Showing posts with label property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label property. Show all posts

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Manteca's Crack Code Enforcer

Under-staffed or under-brained?

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

Manteca Code Enforcement: Cosmic Entropy? *
.............................................: Comic Entertainment?
.............................................: Cannibis Enjoyment?


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

Sheesh! Your skill set and methods are slim
Makes your chance of success flicker dim
Maybe look on the 'puter
For the foreclosure suitor?
Send your "We Notice Shit" on to him!

From the time of citation 'til now**
Musta smoked your Sierra High (r) grow?
Dumb! Ya gotta have vigor
Pulling Oaf-icial trigger
Coulda saved your embarrassing row

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

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

* the degradation of the matter and energy
in the universe to an ultimate state
of inert uniformity

** 03Jan13 to 20Feb13,
seven weeks of pissing up the wrong tree!
.
.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Allen's & Brassey's Ghastly Grandfather Dies!

.

A message came to me a short while ago that Lyin' Lynda was adamantly asserting that she had the RIGHT to start up her business again if SHE wanted to - after all, it's HER property and she's got a "legally grandfathered business" on it.

*Pish!* When I received that message, I did not respond to it, but rather waited for the City of Manteca to respond to my December 1st request for a re-determination of Lyin' Lynda's legality.

The city's response was dated December 15, 2010 and is posted here:


The key phrases are, "the nonconforming status is lost and the nonconforming use may not be resumed."

As you can see, Lyin' Lynda's assertion is nought but babbling and raving. She has lied since November 1987 - from the very beginning of her residency on the property - about the "grandfathered" status of TLC Catering and Commissary. Besides the fact that it NEVER WAS grandfathered, it is now determined that the status is detached from the property and extinguished. This widely known, respected pillar self-deceived lunatic of Fishback Street and Resectioned Red, her lover and partner, breathe out only hot air and secondhand marijuana combustion compounds.

Good-bye, Grandfather!

Good Riddance.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Extinguish v. Exterminate...

.

Yellow and Red have their permanent pariah protégé and
personal protector do pest control act as their good will ambassador

(Ever notice how everything the BDGs do
has to make loud noise? ...or smoke?)

- - - - - - - - -

Today I posted the following letter to the City of Manteca's Director of Community Development:

City of Manteca
Attn: Frederick Clark
1001 W Center Street
Manteca, CA 95336

12/01/2010

Re: Determination of extinguishment of nonconforming use status at 810 Fishback Street, Manteca, CA

Dear Mr. Clark,

I am requesting a letter of determination from you memorializing the extinguishment of the nonconforming use status accorded to the property neighboring mine, at 810 Fishback Street, Manteca, CA 95337, on June 29, 1993. Attached is the City of Manteca letter of that date.

The nonconforming use, a business known as TLC Catering and its associated private commissary, ceased operation “on or about February 15, 2010.” Attached is the owner’s verification of that date, declared by her “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California.” From that date to this, the business operation has not resumed; indeed, key elements of physical plant have been removed, though much remains.

Because a nonconforming use “runs with the land” and was granted by letter in this case, this official determination is necessary to extinguish the nonconforming use designation. A copy of Manteca Municipal Code, Section 17.55.020, is included for your reference to the necessary elapsed time periods fulfilling the extinguishment requirements.

I remain committed to seeing this rehabilitation project through and greatly desire your willing cooperation in this matter. I stand ready to talk with you, meet with you, or make any other needed information or documented evidence available to you in closing this matter.

Please mail your current determination of the zoning and land use designation to me...

Please mail a copy to my attorney...

Sincerely yours,


Attachments: City of Manteca letter of June 29, 1993; Requests for Admissions; MMC 17.55.020.

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



Attachment #1: Original grant of nonconforming use status (obtained by deceit)


Attachment #2: Admission of discontinuance of nonconforming use (found in this post.)

Attachment #3: Manteca Municipal Code, Section 17.55.020, Nonconforming buildings and uses

.

Monday, June 14, 2010

She and Her Old John Deere...

Yep, these {women} could have a lucrative career making cover art for country music albums. Just dress up these 50++ {cough} seductresses {cough} in light pink sports bras (?), khaki shorts, white socks and gray boots, and pose them draped over the hood of a vintage John Deere riding mower.

(Wow! That sports bra proves the old, amended, sayin' that "Some [imaginary] things are best left to the imagination"... and that mid-drift is no longer mid-... it done drifted eastward, westward and southward!)

Nevertheless - Voila! - Compelling illustrative art for Vince Gill's song, "One More Last Chance."



Well, she might’ve took my car keys
But she forgot about my old John Deere.


