Board will now come to order

The board consists of five members who are not employees of the city of Sacramento

The board is an impartial decision-maker the board is appointed by the mayor with approval of the city council your board members are

Myself mr. Entablin mr. Fisher mr. Boyd and mr.

Oh, Maude we also have Lee Billings the secretary of the board Peter Lemos code and housing enforcement chief Bo cause Lee

Principal building inspector and our vendor car counsel to the board

Secretary please call roll

And tablain here

Fisher here

Boyd here a mod

All right at this time we're going to ask everyone to stand for the both the pledge of allegiance and the land acknowledgment

We'll start with the pledge of allegiance

All right, please remain standing

Please rise for the opening knowledge made honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands to the original people of this land the

Nissanan people the southern may do

Valley and Plains me walk Pat win wind on people and the people of the Wilton Rancheria Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today and

The active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation of Sacramento's indigenous people's history

contributions and lives, thank you

All right

So I'm gonna go ahead and kind of just explain what how the process is gonna work today

Each item will be called in order of those requesting to speak unless staff or board members request

Otherwise the owner of the representative should state their name and address and explain the nature of their appeal

We have a very full

Agenda today, so we're asking everybody to please be very concise and clear in your appeal

The staff will identify themselves and provide a summary of the case including the recommendation and then the owner can respond

The secretary will sweat swear in appellants and city staff prior to each case

The chairman will introduce and discuss with the board the chairman will ask the board if there are any questions or statements to make regarding

The item heard if not will then ask for a motion to adopt a resolution either staff recommendation or amended resolution

This will repeat on every agenda item. The secretary will take a roll call vote for each item that is heard

All right

And I will mention since we do have a couple the appellants

If you do not show up if no one appears for their appeal the item will be called and asked

To submit the packet will announce that no one has appeared and the written appeal will be taken into consideration

All right, let's go ahead and

Move on to the approval of the minutes do I have for I'm sorry the minutes of the January 8th 2025?

And tabling yes, sure yes

Boyd I

All right, so for item number two

We need to discuss the amendment

So the approval of the minutes the minutes was adjusted to just

Change one person's attendance that was

That came in last time so just so everybody's aware. That's what the change was

I think they originally left off one person and then

Yeah, that was item two

All right, so we're gonna go ahead and jump right into the notice and order of appeal

I think I missed something. Oh

Do it to vote I

Don't think so I think it was at the fires

And the roll call is still showing that he was present and tabling on for the December 11

No December. I was here. Oh

okay

Well, this is the minutes of the January 8th

Sorry, so it's number two it's the amendment of the December 11th is item number two

Yes, you have a December

So what I think he's saying is that we couldn't vote because I wasn't here. So can I vote?

For the approval of minutes if I wasn't here

I was here in December

Okay, yes for the January one so one January we'll have to wait

Okay, yes, I did

Okay, we'll leave that then so then let's go ahead and

Approval item number two of the amendments of the meeting for the December 11th hearing so move

And tabling yes, sure. Yes, wait. Hi. All right, so I did forget to mention

So we are here for both notice and order and cost recovery. So I'm going to describe

The both the difference between the two so for items today three and four

We're here to determine whether the owners of the buildings and structures in the case before us this evening have violated the provisions of

chapter 8.96 of the dangerous buildings code or chapter

8.1 of the housing code of the city of Sacramento code

The question here is was the property and violation of city code at the time of the notice and order and was

And was issued in the notice order properly issued

If it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the owner has violated the dangerous buildings code or the housing code

Then this board will issue a written decision ordering the owner to correct the dangerous or

Substandard condition or demolish the building within a reasonable time

The board's decision will direct the time within which the work must be started and when the work must be completed

If the owner decides to do the work required and the work is progressing in a reasonable manner

The city inspector may grant an extension of time not to exceed an additional 120 days

However, if the owner fails to comply with the terms of the decision then the city may repair

Secure or demolish the building or structure and the cost incurred for this work may be made a personal obligation of the property owner and either a

new sense of abatement lean or special assessment against the property

You will hear our decision today and receive formal notification of our decision in the mail

For items 5 through 14

We are here to consider the expenses incurred by the city of the notice and order and the repair demolition or securing of any

Building or structure done in housing and dangerous building cases before us together with any protests or objections

The question here is are the fees costs or other amounts claimed by the city reasonable and justified?

This board may revise correct or modify the proposed charges as we deem just once this board is satisfied with the correctness of the charges as

Submitted or as revised corrected or modified we shall then make a decision confirming or rejecting the charges

any written protests

Excuse me and related information received have been forwarded to us for consideration in our decision

You will hear our decision today and receive formal notification of our decision in the mail

Our decision will be forwarded to the city council for a determination whether this hearing was conducted in accordance with the city code

With that we will go ahead and start

Item number three that is

inspector Lovato and

HBB Holdings Company

So that would be the representative I'm sorry is it Gordon Gordon out

Hold on I'm just is it who's who's here speaking. I'm just trying to I'm Gordon Egan

I'm the attorney for Franz Rudenberg the owner for Frans. Okay, okay

Perfect. Thank you and what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna hand I have four of these so I only have one for each member up there

Isn't the city gonna go first and present its case before the attorney yeah, sorry

So that's what I was up here about to ask are we gonna have them repeat their case?

They already gave their case last time, but I'm sure none of us remember. Yeah, they're going to do a summary judge

Sorry, I know your attorney. They're going to do a summary of what they did last time this time

So just to kind of refresh our memories. So let's go ahead and start with Inspector Lovato

This is agenda item number three. Oh swear them in first where you in so sorry I apologize

All right, if I could have all parties for item number three for the property at 021st Avenue

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question

Do you solemnly swear under under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing

Shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you

All right inspector Lovato

This is agenda item number three case number two three dash

005565

Property owners HBB Holdings Company Incorporated

Property address 021st Avenue Sacramento, California 95826

parcel number 061

013 1

002

0000

Today's April 9th

2025 my name is Paul Lovato. I'm a building inspector with housing and dangerous buildings

This case open on February 16th 2023 and the current case status is open

This protest to some reaction and or fees will not be heard today

The appeal is limited to the notice and order and to pay cost and penalties only an

Initial inspection was performed on May 14th 2024 by building inspector Paul Lovato

Inspection identified the property was in violation of Sacramento City Code section

896 point one one zero L

It's a structure violation

Works been done without the benefit of a permit at CMU wall at South side of property

This work must be removed or properly permitted and approved by the city of Sacramento

On May 14th 2024

I received a complaint stating the property owner is building a six-foot solid wall without permits. I

Visited the site and verified the wall

That was constructed was the wall is a CMU wall about 300 to 400 feet long

I could see rebar sticking out of the top of the block the properties locked up with no one on site

It shows to be a storage area for CMU blocks

There are pallets of blocks stacked up higher than the fence. I called the property owner

And I let him know permits were required for the CMU wall built

He then stated that he thought fences built up to six foot high do not require a permit

I let him know that what was constructed is not considered a fence, but more of a wall. I let him know

That the code states CMU walls over four foot measuring from the bottom of the footing requires a permit

He then stated he wanted me to email him the code section that states that I asked him to send him send me an email

So I can have his information then I would reply back to the email with the code section that shows permits are required

So on May 15th

2024 I received an email from the property owner stating

Referring to our telephone conversation of earlier today. I hereby send you my email address and name I

Reply to the email address stating

attached as the code section for the wall built

105.2 work exempt from permit

except

What's that?

Exemptions from permit requires of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in

Any matter in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction

Permit shall be required for the

Permit shall not be required for the following number four states of

Retaining walls that are not over four feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall unless

supported supporting a surcharge of impounding class one two or three a liquids

On June 24th 2024 at 8 a.m. I arrived at the commercial property and I took photos and updated the case files

Due to lack of contact from the owner and failure to failure to obtain an HDB permit

I issued the notice in order. I also ordered a cloud be placed on the title and

The notice in order issued is the appeal we're hearing here today

On July 12 2024 I met with the property owner at 2 o'clock p.m

At the site to go over the work that was performed without building permits

The owner was stating the wall as offense and had a bunch of Sac City codes

And building codes that show how fencing is not required to have building permits

I again let him know that the work performed is not offense, but a wall and permits are required

I explained to him that the

That the continuous foundation

That has been placed under the wall the rebar in the foundation and the rebar in the block wall needed to be inspected

The conversation was going back and forth with me stating it was a wall constructed and him stating this is offense as

The meeting between the two of us ended he had stated he would appeal the notice in order and explain to the housing board

That offense was constructed. I

Didn't receive the letter from signature law group that the appellant had hired for more

Clarification on the issue with the wall that was constructed the law group rep

The law group reference city code section

23.52 about a wall and offense

I then looked the code section up to verify and the city code section reference is not a Sacramento City code

And it is an Elk Grove City code

The notice of the less pendants cloud was properly recorded at the Sacramento County Assessors Office on July 9th

2024 the property owner was contacted prior to issuing the notice in order

A preliminary letter was sent on May 14th 2024

Notice in order was sent to the property owners

Addressed listed on the County Assessors record PO box 214664

Sacramento, California 95821

It was effectively served on July 1st

2024 by process servant our service the appellant has received the information being presented this evening

Staff recommends that the board adopts a decision finding the property owner has violated the provisions of chapter

8.96 or and or 8.100 of the Sacramento City code

Ordering the property owner to obtain and permit to correct the dangerous condition or demolition structure within 30 days of the date of

the decision and

Ordering that if the property owner fails to or refuses or neglects to correct the dangerous conditions

Or demolition structure within the time sent forth in this decision that the city of Sacramento may repair demolish or secure the structure

Or institute an action to compel compliance with other with the order for the property known as

021st Avenue Sacramento, California 95826

parcel number 061013

1002

0000

Thank you, and I apologize is it mr. Fraun or Franz?

