksonville, Florida. As published in Folio Weekly on 10/07/2008, all reporter Marvin Edwards wanted was public records held by the city which documented millions of tax dollars channeled to developers and other "connected" individuals to build a sports stadium. Starting to sound familiar?

If you really want to scare the crap out of yourself, here's a fun exercise. All you have to do is make a few word substitutions while reading.

Wherever it says: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Substitute:

Jacksonville, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manteca, California

Gator Bowl/Alltel Stadium . . . . . . . . . Big League Dreams Sports Complex

Florida developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Local developer

Jaguar owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BLD operations leaseholders

Super Bowl Host Committee . . . . . . . . Manteca Convention & Visitors Bureau

other Florida "insiders" . . . . . . . . . . . . other Manteca "insiders"

See what I mean? These things go on all over - not only in Jacksonville, Florida. The reason for my attraction to this article (and my dismay regarding it) is summed up in these two quotes:

Plaintiff: Although the law is pretty clear, ... "our laws in this country are not self-executing and too often it takes someone with fortitude, resources and connections to make the government do right." [emphasis added]

Plaintiff's view regarding Defendant: As [was] made abundantly clear, the Host Committee -- and its city lapdogs -- are perfectly willing to endure "months, if not years of litigation," in order to keep their secrets secret.

.

(Hey, waterboy! We need water over here!)

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.

Manteca City Hall - Black Hole of the Delta

All my communications go in and nothing comes out. O.K., a few weak signals are detected infrequently, but even those are so garbled that nothing intelligent can be made out. Since I am the only person to believe a Home Occupation violation of felony proportions exists, it follows that I should have to do my own research of primary documents held by the City of Manteca.

Here is my first request for public records, held by Manteca, which directly prove the unlawful expansion of TLC Catering, and will bear directly on its relocation - or its demise.


November 14, 2008

Joann Tilton,
Manteca City Clerk
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337

Re: Public records request

Dear Ms. Tilton,
The need exists to establish the level of non-compliant business use of a certain residential property at the time of annexation into the City of Manteca on December 17, 1986. More importantly, in exceeding “grandfather” provisions and in the absence of a home occupation permit, the need exists to document the illegal expansion and enlargement of the non-compliant business use in order to properly abate it from the residential property. Therefore, I require certain files and records from the City.

The subjects of the requested files and records are:

810 Fishback Street,
Lynda S Allen (property/business owner),
Theresa A Brassey (property/business owner), and/or
TLC Catering (business name).

I am requesting building permit applications and final inspections for the siting, construction, roofing, wiring, and/or plumbing for the following listed projects. Most of these records were likely generated in the time period of 1992 through 2002; some, of course, may be earlier or later.

1. Portable building, California license plate # FQ1259, used as dry commissary and electrical feed station for catering trucks.
2. Attached covered porch on the west side of portable building in #1, above.
3. Attached covered patio on the northerly east side of portable building in #1, above.
4. Trailmobile full size shipping container, with two roof-mounted refrigeration compressors with electrical feed, on the southerly east side of the portable building in #1, above.
5. Walk-in freezer, with roof-mounted refrigeration compressor and electrical feed, on the north property line.
6. Scotsman commercial icemaker, with remote condenser unit roof-mounted on previously existing outbuilding, with electrical feed, plumbing for water feed and drainage, and refrigerant plumbing, on the north property line.
7. Attached covered patio on the north side of previously existing outbuilding on the north property line. (Support posts and corrugated fiberglass roofing material do not meet required setback from property line.)
8. Seven solar panel arrays, with any storage batteries and control units, in the northerly and easterly portion of yard.

And, one other small thing from either Finance or Solid Waste Division:
Is 810 Fishback Street exempt from curbside refuse pickup? If so, I need evidence of when and how that waiver was determined.

Joann, I would be pleased to receive a written response as to when such records, in whole or a schedule of parts, will be made available.

Respectfully submitted by,

________________________
Richard W. Behling

cc: Mark Nelson, Community Development Director


These are some of the records a competent official would use in verifying the facts I laid out in my November 5th letter. The O. Rex has already risen well past his "Peter Principle" limit, so my hopes are pinned on a new guy to see a real problem, and on an internationally acclaimed city clerk who may know where the records are buried (not just the skeletons.)

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.