Give me just'a one more last chance
Before you say, “We’re through.”
I know I drive you crazy, baby;
It’s the best that I can do.


We’re just some good ol’ boys, a-makin’ noise...


Boy, howdy! Such was the sight and sounds at 7:20 this morning. Nothing stirs the blood (or boils it!) and awakens the soul to the endless, unattainable, possibilities of the day like the vision of Corky piloting a John Deere mower the size and sound of an alfalfa cutter around their postage-stamp front lawn. (And, if she lets her naturally grey Marge Simpson (c) hair grow a little - and overhauls her wardrobe - she could look just like Pink on that tractor. The resemblance is so unnerving it's scary!) I'm also positive that two dozen passes barely guarantee that every single blade of grass - or weed - comes under the swath of the giant cutter - twice or thrice.



Incidentally, this green and yellow internal combustion machine with a huge vacuum system was likely the instrument of compassion used in the BDGs' capacity as Florence Nightingale when "I [Lynda] took care of the... the owners of that house we took care of 'til they passed away. And then the daughter come in, and somehow they..." {and she trails off, as usual}

Today promised to be a hot 'un, so the chore just HAD to be done as early as possible. Of course, there MAY have been another reason to fire up the machine so early... given that the "hot day" argument did not compel the massive mowing of the teeny-tiny patch of grass in the business yard out back until an hour later, at 8:20. Perhaps breakfast intervened... or they were waiting for verification that I was awake.

Maybe they should start the next bi-diem* or semi-weekly** or weekly*** grass cutting at 6:00 a.m. so as not to conflict with the 7:00 a.m. yard radio startup**** - or with breakfast.

(Hello, MPD? She's riding her old John Deere around again in tight little circles... Yeah, I know... "You can take the girl out of the country, but you can't take the...")

- - - - - - - - - -
* bi-deim - occuring every two days.
** semi-weekly - occuring twice a week.
*** weekly - occuring once a week.
**** never - occurrence of thought by a BDG.
.

Friday, February 20, 2009

A Few Key Documents From the Report

{Click on the highlighted links for the larger versions}


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


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



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


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



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




Enjoyable, no?




.



Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The Grandfather of All Reports

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



Allen & Brassey: TLC on Fishback Street


Documented Narrative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.





.

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

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

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



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






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


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



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



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



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



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



- - - - - IF:



* Prior to December 17, 1986,

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

* It was doing so legally,



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



* The continued use of that property,

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

* By the current and subsequent property owners,

* Until the non-conforming use ceases.



JACKPOT!



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


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


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



.


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


.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

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.”)

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Chumming for Whales

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Richard,

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

The Problem you submitted was:

Request type: Inoperable Vehicle on Private Property

Description:

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

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

2. Abandoned mobile food vending truck.

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

3. Abandoned automobile – Regal.

CA license # 732PGK, no current tag.


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

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

Dear Richard,

Your request # 197462 has been resolved with the resolution:

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


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

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


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

Dear Richard,

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

The Complaint you submitted was:

Request type: Abandoned Vehicle

Description:

See Request # 197462, closed prematurely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, November 17, 2008

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.

Friday, October 17, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Nelson,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Richard W. Behling


- - - - -

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

Here is the email from the County Planning.

Thanks,
Alma Martinez

Planning Technician
Community Development Center

- - - - -

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

Hello Alma,

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

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


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


All 22+ years...

Thursday, October 9, 2008

The perfect property

The house and property seemed perfect. The old and small, but very cute, farm-style house was owner-built the year before I was born. I don't know what its original surroundings were like, but the 1/3-acre lot is one of three lots carved out of the back of the block now occupied by a high school. There will never be any neighbors along one side and across the back. The homes on the other side of the street are deeply set back on three-acre lots; some of them have horses, dogs, geese, and/or chickens. All the parcels on this block, within the city limits, are still on water wells and septic systems twenty-two years after annexation to the city. Traffic is fairly light, except for the parade of cars just before school start time on weekday mornings, or when the arterial road to the west is blocked for some reason. As I said, perfect.





The school practice field behind the stadium, and just over my fence, is home only to gophers who come to burrow dirt once in a while. (I don't like fishing much, but I get a kick out of trapping gophers because it's on dry land.) The stadium lights come on when school alums return once a year for Homecoming football and festivities, and once again when most seniors graduate. During school, kids have P.E. classes, and practice football, or play soccer. After school, Pop Warner football and cheerleading moves in for half a year for nightly practice and parental tailgate parties. But, don'cha know, they go home eventually and everything gets quiet again, except...







I call them my noisy neighbors (among other, less savory epithets.)