France, okay

All right, and then

The attorney your name was again

Egan got it

All right, mr. Egan, I'm assuming you're gonna go ahead

Okay

Mr. Lovato turning to

What was the date that you first received a complaint on this property

February 16 2023

And

When was the date you first inspected the property

May 14 2024

For some more than a year later

Turning to

Section 105.2

On

15th of May

2024 you sent mr. Rudenberg an email with the code section correct. Yes

And that said 105 point. I'm sorry

And that said 105 point two and then

Skip to sub four right

Okay

What does sub one of 105 point two state

Excuse me sub two of 105 point two

You mm-hmm it says not over seven feet high and that that's an exemption

from 105 point

to right

So fences not over seven feet high are exempt from a building permit

Okay

And one of the first words of one oh five

Point two sub four says retaining walls is that right?

Yes, so what is a retaining wall

Yeah

wall constructed to retain something and what is this wall and

You say this this wall is to our fence is in violation

Of 105 point two sub four correct

Because it's more than four feet tall

So it doesn't satisfy the exemption of 105 point two sub four

Okay

What does this wall retain?

Okay

But fences would retain the same thing of a wooden fence would retain the same thing correct

So

Wouldn't if a fence if you made a

A

Routaining wall out of wood that was more than four feet tall would that require a building permit

More than four feet tall

Right so it would

Okay, so now

Let's go through this yours would a fence

less than seven feet tall

require a building permit

No, would a fence

Four and a half feet tall require a building permit

Okay, so why does this require a building permit

Not a fence this is a wall

It has a continuous foundation when the concrete alright

Okay, bar that's installed in there has to be

The grout pouring of the CMU has to be inspected

So

Let's turn to chapter 15 section

1.56 of the Sacramento building code

Mm-hmm

Did you provide that for us that's the section that defines fences

We're not talking about a fence

Okay

A fence may be constructed of permanent material such as wood

chain link

stone

rock

concrete block

masonry block

Decorative rod iron and other material

That's in your packet if you want to see

So the code says that a fence can be masonry brick

So I do have a question though you gave us the packet but at the bottom of the packet it says

2022 California building code. I just want to ask is there a first and is this the city of Sacramento building code?

Or is it just California?

Okay, first we need to all get a nice big hit right now of something

The ICC produces a building code alright, so just so you're aware at least I am not a construction person

Understand that's why I'm going here. I don't know what the ICC I CC produces a building code that is adopted by

various cities and counties

The city of Sacramento has adopted this and this comes from the city of Sacramento's website

This that you gave us what I gave you okay. That's all I was asking isn't that correct? Mr. Lovato

Whatever there was one extra

Mr. Egan if you good would and when you have a moment just for all of us if you would define ICC please

And you clarify the International Code Council is the one that that

Writes the model code, but the state of California adopts it with many

exceptions, so we adopt the state of California's building code not the ICC code directly

That's kind of what I was asking that's correct. What he says is correct. Okay. I've got the Sacramento City code up

What was the section you gave?

One five point one five six point zero one zero

I'm sorry is that on the did can you say it one more time one five point one five six zero

One five six point oh two oh got it there we go

If I could add something he's bringing up the code sections about fences

When I look up about walls

The one I see here says a vertical element with horizontal length to thickness ratio greater than three

Used in enclosed space, but a composite wall a built out of a combination of two or more

Masonary units bonded together one forming the backup and the other forming the facing elements

We could go over the definitions of wall and the definitions of fences

I assume he's gonna go off the definition of a fence and you're gonna go off the definition of a wall

But it would be nice to see it like I obviously can see

There's yours. Did you read yours from something that I missed or did you read it from I?

May have to hear it one more time. What but go ahead. It sounds like we're really arguing the different or

Discussing the difference between a wall and a fence

So okay, I hope I can clarify supervising building inspector Doug Pearson

So he's correct that the material is correct

Mr. Egan that the our city code does list stone and block in

the fencing as a material

It lists masonry brick decorative wrought iron however in the

Building code commercial building code that is put out by the state of California

Under section 105 as permits required

Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct in large altar repair move or demolish or change occupancy of a building or structure

This would be a structure

The installation of which is regulated by this code or cause any such work to be performed

She'll first make an application to the building official and obtain the required permit

Masonry block is governed by this code

so

Whether you want to call it a fence or a block based on that statement and

Chapter 21 of the masonry section it is governed by the code and requires a permit

Okay

First let's go to mr. Lovato's point where he read a definition. Can you tell us where that definition of wall came from?

That also came out of the 20 other California building code what section

We're trying to look up this chapter 15 actually in the code

15 shows roof assemblies

Okay, and that sorry that is in the packet that was provided one five point one five six point oh two oh

If it helps so

You could you read your definition of wall one more time for us

a

Vertical element with horizontal length to thickness ratio greater than three

used to enclose a space

Composite wall a wall built with a wall built of a combination of two or more masonry units

Bonded together one forming the backup and the other forming the facing element

Okay, so it doesn't meet that second definition because it doesn't have two elements to it we agree on that

No, it says it may it made up of two elements

Well, I'm just going I'm just saying it doesn't meet the second

Part of that definition so all we're talking about is the first one and the first one. Can you read that again?

Oh

But this okay, how does it have two or more elements?

Okay, I don't read it that way but okay now

So

You but your code says that masonry structures can be fences

Mr. Chairman mass speak

Yes, please I have a curious question here since everyone is not construction

Can we deal with the fact that we're trying to just determine whether a violation was there?

That's what the notion order is and then we want to go back to Paul's

findings when he was there on site which shows the grouting material

Rebar and the height which means that also will help designate the difference between a wall and

Offense and whether you would need a permit at all the moment you start throwing grout and

Rebar and exceed a certain distance over four feet that requires a permit

How tall is it?

Okay

Yeah

So I guess the question is if we're reading this do we read is there a violation there or do we read it?

And I'd have to look back at mr.

Lovato's what he cites do we have to decide whether there's a violation of what he specifically cites or is there a current violation?

The notice in order is based on whether there was a violation there at the time

You are to determine whether or not we have proven that there was a violation versus there wasn't this gentleman

Is trying to fight that there wasn't based on the fact it's offense where we're showing proof that it's a wall based on what we

Discovered so your decision will have to be based on that correct, and that's that's the part I think we're

At the standstill on so it's me is the wall in the fence, you know between the two

Besides that the foundation that was poured in the rebar that was put in

That right there has to be inspected

But that is not what the code says the code says

that you can have a

retaining wall of

Up to four feet with no permit

No inspection no nothing you can have a fence of up to I think it's seven feet

without

Any inspection or permit?

Now if

if you're trying to make a

Definitional difference between what a wall and a fence is

Fences here permitted materials

You know that doesn't meet any of the prohibited items in

15.156

So it's a matter of simple statutory interpretation of code

Interpretation

It's not

Sorry, can I ask?

Obviously, I get the difference here. I mean I don't get the difference, but I get what you're both arguing

I get the premise of the case is you're saying this is a fence and you're saying this is a wall

What is the city of Sacramento attorney?

position on this

Okay, before we go there we're arguing out of two different

code

Correct and according to mr.

Causeley we just need to decide if there is a violation, right?

Okay, but what I'm getting at is the city codes or the city codes which is what we'll go off of right?

I'm not necessarily because we're going off the building code because he's trying to use

He's trying to use both and separate them out. Whereas if we use the building code

the building code

Stipulates a difference between fences and walls mr.

Causeley which boat are we supposed to use for this case the city of Sacramento?

No, it has both we right both but but

using by using the building code

Because he's trying to argue that fences are walls just based on the city code

But the building code the state building code

differentiates between the two based on section 105 point two of exempt work

they give an exemption for fences as

105.2

subsection two and they give an exemption for retaining walls as

105.2

subsection four so right there they distinguish between walls and fences

Under the exemptions

Yes, so we have that here under 105 to fences not over seven feet and retaining walls not over fourth

So we can't mix the two based on the building code

Okay, okay because they're two distinct items

Further on in the building code in chapter 21 that it devotes a whole chapter to masonry and

based on

section 105 where permits are required

105.1 that anything governed within the code

has to be permitted unless it's an exemption

Of 105.2 so mr. Egan are you arguing that this is a fence or a retaining wall?

This is a fence and I have something to show you that it's also in your packet

Go ahead the sorry the city attorney. Hold on one second. I think I didn't allow her to

to respond

As I was reading through all this trying to decipher the arguments here

How do we determine if it's a fence? How do we determine if it's a wall?

So the city code refers us to the building code to decide whether this is a permitted structure or not

Which we have all agreed on right the argument is from the property owner that this is a fence

We're saying it's neither it's neither offense nor is it a retaining wall so it doesn't fit any of the exceptions

within the building code

There is

Definition there are definitions of terms right since we're going off of what the building code says

We should look to see what the building code defines as a fence versus a wall

When it's not stated it tells us to look at Webster's dictionary

And this is specifically stated

Webster's third

Edition for clarification which I did prior to coming here and you can Google it and you can pull out an old Webster's

I had a huge one. I didn't bring it with me because it's ancient

But it still is cited in the building code and our Sac City code for definition purposes offense is a

means of protection or security a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or mark a boundary a

structure of posts and boards wire pickets or rails commonly used as an enclosure for a field or yard a

Wall a high thick masonry structure forming an enclosure chiefly for defense against invasion a

masonry fence around a garden park or a state a rampart of considerable height and

Thickness and usually great length serving as a fortification or a structure that serves no serves to hold back pressure

That would be the retaining wall type and we're not saying it's a retaining wall. There's no evidence of that

So based on Webster's dictionary it appears that this is a wall

The point being that it is a dangerous structure, which is why the city tagged it if this wall

Which we don't know if it's secure or not fails. It could really harm or kill somebody that is the point

Okay, so can I address her points? Yes

You know in your packet there

We've included a

Legal definition of fence from a law dictionary

Well again if she is saying that the code section refers to Webster's that we have to use Webster's

She specifically stated that the city code refers to a specific dictionary

So I'm going to say unless you're objecting to her reference. I'm gonna stick with her reference to the Webster code

Because it doesn't it doesn't

It doesn't preclude this because again going back to the city's own code

Which is specific to the city of Sacramento?

