HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 5 ORD VIOLATION 02-17-81DATE:
TO:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
February 16, 1981
NEW BUSINESS
No. 5
2v17vS1
Inter-Corn
Mayor and City Council
Community Development Department
Ordinance Violation - 13531 Wheeler Drive, Mome Occupation
After review of the attached communications to the City Attorney and
the letter from the attorney representing the operator of Yoshikawa's
Gardening Service, it is recommended the Council review and sustain
the recommendation of the City Attorney.
MB/hn
Attachment
DATE:
TO:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
February 6, 1981
ln e -Com
James Rourke, City Attorney
Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development, Director
Home occupation, landscaping business, conducted
by James Yoshikawa at 13531 Wheeler Dr., R-1 zone
Enclosed is a con~unication from Mr. Yoshikawa's attorney, T. David Estes,
which well surmmarizes the points involved in our opinion that the use involves
a violation of Section 9297, DEFINITIONS, "Home Occupation."
I believe we would concur that the section does not restrict parking of
vehicles as long as they are not over 3/4 ton carrying capacity and bear no
advertising or identification. Many small home occupations do park a small
pick-up or van at their home which meets ordinance requirements.
However, the case in point involves four such vehicles and non-resident
employees who come to the premise, park and leave with a business vehicle. I
am sure Mr. Yoshikawa or his representative contacted staff regarding the use
and parking; however, it appears doubtful that the employee pick up of
vehicles was ever discussed. Mr. Yoshikawa ha~ stressed the issue of parking
as being permitted, but the primary issue would be the employee relationship
and the parking of their personal vehicles at the premise.
Due to resident complaints, Mr.Estes' contention that employees who are
primarily off-premise are not subject to ordinance provisions and council
members concern in this regard; I have placed this issue with Mr. Este's
letter and this memorandum under New Business on the February 16th, Council
Agenda. I would request a response on your part to the issues raised in the
letter and outlined herein.
Normally staff would have pursued this for legal enforcement in a customary
manner however, with the neighborhood concern at a high level and the immedi-
ate presentation of legal objection to such enforcement; we believe this
method would resolve the issue more expeditiously.
Mike Brotemarkle
Community Development .........
Director
MB/hn
Attachements
ROUERT t'. ALLEN,
JOHN C. FLATT
T. DAVID ESTE.c,
WILLtAM $. HUL$¥
ALLEN AND FLATT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
11OI OOVE ST
SUITE 2'25
Tek'phone
(714} 752-7474
~ No. 70162
February 5, 1981
Mr. Michael W. Brotemarkle
Director of the Community
Development Department
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
Re: James Yoshikawa
Dear Mr. Brotemarkle:
As you are aware, we have been retained by the
above-named individual with respect to his supposed zoning use
violations° Our client conducts a landscaping business. In
the course of that business he parks a few trucks that he o%~s
on the property where he resides. Employees of his come to
his residence and take the trucks to job sites, leaving their
cars in place of the trucks° None of the trucks bear any
sign, identification or advertisement°
On numerous previous occasions, both in person and
through our offices, Mro Yoshikawa has contacted personnel at
the City requesting verification that the conduct outlined
above did not constitute violation of any City Ordinance. On
each such. occasion, the City's response has been that it does
~ot.
It is our understanding, that it is now possible that
the City may take a contrary position. We request they not do
SO,
You have'indicated that Mr. Yoshikawa may be in
violation of the zoning ordinance, Ordinance Ilo. 157, as
amended, Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.14, 4.15 and
11o24. You indicated you did not feel the use Mr° Yoshikawa
was making was in violation of Section 11o24 with respect to
parking the trucks on his property on the grounds that they
neither were of greater than 3/4 ton capacity nor bore any
sign, identification or advertisement. However, you indicated
a possible violation existed with respect to the requirements
that there be no employee who is not a resident of the
premises and no activity which generates excessive pedestrian
or vehicular traffic, or parking in excess of that otherwise
normally found in the zone.
Mr. Michael W. Brotemarkle
Director of the Con,unity
Development Department
City of Tustin
February 5, 1981
Page Two
With respect to the employment contention, we feel the
clear intent of the ordinance is that no person be employed at
the premises itself. That is not the case here as the
employees take the trucks elsewhere to perform their duties°
Similarly, it is difficult to understand how the
parking of the employees' vehicles in place of the trucks
could constitute "parking in excess of that othe~.~ise normally
found in the zone" when parking of the trucks itself is
permitted.
We hope the above clarifies our client's position
sufficiently. Please contact us if it does not. We also hope
legal proceedings in this matter will not be necessary.
Respectfully,
T o xDAVID EST~S-
Attorney at Law
TDE:ps