Okay, and that is

Um

Chapter 15 point one five six

You know a fence may be constructed of court concrete block masonry brick brick or decorative wrought iron

that

Determines what offenses more over the city's already rendered an opinion about

fencing from

Being masonry walls is a fence. I have a letter that's in your packet from

on this very property

That states

Fencing it's from the planning department not the building department, but it's still the opinion

the official opinion of the city of Sacramento

Where it states fencing is required and shall be either solid wall

Chain link with slats or wood fence with a minimum height of six feet

It says

Fencing is required. So the rest of the sentence refers just to fencing

This is the written opinion of the city of Sacramento by someone who's authorized to do that

Yes

This gentleman is reading something from the planning department planning department is the first step you get to they say hey

Can I have something?

They say yes, we don't have any zoning's we don't have any issues whatever now

You have to present to the building department the building department determines the specifications of what you said you want and

Therefore if we didn't have any violations on the wall or the grounding or the rebar if we didn't have any violations

We wouldn't be sitting here, but if he had to submit it that to the planning and then building

They would have found all of these discrepancies and he would not be allowed to do it according to our

Building code. Excuse me chair. This case is based off of the building code. He was cited for a dangerous building

He wasn't cited under title 15

Don't know where title 15 came into this whether he told you to look at the definition or something

But title 15 is not involved in your title 15 or fences is for residential use. This is not a residential property

The only problem with that is

If you go look at the citation it doesn't give us any citation to sections of the dangerous building code

None zeros that's under title 8. I believe that's your I know and it's not

Which refers you back to the California building code and that's what he's that's what he's stating

Is that the California building code is required to have a permit and that's what he's telling you you're required to have a

Permit into this we can't use title 15 for anything on this property because title 15 for the fences is specifically

preamble starts out as for residential property

I was going to bring this up although it's extremely technical

Your

The reasons he was told the reason he got all of this was for a building permit

Not because his structure was dangerous

It couldn't have been dangerous could it have sure if it doesn't have it does not have a building permit

It's why did you take a year to inspect it if it's so dangerous?

Okay, so I will stop there because we're not here to hear that we're only here and we've already been

Quite a while that very easily

Because the complaint came in with no address or a parcel number

So we couldn't find it initially it came in as 21st Avenue only

So at the initial complaint came in at 21st Avenue only and then later the complaining party

Made another complaint that finally narrowed down the location and can we find out who the complaining party is?

The complaining party will be the city's we're the one that cited you

so

Don't think that's gonna be true when we go up a level, but um if we go up a level let me put it that way

You're missing my point if it's a dangerous building

I mean there's only

One two three parcels on 21st Avenue

effectively and

It took a year you're gonna see some pictures later, and that's fine

I'm not going to go on how long it took we're here to here

It took us four or five months to get this hearing on not to mention I will hear

I know the attorney's been trying to to make a comment real quick

Just asked you what the property owner was cited with he was indeed cited with the dangerous building code section

So he was on notice that this was a dangerous building or structure

8.96

110 that is the dangerous buildings code section. Okay. Thank you

So it sounds like as of right now we're throwing out section code chapter 15

According to mr. Lemos that's residential. So at what point go ahead. I'll let you continue then

As this is commercial

I

I'm not necessarily saying 15 applies directly

But it shows you what the city says is a fence and again this letter

shows what the city says is offense, and I understand that and

this

this thing oh, it's a wall and

Therefore the code applies doesn't make a lot of sense

I'd like my client to tell the story of this property because that's something you also should hear

France you want to come up here and

Tell how you got how this whole thing got started

Relevant to this hearing today and again

We're only here to hear the notice in order did the city is it so whether or not he got it for free or the store

We have we're limited to two to three hours, and we have 13 different hearings. We have to do today

So again, we have to stick with just the facts right now. Oh, these are the facts. He's he's built

This is the fourth fence. He's built that this that

The city has said no to I

Think you ought to hear that he's built four fences. It's up to the board

Mr. Egan has been pointed out for you multiple times

The discussion is not about a fence. It is about a dangerous building IE a structure

you recited 8.96 and

8.100 dangerous building

Structure structure structure not fence not wall

Structure that is what we're here to hear. We're looking at the pictures

There was no permit

Attained prior to the erection of the structure so being in violation of

the dangerous building code for the city of Sacramento as

pointed out by

Supervisor Pearson and our city attorney as well as Inspector Lovato with that said we've given up

ample opportunity to present your case your case was based upon

Nonrelevance to the actual sighting of the structure so with that I'd like to make a motion and

My motion. Oh, I should leave a snow boat on this whether my my apology is to vote. I would like to recommend

My motion is for staff's recommendation that the board adopt the decision of the findings of the property owner has violated the provisions of chapter

8.96 and or 8.100 of the Sacramento City Code I

Will in addition ordering the property owner to obtain a permit to correct the dangerous conditions or demolish the structure within 30 days of the date of

the decision and

Ordering that if the property owner fails refuses or neglects to correct the dangerous conditions or demolish the structure within the time

Set forth in this decision that the city of Sacramento may repair demolish or secure the structure or

Institute in action to compel compliance with that order for the property known as I

Can not see that zero

21st Avenue Sacramento, California 95826 APN number 061013

1002

0000

Wait a second

I

Second

And tablain yes Fisher yes

Boyd I

All right, mr. Egan so again it does sound like there are a lot of

nuances to this

The structure as we could see in the picture the sea has made a case that if that does fall that would cause a dangerous building code violation

I do agree that we do not know the housing codes that you're technically referring to and it sounds like some of the ones you're referring to

Don't even pertain to this case as they're residential and non-commercial

So at this point the board has voted in favor of the city of Sacramento

You will receive the packet in the mail and I believe there is a way to then appeal

One step further than so

I

asking the board's attorney

how can I get a

official copy of today's proceedings

The board will mail send you a decision in the mail

We'll send the board will mail a decision to the appellant. I'm looking for the transcript. Oh

I believe you can discuss this with city staff post the hearing. This is a public proceeding you can

Access all of the record online

Mr. Chairman can you indicate or make clear that we're still expecting to have them submit for a permit and at that point

They can define whatever they want and it either is going to get issued as such

So what I will do is say that this is still an outstanding case

And you will need to continue to one if you plan to elevate it

But it is still going to be an outstanding case if I am understanding that still could receive fees or whatever

So it is out of our hands at this point

That's actually what would come to the housing and dangerous building cost recovery section

So I do encourage you definitely pursue whatever your next challenge is but then continue to work with

Inspector Lovato if he's still the one assigned this case

To let him know at least your plans on if you plan on taking it further

I don't know if they can pause the fines or whatever happens, but I will let you work that out with him outside of this hearing

Thank you

All right, we will move on to item number four

Inspector Gilda

Inspector Gilder sleeve and

The representative give the representative

The representative for Rochester qualm fan in

Rochester fan, okay, I said that right

That's okay to have a good and have a seat right over there I do yes

Oh

You mean for the city staff yeah, so just a reminder to the city staff we do have still 12

So just kind of a quick outline of the of the case

Because we do have the full case material and to make you feel comfortable

Over 95% of the cases that come before us and don't have a representative and normally it is

Not like good to

Express you know everything says why I send all of the

Okay, you'll document it to yes, and we did get a copy of that

I would like to you have time to read it and then you understand

I would just read some key points and then you can go for next case

I'm not gonna spend that much money a time of you

I know you only do one so months. Yeah

So we'll go ahead and have her swear you in right now, and then we'll go ahead and get started

Okay, if I can have all parties for item number four for the property located at two zero zero

Majorca circle

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing

Shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

Thank you

all right

And I know I'm sure I say it with gilder sleeve right

Okay, Inspector Gilder sleeve go ahead

This is a gendarm item

Is your microphone on yeah, can you hear me? Yeah, now I can this is a gendarm item number four

Case number two four dash zero two three seven seven seven property owners Rochester fan

Property address located at 200 Majorca circle

parcel number

1170646

0290000

Hearing date is April 9th 2025

Again, my name is Ariane Gilder sleeve building inspector for the city of Sacramento

The case open June 10th, 2024 the case is currently open

On July 9th

2024 I arrived on site for an initial inspection at the single-family home

The complaint was referred by the rip department due to non-compliance

The front gate was open to the public. I knocked twice with no response

I placed a business card at the door and took photos of the current conditions

I requested a preliminary letter to be sent out

On September 27th, 2024

I arrived on site for a scheduled inspection with the property owner the single guest room bedroom

Hold on one second. Yeah, and speak louder or move closer to the mic, please. We're having a hard time hearing you

Okay, can you hear me? Yeah, okay?

Thank you

September 27th, 2024. I arrived on site for a scheduled inspection with the property owner

The single guest bedroom was divided into two bedrooms without a permit

The second constructed bedroom did not include a legal HVAC air register. I

Instructed the property owner to legalize the bedroom remodel

photos were taken

October 16, 2024 I arrived on site with building inspector Lovato

For a scheduled second meeting with the property owner to go over the construction of the added wall in the bedroom

The added bedroom will need a permanent source of HVAC installed. I took photos of the current conditions as well

January 16th

2025 I arrived on site for a

30-day inspection photos were taken

After further research into the records. I found two permit applications for a room remodel

expired in May of

2023 I

Requested a notice in order cloud and title to be sent out which is being appealed this evening as of today

No building permit has been issued

The notice of list bendens

Oh, excuse me. Let me go on down

So staff recommends that the board adopts the decision finding the property owner has violated the provisions of chapter 8

96 and or 8 100 of the Sacramento City Code ordering the property owner to obtain a permit to correct the dangerous

conditions or demolish the structure within 30 days of the date of the decision and

Ordering that if the property owner fails refuses or neglects

To correct the dangerous conditions or demolish the structure within the time set forth in this decision that the city of Sacramento may repair

Demolish or secure the structure or institute in action to compel compliance with the order for the property known as

200 Majorca Circle Sacramento, California

95823

Partial number 1170646 02900

00

Thank you, and mr.

Mr. Fan we will move on to you. I just want to remind you this is for notice in order

So we're not here to hear anything about fees for right now this can't this can only hear if there is a violation

Go ahead. Okay, so

The main point is one it's a dangerous building right to

According to Aaron said there's two expired

Permit application on May

2023, okay, so I I guess I always think I'm a good friend of him

I always tell him and I believe I mean good hand

So I trust him but some information

He didn't know

Okay, first how the dangerous building was added to my case

Because in May 24th, that's the initial building. So

When the inspector mr. Philip long come

He told me I need

Apply for an permit for egress pass for egress windows

so I did that immediately because I purchased this house in

2010 but

You know the some more or the divider is already there. So actually my buyer agent

She works for the

City, you know coding enforcement. So I saw that she checked everything for me. Everything is fine

Right. So I never had any problem even in 2020

Jason

Matty some thing

Yeah, he come to the house

He checked everything he sees that the divider he never mentioned anything and he only asked me to

Separate the outside patio cover or get a permit

Then because it's all the ones I thought separate into two parts is easier. So I just did that and after that

He closed the case so

For two or three years we have no issues until May and

23 so

At the first inspection report, I actually included in my submitted document

Mr. Philip long never mentioned that

That's the divider is the issue

Okay, until the second

Inspection on June 26th. He told me

the dimension for the egress window meet the requirement

But after he talked to a supervisor

Patrick moach said I need to get a

Permit for that or I I need to

Put you know the condition to back to the original

so

because you told me to

Open an egress pass. So I did that right then you come back told me because

You a supervisor asked

Get a permit and then either get a permit or

took that windows

back

so I just

Contacted the supervisor and he called me on

June 29th in the morning so I asked it because I have experienced that in 2020 right so I said can we

Have an administrative review then he got a very angry

So in that day in the afternoon, I don't know it's

Mr. Long or Mr. Patrick ordered and how the case would put out

But on the same day

Mr. Patrick

Send me a email said if that violation was not corrected by

August 10th

Then a housing case will be added

But it's only three days later after Mr. Long's second inspection

Because at the beginning I don't know who put the case in it, right? And then

about a year later almost because

the

egress windows permit was granted on

June 6th, so it's not to chew that by May of 2023 as missed, you know

Erin said that I never get any permit to know I

Do get the permit from the permanent department actually

so

Permit a service manager

David Philip and

the supervisor

Chris calling they both are very helpful. They actually sending me email told me I only have like a few weeks left if I don't

get

It's a final inspection for that window then I have to reapply then I communicate always

David Philip and

So that's that's the problem those you've got a building inspector you pulled a building permit, but never finished it

No, I should

So egress window is finished because at the beginning

He only asked me to do that so put it back

Yeah, but it still has to in my right if you put it back it still has to be inspected

I didn't put it back. Oh, you didn't put it back because

David Phillips asked

Chris Warden

To help me with that issue then Chris Warden sending me

email said I should

Go through the legalization

of finishing it. Yeah, yeah because because the

Divide is there, right? But I just need to submit, you know, all of the jobs all of the like

paperwork like outline

Scope of work then get them so I

submitted

The whole set of documents is included in my paper. Yep. I see that we have that on July 31st 2023

but if you check

the citizen the Sacramento City in the portal you will see

They marked expired on

August

23 so I guess I'm confused is your argument that you've submitted an application, but they market expired

Yes, and so that was nine months ago. Did you try to it's not my signal because I think the system

Works strangely

Okay, so when it was expired, what did you do at that point? You know, I submitted on July 31st, right?

The city's portal marked expired because it sounded on the same day. They charged

How you get that what did you do after that? Well because after they put the condition

For the housing case it became a

Very very difficult for me to submit the information but fortunately I submitted a whole set

I got you know the clippers. I submitted a complete set on July 31st

But still for some reason

That application was marked expired

But I get I get that the applications mark expired

Did you then go to the city to try and bring it up to date because this was back in July of last year?

It's only

From I submit to expired only 10 or 20 some days. Yes, that's still expired

Hold on one second. Mr. Cosley. Oh, yeah, mr. Chairman. We might want to establish it again

We're here for the notice in order was the violation there at the time

So the only way we received it in the housing and dangerous building is because it exceeded all of the timelines in

The rental housing section where they still tried to get him to deal with the egress window and

They know that the egress window was part of the addition which we are now dealing with so therefore when it comes to us

We could have issued a notice in order

Immediately, so do you see what he's saying is that no he is not quite understand

No, sir. Egress window was installed. I get that I got it in report within two weeks

What he's saying is this is also a rental housing because this is not your home

This is a rental property now

This now becomes a secondary issue and the city has a second set of guidelines to inspect the property to make sure it's safe

Yes, and when you applied for the permits and failed to

I applied a permit and then I got the next fired. No, it's not expired. That's just too

That's a two

Application, okay, so the question here is still again. I can only hear what's in front of us

So the argument here is is there a code violation? Are you arguing that there is no code violation?

well depends on how the dangerous building was defined because

he

Pointed me where to install the egress window within

30 days before the next inspection

So I got to the permit I installed it then he come in he admitted it in his second

Report he said is a dimension. That's a four by three feet

So it's more than enough so he said that's it but he said I'm sorry

Okay, let me ask is the property registered with rental housing inspection

What was the last inspection that was done

At the rental housing yeah the last inspection before he came over to us was done

Looks like

412 24

Okay

Okay, and at that point what was determined is yes

He tried to work with them with the window, but they had the other violations

And so when they went to go through the final they cannot overlook the fact that there's an addition and there was nothing resolved

from the time it opened and the rental which was going all the way back to

626 23 so from 626 23 all the way to 412 24

rental was dealing with him and the issue

Eventually they had to hand it to HDB because they was not getting resolution to the problem

No, we can in this we can send a notice in order right then but the fact that it's gone that long without a

Solving problem that's not to the story

Okay, because mr. Warden was appointed by mr. David to help me then mr.

Warden sent email because I already passed

Face one and a face two inspection so mr.

Justin Emery is a third-face inspector and

He asked him to help me to go through a speed up, but it took

4550 days for mr. Justin Emery to respond

In his email on January 3rd, 2024

He said mr. Fan the newly permitted

Divide that's what it's beginning mr. Fan

We're a year past the time we received it and you still do not have a permit and the violation still exists

I'm not sure what you're arguing the violation I think has existed over two years

No, who is the reason for the permit?

So we didn't respond to the permit I didn't get in the denies I didn't get anything

I haven't you haven't finished the permit process you started it, but didn't finish it

No, I have you know first one I finished the first for the egress window. Okay, but the second permit

the second one because

That main issue is not the divider the main issue concerned about a phase three is that

the windows

Has to have access in the same room, but because

Mr. Philip learn told me to install there there is and the closet so that's why

the closet issue

Took a while so I contact

Missed Justin Emery and I offered it. I said can I put steps so it's easier, right? It took

All of the frame off then

I get that I'm gonna stop you right there just because the problem is you have a building permit

That's expired from over a year ago if you would continue to work with them on that. I don't know I got never permit

It was an application. He did no, no, no, I got the permit

I have if you look at it, I got a permit to throw the egress window and I got one final

So I'm gonna I'm gonna open up to questions from the board Mr. Fangia

We're not here for the egress window. We understand you had a permit for the egress window. We're here for

According to the facts. We're here for the construction of the added wall in the bedroom with the HVAC system

That also needs a permit that permit whatever the application

It seems like it expired you need a permit for that specific

Construction we're not here for the egress window and so that needs to be permitted

Mr. Gilda sleeve needs to come out or someone needs to come out and inspect that to make sure that it's not a dangerous structure

I believe that you're trying to give us an explanation for the window, but that's not an issue here

It's only for the nose in order for the added walls for the bedroom with the additional HVAC system

That's all I have if you go back to read

the face three inspect

He told me clearly he

When we informed competition, he said he has no issue

About the divider, but only the past week has to meet his

That's not true the letter that here shows October 16th that they did I arrived on site building inspector

Lovato for a second and meeting with the property owner to go over construction of the added wall in the bedroom

The added bedroom will need a permanent source of HVAC install

I took pictures and then arrived on December 16th for an inspection and no permit. It's still been installed so again

Again, go ahead if you check California law

California law does not a required

every room has

have and

AC HVAC

Okay, no, but you have HVAC

And you have a wall that's not permitted. No

That's a divided it's not a wall. Okay, because

One of the tenant he is and a contractor did it

And he should have been able to get the permits easily if he's a contractor. No, he told me the most

efficient way

To do to circulate to the air is by using vented killer

So that's why if he's a contractor, he would have pulled a permit before doing any work

No, he is not doing anything. He is a tenant. He walks for he is a fully a hundred percent

They say the veteran so I'm walking in the army. I'm just gonna repeat

We're here to see if the city of Sacramento has proven that there is a code violation

Do you do you deny there is a code violation? No, okay, that's the point

I think I I submitted everything right you cannot

Accepted my submitted application on July 3rd for the divider and then you tell me it is expired

Within one month, but we we're not we're not here to hear that we can only hear if there's a current code violation

Told me I'm gonna dress you mr. Fan. Okay, whatever you'd like to have and you submit a set of plans

When you submit the plans, that's when they determine whether or not you can have it if you're doing something

That's even outside of the code you may request an alternative mode to do something that you really want

But the main thing you got to do here is submit something to be reviewed to say yes or no

You have not done that so you're in violation of that once you send something into the city

We will stop all fines and penalties at the time. Do you want to see this? No, I do not sir

You do not have any current application into the city. No because I don't know what you're what you're waiting on

for document on July 31st and then you

You charge me hundred sixty dollars for the review fees and then you mark that as expired

Application sure, that's unreasonable. So again, we can't you still haven't gone forward with those fees

Like you haven't paid the fees and done the application

Everything so then it hasn't been reissued you will need to work with the inspector to pull a current permit

That's what I told him I have I told I have

Satisfy your expiration issue that you're having when you submit an application

If you fail to get that applications through the entire process within a year it

Automatically expires and you have to start over so you keep bringing up the expiration

But it's because it's taking you so long to satisfy the requirements to get the permit

That's how it works. I have the wrong impression. I told you the same

Year 2023 from July 31st

To you know, they marked expired if you're charging me. It's only 23 days. It's not a year

Building inspector Doug Pearson, okay, I'll read the dates the application which expired that you guys are discussing and

application was originally

obtained

Permit application was August 23rd 2023

applications expire after a hundred and eighty days not a year permits expire after the first year

applications expired 180 days the application expired on

March 25th

2024 which was 180 days he then obtained an additional extension

for this

Application and he paid extra money and then the proof did it again expired

September 18th 2023

Okay at this point you've admitted that there are code violations you know his record that's not good

You cannot submit

August 23 then marked

Expired on the same day, right? Your record is not accurate not a correct

So mr. Pearson it appears he had 120 20 days according to this record or 180 days before the application expired

although

It does show the review

They expired the review on

918 2023

Shows an expired application. They brought it in and

A cycles a second correction was done on September 26, so that post dates that expired so it appears they saw the

What you're saying is they found the air and they fixed it

They corrected it so then you did get something in the mail September 26th then right? Oh September 26 is the phase two

Inspector like informed reaction informed me that I have passed the phase two. Okay, so

Yeah, then

Then that passed the two phase three right just in every then he told me on January

third of 2024 said the newly newly permitted

Divide so he gave me the information that the permit

It's not a pass when you're in cycle one and you don't get it done in cycle one you go to cycle two

And if you don't get in a cycle to you go to cycle three and the cost and expense goes up

And at some point you run out of cycles

So the fact is you're not submitting what you're supposed to submit in a timely manner in order to get through

The process and get the permit so that's that problem at this point. We're gonna go ahead and vote on this

Do I have a motion?

Yes, I move that this board accepts the staff recommendation

Finding the property owner has valid the provisions of chapter eight point nine six and or eight point one zero zero

This Sacramento City code

Ordering the property owner to obtain a permit to correct the dangerous conditions or

Demolish the structure within 30 days of the date of this decision and ordering that if the property owner fails refuses or

Neglects to correct the dangerous conditions or demolish the structure within the time set forth in this decision that the city of Sacramento may repair

Demolish or secure the structure or institute an action to compel the compliance

With the order for the property known as 200 Majoka circle Sacramento, California 95823

APN number 1170646

029

0 0 0 0 second

One question do you does he currently have an application in for a permit?

So we'd like to just inform you sir that you have to get that application in as soon as possible otherwise fine

Families will continue yes, I always told it. I have no problem. We submit right. Thank you. Hold on one second. Go ahead and

Tablin yes

Fisher yes

Boyd hi

All right, mr. Fan this the board is found in favor of the city that there is a code violation

You will need to work with the building inspector to continue to meet this

I understand that you will need to pull another one since it's been since what it sounds like September of last year

So if you will continue to at least reach out to the building inspector he will work with you

You will get our decision in the mail and if you would like to take it to the next step

You're more than welcome to say one more sure

He sent me he put on the property door and

Note and ordering so I send him email

I said can I meet you in your office right on

January 24th because that's 23 and then he

Replyed to me on January 27th

2025 he said he can meet me on site on January 3rd

Okay, I'm not a genuine so the genuine third

is

Okay, and the 31st and then this he sent me email on

January 3rd

He changed his mind. He said I recommend you to contact

the planning department and find out what they need so

Inspector Gilder sleeve does he need to work with you or he actually still needs the polar building permit first or both

But he doesn't need to definitely work with planning and see you know what it is that they're requiring of them because again

The time the the application continues to expire. Okay, so for time's sake mr.

Gilder sleeve is gonna step outside with you and answer any questions you may have is that okay? That's fine

But I do have he's up next though. Oh well then mr. I

Do have his information we can always okay

You'll contact him tomorrow. Yes, I can do that. There we go. He'll contact you tomorrow. Thank you, chairman

Thank you. Have a great evening. We're gonna go ahead and move on to item number five and six

I'm just gonna remind people as we get on to the housing and dangerous building cost recovery

We are no longer here to hear the case on whether or not this is contested

So if you're here to say that this issue the city of Sacramento

Cited your property and the reasoning was for x reason

That is not this you are just contesting the fees

As you heard from the last two cases that was the notice and order appeal where you're not you're appealing whether or not the city has

in

Appropriately or improperly cited your house or building or residential or commercial as we've realized today

In appropriately so this all we are here is are the fees just

By the city of Sacramento, so I did I know a lot of you in the audience here are still waiting

So I just want to remind you to keep it clear and concise and it's just about fees going forward

So at this point we'll hear items five and six concurrently did the representative so we will go ahead

Mr. Gilder sleeve and specter Gilder sleeve very

Brief on this one, please

Okay, I can have all parties for items number five and six for the property located at 5943 Mac road

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing shall be the truth

The whole truth and nothing but the truth I do

This is for

Agenda agenda item five and six case number

24-023480

Property owner is Megan

Maiden

Property address located at 5943 Mac road Sacramento, California

parcel number

1180121

007 000

00

Hearing date is April 9th, 2025 again. My name is Ariane Gilder sleeve

building inspector for the city of Sacramento

the case opened on

Juneteenth 2024

Currently the case is open

This case was

Referred by the rip department due to the property owners neglect of

Repairs to the home which included a rip inspection report with several violations and photos

July 9th

2024 I arrived on site for an initial inspection the front vinyl sighting of the home was damaged from the public thoroughfare

I knocked on the door twice with no response

I placed a business card at the front door and took photos of the current conditions a

Preliminary letter was requested to be sent out based on the current violations

September 24th

2024 I arrived on site for the second 30-day inspection

No one contacted me since sending the preliminary letter. There is no issued building permit for the property

Photos were taken. I requested a notice in order cloud and title to be sent out which is being appealed this evening

November 7th

2024 I arrived on site for a 30-day inspection

I met with the tenant on site and inspected the violations on the rip report

Violations on the list had not been corrected. I took photos of the current conditions

I requested the first monitoring fee to be sent out

Which is also being appealed this evening as of April 3rd

2025 the property owner has obtained a building permit and is currently working to correct the violations

itemized in total cost of work notice in order cost

$1360 termination fee $190

title cost $47.50

Monitoring fee $380 total cost of

$1977 and 50 cents

The

The staff recommends that the board adopts the decision confirming the total charge of the invoice number

cdd chc

to

0591 in the amount of

$1,597 and 50 cents for the notice in order

Title and cloud on the property known as

5943 Mack Road

Sacramento, California 95823 parcel number 1180121

007 000

That's go ahead and read item 6 as well and we'll hear them

Consecutively good. Okay, so item 6 the staff recommends that the board adopts the decision confirming the total charge of invoice number

cdd chc

20862 in the amount of

$380 for the monitoring fee on the property

known as

5943 Mack Road Sacramento, California 95823 parcel number

1180121

007 000

Thank you. Does the board have any questions?

No, I would like to make a recommendation confirming the total charge of invoice number

cdd chc

20591 in the amount confirming

159750 for the notice in order title and cloud on the property known as 5943 Mack Road Sacramento, California 95823

APN number 1180121

007 000

Second

And tablain yes, sure. Yes

Boyd. All right

Does the board have any questions about item number six?

I would like to make a motion confirming the total charge of invoice number cdd chc

20862 in the amount of

$380 for the monitoring fee on the property known as 5943 Mack Road Sacramento, California 95823

APN number 1180121 dash 007 dash

0000

And tablain yes, sure. Yes, boyd. All right. Thank you

Miss inspector Gilder sleeve. Sorry, they did a little swap there on me

I thought I was going crazy. All right inspector Lovato beat me to it and

DSD solutions is this one

I'm sorry who oh

I don't want to make sure I get your name right is it?

Noses do we sorry do we?

Do we do we oh your first name? What's your last name? Do you pan pan? Okay, mr. Pan. Thank you

The shoe will swear you in

Okay, if I can have all parties for item 7 for the property located at 6 7 1 5 Stockton Boulevard

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing

Shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

Thank you

Inspector Lovato

This is agenda item number 7 case number 2 4 dash 0 3 7 0 4 2

property owner DSD solutions incorporated

property address 6 7 1 5 Stockton Boulevard Sacramento, California

9 5 8 2 3 parcel number 0 4

0 0 3 2 0 2

0 0 0 0 0

Today's April 9th 2025. My name is Paul Lovato building inspector with housing and dangerous buildings

This case open on September 20th 2024 and the current case status is open

On September 19th 2024

I received a call from principal building inspector costly at 1121 a.m.

stating the chief was at

6 7 1 5 Stockton Boulevard is and is requesting building inspectors to visit the property

Due to work perform without the benefit of permits

I then went to the site and it showed the commercial building is preparing food to deliver to restaurants

Due to the preparations of food the owners decided they were going to install a kitchen area with sinks ovens, etc

There was a roll-up door at the exterior of the building that had been removed

And they started building a wall to close in the kitchen area

I then talked with the owner of the building and he said his brother was in the process of turning the building into a kitchen

And was talking with architects and engineers

Plans were produced then his brother passed away the owner now never followed through with the permitting process

I let the owner know now is the time to follow through with the permitting and not to continue working

I then walked the rest of the building and it showed there were areas where doors were removed doors added by cutting into walls

There are signs of insulation that is falling from the roof above the

Landing in the areas where the food is being prepared. I looked at the

Bathroom areas and it showed there were upgrades done in the bathrooms that have removed the ADA compliance

I then spoke with the fire prevention officer on site and let him know that the fire risers had been worked on

The electrical at the fire riser to the fire alarm panel had been taken apart and the gauges had been removed and bolts put in the place

The fire prevention officer let the owner know he was putting the building on fire watch until repairs were made

The owner of the building then came over and talked with me and had stated

He had spoke with the fire sprinkler company and they were they were on their way out to look at what was needed to come into compliance

He didn't wanted to know what I thought was the amount of time to receive a certificate of occupancy

From the building department. I let him know that most of it depends on the owner as in hiring an architect

How well the architect draws the drawings the contractor that will make repairs, etc

I then let him know I think a certificate of occupancy would not be issued before the ending of the year

On September 23rd 2024

I was copied on an email from the Sacramento fire department to the owner about the fire watch information and

It said property

Information at said property all fire watch documents that were sent to the property owner have been added to this packet on

November 1st 2024 at 831 a.m. I arrived at the commercial building

I took photos it to update the case files and due to lack of contact from the owner in failure to own

Obtain an HDB permit. I issued the notice in order. I also ordered a cloud be placed on the title and the title report done

on

On January 14th 2025 at 12 o'clock p.m. I arrived at the commercial building to take photos

Update case files and send the second monitoring fee for the willful disregard of orders or notices of violations

Issued by a city agency or commission authorized to issue such orders

Orders or notices and failure to comply with the notice in order

I was on site. I did see the building shows it. It's up for sale pictures were taken

For sale posting

The itemized total cost of work was the notice in order was

$1,360

termination fees $190 the title cost is a hundred dollars which comes to

$1,650 the cloud was properly recorded

Okay, November 27 20 27

And staff recommends the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of

$1,650 for the notice in order on the property known as

6715 Stockton Boulevard Sacramento, California

95823

parcel number 0400

320

2

0 0 0 0

Thank You inspector Lovato mr. Pan. Yes, I'd like to add to

Mr. Lovato said

after November 6

No, I'm gonna stop you just real quick just I'm gonna remind you what I said when I started

We're not here to talk about the notice in order. We're only here to decide on whether your fees are proper

Yeah, that's I'm getting ready. Sorry then go after November 6

Mr. Lovato was contacted with my initial engineer saying that I was supposed to have some work in compliance and doing what I'm supposed to do

On November 24th. We received an email from my engineer with the proper paperwork

That was sent off to with the first revision of the plans. I

assumed that

Mr. Lovato got that information I got a copy of an email

They never got a copy of it. So I kept on working with my engineer to do the proper revisions

Working on the plans to get it properly submitted properly

Mid December

My engineer fell sick and I didn't get a chance to work with him until beginning of January

At which point in time that's when this little bottle came out on January 14th stating that failure to comply

I'm not doing what I'm supposed to do that trigger me to reach out to Mitchell Lovato

Setting him a second email on the 21st stating that this is the second plan revisions

That we're working on so everything up to

January 14th in 20 seconds

It shouldn't have happened just because that we're complying with what we're supposed to be doing

So I'm not sure how that's supposed to work. Okay. I see what you're saying. So is this

Inspector Lovato or Mr. Cosley? I know we've talked about

The

Rising building inspector Doug Pearson so the fees we're discussing today are based on

November 1st issuance of the notice and order title and cloud so everything that's happened after November 1st is not

debatable on what we're talking about today

So I want to make sure you're understanding we're only here to hear fees for

1360 notice and order the termination of 190

So total of 1650

Correct 1650 ending well those are fees applied before November 1st

Is that what I think he's saying they are November 1st? Is that what you said?

They were issued on due to the action taken on November 1st the inspection done on November 1st. Okay

So I'm assuming then

Chairman so what that means is when you issue a notice and order that has a fee and then you have the title and you have

Determination those three typically add up to that so that's all that was is the

I guess that's that's what I'm asking is there what are your concerns with the are the fees incorrect?

Is that what you're saying? I'm just well

I'm not sure just because I'm not complying to the orders or that's something that's just set that I have to pay

That's my understanding

Mr.. Lovato or Inspector Lovato

looks like these fees are here for the

November 1st when the notice and order was issued on

November 1st are there additional fees that are on this there are not not being appealed here

No, I'm just so he's aware there are additional fees on this case, and I'm assuming it's because it hasn't been closed

Okay, so I guess

The only thing I can ask for is lean sees on this because I'm trying to comply for

What I'm gonna ask you I how much time do you need?

I'm working currently right now with okay here to do those edits

He even met with one of my engineers yesterday

And Inspector Lovato have the fees paused since he's working with you

The fees have not paused, but I mean each month when it does come time because every 30 days the penalties come out

And like for instance he was saying yesterday. We had a meeting with the engineers and I mean

I do see he's moving forward there was a couple months where

Talking with the owner. He wasn't for sure if he was gonna sell the building if he was gonna

You know so when stuff wasn't going at the beginning

There was penalties, okay?

November okay, but as of today. I mean he is

So I want

Mr.. Chairman as a point of reference

Retain to what you're asking so for example we always are going to issue the monitoring fee because we're still actively going out there

Work in the case, but when he sees that there's some progress and they're moving forward

Then he can avoid

Issuing an admin penalty, but the monitoring fee reminds our customers. You still have to accomplish the goal

And we're spending our time coming out there because the city is expending costs doing so yeah

And I wanted to make sure he was understanding, but I want to open up to the board any questions

Thank You chair

Just because I forgot so what is the cost of placing a cloud? Sorry looking the wrong direction

These here were

1360 for notice and order

$190 for termination

The and there's a hundred dollars for the title right my question. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm sorry go ahead

Okay, so it's just the language is different termination fee. I thought it was a term in getcha gotcha

Thank you. Thank you for that. So what's not here again is outside the monitoring which that's okay?

Thank you

All right, anything else you'd like to add okay?

I would highly encourage you to continue working well

Mr.

Cozley mentioned that there are certain fees that will continue as long as you continue to work with the inspector

Other fees may pause so at this time. I'll open to the board if there's a

recommendation

Yes, sir. I moved that the board accepted staff recommendation confirming the total charge of

$1650 for the notice in order on the property known as six seven one five stocked in Boulevard

Sacramento, California nine five eight two three

APN number zero four zero zero zero three two zero two zero zero zero zero zero zero second

And tablion yes, yes, wait

All right, mr.

Pan the city the board has found in favor for the city as the

We have seen the costs to be just for what they charge

But I do encourage you to continue working so that you get a limited amount of additional fees

Or in continuation

Thank you. All right, we are gonna move on and hear both case eight and nine together that is inspector Liker and

the representative

Melissa

Walker

Yes, please have a seat and then when you do end up speaking just make sure the green lights on and the

Supervising building inspector as he walks by will make sure to help you out there

Not yet we have to swear you in one second. All right

Go ahead

Okay, if I can have all parties for items number eight and nine for the property located at 640

Grand Avenue, please raise your right hand and answer the following question

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing shall be the truth

The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you

So we're gonna unless you are withdrawing or something

We're gonna hear from the supervisor or the building inspector and then we'll come to you. Is that okay?

Okay, take it away inspector Liker

Good evening. My name is Richard Liker building inspector for the city of Sacramento

This is agenda item number eight and nine case number two four dash zero two nine four zero one

Property owners Melissa M. DeCentis

Property is at 640 Grand Avenue

Parcel number two five zero zero zero nine one zero one one zero zero zero zero

Case opened on July 24th of 2024 and is currently closed at about zero five

zero zero

O five hours on Wednesday

724 24 I received a 311 request from Sacramento Police Department

to secure two windows that subject property

Contacted officer on scene who stayed at the occupant could not be reached I then contacted great construction

Who agreed to respond?

At site to verify the secure man I found that gated gated property locked at the public right away

No access I entered contractors photos into the case file on

August 27th of 24

received invoice number

GC 133 9 2 from great construction in the amount of

$340 for the summary on call secure man stated August 10th 24

Okay to process the invoice

Staff recommends that the board up that the board adopts a decision confirming total charge of

$910 for the work performed by the city on the property known as 640 Grand Avenue

Parcel number two five zero zero zero nine one

Zero one one zero zero zero zero. Thank you. Thank you. All right, miss Walker

Gentlemen German of the board

Good evening. I am here

just to

And kind of I am here to appeal for this

that this amount

enforcement

citation of total of

3600

Before I say something I was supposed

To be resting

Right now cuz I just had a surgery three three weeks ago

I'm supposed to be on a poor weeks about to say

Eight weeks of recovery, but I have to attend this because I get high. There's no way

I could pay this because I don't have a job since almost after the pandemic. I lost all my job

I didn't have I didn't have no

Income and I was very very sick and actually I went to the Philippines because as I said, I don't have a job

I have to see a doctor and also visit my mom

Which happens at the time I'm supposed to get back soon

Then I found out that my house was vandalized

and I

Couldn't come back right away because I'm supposed to come back soon

But then something happened my mother died and then I also got very sick. I got pneumonia

As I said my my health is really not in good condition and I haven't been working

And so my only ask for you is to help me to at least

I'm appealing that this should be a

How do you call it?

There's no way I could pay for this right now cause my house as I said was vandalized all my things were

gone I have I can't even sell my house because the windows are I mean my house is totally broken

I can't even sell it. Nobody wants to buy it

So, I mean, please help me with these are really need your help

To as I said, I'm also going to a lot of problems right now

I have a lot of maintenance and as you can see even my boys

I'm still need to have another probably surgery in June. So

So I really don't know what to say, but I just really need your help to please understand me

That's all I could say, but I really need your help

Nobody say Melissa, how much did you say? What was the amount of money you read there?

3600 so and I was gonna get to that

We're only here to hear to charge two charges. So we have today's hearing is just to hear

Item number eight is for a hundred and ninety dollars and item number nine is seven hundred and twenty dollars

So that's all we're here today to hear just so you're aware

I don't know why I have this

So so how much is it supposed to be?

So nine hundred and ten dollars is what we're hearing today total between the two different cases

So there may be additional fees inspector is this just part of

There were actually two securements done

Okay in July

Original and so it sounds like this is just partial so it sounds like the first

Securement is possibly what we're hearing today

And there's a second securement cost that you didn't appeal or have not yet appealed

I'm not sure but this one is for a total of nine hundred and ten dollars

So I can't tell you I mean you can work with the inspector like her after

But I can't tell you because we don't work for the city

Yeah, but even if it's nine hundred as I said there is no way I could pay for this my house is

It's not no one even wants to buy it. It's a vandalize

It was vandalized and the insurance until now I'm running for the insurance and they've been asking me to

To get all the the police report

Which I went there three times already

That they said the police report will be sent to me

They'll be sent to me but until now we never get anything that's why until now the insurance

Is not helping me out. There's nothing I have no money. I have no income

I really need help for this I my house is not even livable

And it was vandalized like like almost three times we tried to I tried to ask money help for my

Sister we fixed out and it was vandalized again. My situation is I thought that's why I called the police

I thought the police will

Somehow help me that's why these need police are supposed to help people who are in danger

So I mean if I have the money to pay this will be no problem

But as I said, I haven't been working since the pandemic and I've been very sick

So I think mr. Cosley did you want to say something? Yes, thank you so Melissa

What we what we gonna do here after you get up you're gonna walk out this door

You're gonna talk to the young lady at the door and she will give you information on how you can pay

Over a period of time or also you can go to another hearing where you can actually

Express what you're expressing now to see if they would give you relief of any of those fines or penalties

So right now we're just dealing with the fact that this was the cost of the city

Expended to get this done

But if you need time to pay or if you would like to

Excuse me hold on or if you would like to actually say what you said in front of another hearing this

This is not the right place you can go to another hearing to where you can plead your inability to pay for the fines

So right now we're here just to hear if the costs that they've provided are reasonable

And that's the problem so the issue with the city of Sacramento

I'm gonna give just a quick rundown as they have a ordinance that any property

That is left vacant or open to the public

Requires the city of Sacramento to contact the owner to have the owner come out and secure the property if that is not possible

They've gone with a bid with the lowest bid which is gray construction

Which will then to secure your property to make sure people don't get in the best as possible a

Company will come out and as they charged on here

They will secure the property to keep it safe

Until you're able to come into it so just so you're aware

Every time somebody breaks into that property and the city sees it

They are required to send gray construction or you and your representative out to secure it

They will give you an option they will call you first if you're registered, but if you can't secure it

Every time it's broken into gray construction will come and the city will send you another bill

That's my problem. I cannot

Well if you're looking to sell the property there's a lot of places even on TV that if you just need to get rid of the

Property I can't advise you to sell the property or tell you who to sell it to I'm just saying there are lots of options that you have out there

But I just want to let you know these for the most part these fees are gray construction fees that we're hearing today

But before I go forward I want to make sure the board has any questions

Hold on one second. I'm gonna I'm gonna turn it over

Thank You Wade

Mr. Desances the

I think I missed it

When did you go to the Philippines?

last

Like March of last year, so you just you stayed several months

I'm supposed to stay several months, but I had a debt in my family

My mother and then I got sick I get pneumonia because of that iPhone. I got very very sick

I'm supposed to go home. Okay, and this happened right. I just I didn't catch when you went. Thank you for that, but

again

We are only hearing one instance when your house was broken into and the city code requires

that

When the police are called out they cannot leave your house open

Unsecure so they had to call a company to come secure your property

And that that first time that's why we're here the cost

for the that company to come out

actually

That's this isn't even a

Hold on one second

The the invoice from that company to come out and board up your windows and doors

That's why that's why you're here you're here to appeal that cost and that cost comes to

$910 that's just the first time that's only that's all we're here that we can hear because that's all you appealed and as

the chair stated if

You want to appeal the other cost?

The ladies will help you on how to appeal those other costs

But right now we are gonna make our decision based upon

the

$910

I'm asking you to please leave this for me because I don't really

Commas I said I mean they took everything they took everything in my house all my clothes and everything

But usually they rob me like to death. I have nothing

So is your house pending sale now or no?

Yes, it's nobody wants to buy it for now because it's one the lights but it's pending sale or no

Is it pending sale? Yes. Yes, so you do have a buyer?

No other buyers, but they are turning it down. They don't they don't like it because it's gonna be like

Like a fully picture up all the windows the doors

They're all broken the knobs like it's totally damaged. My house is totally damaged

Okay, so again, here's the problem. You're going to continue getting these fees and tell so even

The problem is these fees will continue every time somebody breaks into the house

Yeah, and I have a question to cost insurance has been asking for the for the report until now

I haven't got any report

Inspector can you get her a cop? Are you talking about the police report? Yeah, okay never mind inspector

For six months you have to work with the city of Sacramento police department to get your copy

We went three times to keep on sailing telling me that you will send it to

Send it or we will call you if you want to pick it up until now

You can also file a police report online. I don't know if you've done that but just because I don't know okay

Uh, any any other questions from the board?

Do we have a motion? Well chair. Oh, okay. I just want to she seems really stressed

I just want to make sure she understands that

The house is an escrow and there has been a demand done. So the title company has already

um pulled these fees and it would be settled in

In the settlement of the of the one else

Okay, so then she should let us know as soon as it sells that way we can make sure we deal with the new owner

And we and they don't and they don't bother you anymore

Okay, so it is pending sale right now

Can this can this please be waived just 900 for now?

Because I don't have

Well, if they've already requested the fees for the new buyer, it sounds like

The new buyer has requested the fees is what he's saying right on march 27th

About a week and a half ago the title company pulled a demand asking for these fees and we've already provided all that information to them

to the escrow

the totality

Okay, any do I have a motion?

Yeah, we have to do them separately

So invoice item number eight first

Moved at the board accept the staff recommendation confirming the total charge of

$190 for item eight for the work performed by the city on the property known as 640 grand avenue apn number 25 000 910 11

000 000

I second

That's okay

And tablain yes, is sure yes void

Do I have a motion for item nine?

I moved that to board accept the staff recommendation and control of

Confirming the total charge of $720 for item nine for the work performed by the city on the property known as 640 grand avenue

apn number 250 000 910 11 000 000

second

And tablain yes

Fisher yes

void

So the board is found in favor of the city of sacramento

However, it sounds like these fees are going to be covered in escrow

So it looks like that'll take care of them since you already have a buyer for the property

But again the problem is if you already have a buyer for the property the fees will be transferred to the new buyer

Anything that happens after that so they will be responsible for the property once it changes in as mr.

limos mentioned you should reach out to the city as soon as you transfer the property to let them know

Uh that you're no longer the owner

All right, uh, so we've heard case eight and nine so you will get the final in the mail

You'll get and you'll get the packet in the mail detailing all of the information for you

Thank you, we'll move on to item number 10 inspector proc

Okay, go ahead. I don't need those those report report the police anything you don't need the police report

Are you asking or telling me i'm asking i don't i have no clue i you said you needed the police report for your insurance

So yeah, I would continue to work with that

How can I get the police report

I would

I mean mr

I wouldn't think it would take that long for a police report. I would I would definitely

Just contact the you can three times. We went there three times

Where's the public counter? Did you go down a freeport boulevard? Yes, okay?

That's that's the counter that you would have to go to down a freeport boulevard

You might want to confirm that they have the right mailing address because it may have gone to the property

Okay

Yeah, I can't we we just don't have because we're just the board where we don't actually work for the city

Yeah, no that makes sense once you get it

I mean you could still even after you sell the property it happened before so you'll still be able to submit that to your insurance

I lost all my properties all my personal belongings and everything I have nothing

I've seen I have nothing

I should make another trip down to the uh police department if you've been waiting six months

You should go back and remind them that you're still looking for this information

Again, yeah, sorry about that

I would try the police department one more time if it's been that long they should have it by now

Yeah, I would see if you can get a copy of it printed out there

I completely understand it. I'm sorry. I wish we could help you

All right, we're going to move on to item number 11

No, they said we don't have to do that anymore

You can tomorrow if you have for the questions, but if the house is pending sale at this point

I would just let him know once the house completes sale

Thank you item number 10. Yeah, we don't have to until it hits three hours anymore

Uh, she confirmed but did you have a question before we move on to 10?

Oh the three hour remember there was the two hour and then you have to vote

To go past well vote. I think to go past three hours once the time comes, but we're not there yet

We don't have to vote for the two hour anymore

No

Okay, I apologize. So we have

Item number I said 10

Inspector proc there we go and is it

Jessica

Jessica as on a as on a thank you

All right, go ahead and

If I can have all parties for item number 10 for the property located at 1181 Sonoma Avenue

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing

Shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes

Inspector proc go ahead

My name is Elijah proc. I am a city building inspector for the housing and dangerous buildings. Uh, today's date is April 9th

2025 this is for the agenda item number 10 case number 24

Dash 014

176

the property owners Pizano Jessica and rojello Pizano Ramirez

Uh property address is 1181 Sonoma Avenue Sacramento, California 95 815

Parcel number is 265 00 22

048

This is accounting of expenses special assessment

Okay

Uh, this case was opened on April 3rd 2024 the current case status. It is open

The subject location was identified to have complete interior and exterior remodeled work

Done without the benefit of required permit

On April 5th 2024

I met with the owner of record and it was advised and advised her of necessary permitting requirements and expectations moving forward

To address all uncompromising work

Buster preliminary letter was sent to the address on file

Due to continued non-compliance a notice notar was issued on august 16th 2024

And as part of continued enforcement action

There was an hdb monitoring fee issued on october 1st 2024

For failure to comply with the notice and order in a timely manner

There is no permit on the file to this date

The hdb monitoring fee is being appealed today. The administrative fees are $380

The notice

Uh

The staff recommends that the board adopt a decision confirming the total charge of $380 for the work performed by the city on the property known as

1181 Sonoma Avenue Sacramento, California 95 815

Again, the parcel number is 265 00 22 048. Please see the documents attached. Thank you

All right

All right, thank you. Ms. Pesano Pesano, Pesano. Yeah, thank you. All right

Good evening everybody. My name is Jessica Pesano owner currently of 1181 Sonoma Avenue

I'm presenting myself today to

Talk about the fees or the fee of 380s that I've been currently charged

Um, actually, you know, I purchased the home

February of last year and nothing was

Mentioned to me that the house did not permits

um

until Elijah came over and

Put in a red tag on my home

Um, within I believe it was a month since I moved in that I wasn't able to walk in so

Um, currently I know

I've been

Lying a little bit on

The fees and the reason is because I'm the only

One in the household currently with a job

um

It's me

My mom my sister and my nephew

Um, both currently don't have jobs

Um

And you know, I'm the only one taking care of like the mortgage and the monthly payments

Um, but I'm currently doing my best to

work with

an engineer and

an architect at the moment which I've

Notified Elijah about and I've emailed him as well every time I get an update from them

um, but yeah, I was

Hoping that maybe we can put a pause on this or

somehow work with me to

You know

um

Kind of stop I guess um sending fees at the moment since that's the

Since you know, I'm the only one working um and trying to

Do the work on the house currently

um

But yeah, I understand there's a couple violations and a lot of work has been done on the home

But it was not under my knowledge

So

I'm looking at this and it says that this was back in April of so it's just been over a year now. Do you have current

Uh building permit. I don't have a current building permit. I've been working with a

Architect to get the plans that you guys are requesting me to get

Um, but he can't finish since I was also required to get an engineer to do some work on it

I

Finally got an engineer. Maybe a couple. I think it was last month or

Two months ago. I can't really recall but um

Currently he's working with the

Architect at the moment to get those plans done so we can start with the permit. Do you have a timeline?

um

I have the contracts that I signed with them

I mean of when they'll submit a building permit

That's I mean, do you know because here's my concern you're only here

Today's is only $380. That's the and so in reading some of the letters down here

It appears that you may have have additional fines. I'm assuming there's additional fees and monitoring that continues to happen

It should but I was more than lenient understanding the situation but

Those fees really should be occurring every month. Okay, so they it sounds like he's paused the fees

Since you you have somebody. Yeah, is this is this the only fee? Is that what you said or?

A fee of $380 was issued back in October of last year. So even on this where has there been any fees since then?

Okay

I get it

Yeah, okay

I will say this is probably one of the lightest cases I've seen for and I completely understand

I don't want to downplay the costs

But that's why I'm just surprised because normally we're seeing cases that are a year out have a few thousand dollars in fees

um

And like I said, I I definitely want to make sure so

And while I don't get to make a decision here, I will just ask while she has somebody

Do you want to at least give her an idea of when fees may start if she doesn't pull a permit?

So at this point, uh, she had sent me some paperwork from her engineer

I would hope

And I would really hope that this will be done within the next four weeks another month

Do you feel confident about that as well? I have to continue with further monitoring. I hope so

um

The only things within janeer currently in our contracted did say he was going to

Give or provide my architect with some information maybe within one to 15 days

Since I signed the contract. How long ago was that? Um

I signed the contract with him

February 24 2025 so starting that date and it's been over a month. He barely sent it over or working or

See I've been calling him

Didn't get response

He just sent some information over to the architect last week

All right, so I'll say

Four weeks is pretty good. I would say though every every time you get an update

I just personally recommend reaching out to let them know that they are about to possibly issue additional fees

And to see if you can at least pull the permits

As soon as possible so that the fees could stop

um

That's recommendation. Do I have any any questions from the board?

All right, just whatever they send me

Bring it to the city. Well, I would any information

What

Jessica I would say

I'll be in good contact with you. So would you need to see an acceptable submittal

That would be a full package not just a mere letter not just a mere email

State in that. Hey, you know, we're working on it is yours on

Is it not on can you hear me? Okay now we can now about that

Um, so what we're looking for within the next four weeks is to have an acceptable submittal

To where once it's accepted for review and I understand this may take a little bit uh extra time

But at least we're looking for an acceptable submittal within the next four weeks

If not, the penalties and fees will continue

Would you just stay for clarity? What a

um acceptable

Acceptable submittal is

The acceptable acceptable submittal would be a complete package. Uh, meaning all the structural and engineer

calculations and drawings

all the

architectural sheets all the plumbing mechanical electrical sheets, um, so

Not just a mere structural calculation for something like a beam for example

But to address all the violations. So this was a pretty extensive remodel

And part of the me being a little bit lenient here is um, this was not

Caused by this uh owner here. Uh, it was caused by the previous owner who sold this house to her

but at some point we

Have to pull the trigger and uh do the work necessary to get the permit

So it sounds like the order from the board is for Elijah to give her the um property owner at least 30 days to have the

Architect submit something or contact Elijah if there's

um

Good reason that they're they're having problems or something like that and he'll work with them

And and miss bison, you are very clear on what was just stated on what is needed

Yes, okay

All right, do I have a motion from the board?

Sorry, you saw the lightening processing speed of these high end, excuse me. I digress

Um, my motion is that

We

Agree with staff's recommendation that the board adopt a decision confirming the total charge of $380 for the work

Performed by the city of by the city on the property known as

1181 Sonoma Avenue Sacramento, California

95815

APN number 265

dash 022

dash 048

Dash 000 0

0

And tablion yes

Fisher yes

void. All right

So

We we did vote in favor for the city, but I will say this

The reason one of the biggest reasons is inspector prock has been what we would say especially from what we've seen more than fair

This case is over a year now and $380 is very small amount for what the costs of the city are

So I do know it is a hardship

But I will say the packet will come in the mail and there will be options and payment plans that are available

Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. And thank you, Elijah

All right, we'll move on to item number 11

inspector morata

Did I say it right morata and

Anthony Lewis

I could have all parties for item number 11 for the property located at 2610 j street

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing should be the truth

The whole truth and nothing but the truth

Thank you

Sorry, I was just gonna say go ahead take it away a matter of agenda item 11 case number 24 dash 14743

Property owner is

610 j street llc

Property address is 2610 j street Sacramento parcel number 007 0105

00400

00 today's date it's april 9th 2025. I'm ledwig morata housing and dangerous buildings

Building inspector for the city of sacramento

Case opened april 7th 2024. It is currently open

On april 11th 2024. I arrived at the on site at the fourplex apartment building to follow up on a complaint regarding work without a permit

Upon arrival. I observed

That that the stairs located at the rear of the building had been replaced records indicated

No permits issued for such work previous permits issued for window replacement are now expired with no building final approval signed off

Today I requested a preliminary letter to be sent to the property owner on file

Pictures of the stairway have been attached to this hearing packet

May 3rd 2024. I received a phone call from the property owner tony who stated that he received a preliminary letter

During the phone call it was explained the nature of my visit to the property as well as the reason for the

Preliminary letter I explained to tony that the stairs do not meet the minimum building code requirements for fall protection and hand railing

The property owner stated that he will work on hiring an architect to submit plans to the planning department

May 24th 2024

I received an email from the property owner stating that he hired an architect and expected plans to be completed within three to four weeks

July 10th 2024 a one month extension was provided for the planning submittal to be complete

October 25th 2024 records indicated no excel activity since august 26th

The time frame allowed has exceeded the allowed time to legalize the under proof stairs today. I issued a historic notice and order

Cloud and title were also requested at this time the cost of the notice and order are being appealed here today as of march 6th 2025

hdb permit numbers

com-2504446 is currently in cycle one awaiting tech review

Total cost being appealed today is $1,877.50 less pennant cloud was properly recorded at the property

Properly recorded at the sacramental county assessor's office on november 27 2024

The property owner was contacted prior to the issuance of the notice and order

Preliminary letter was sent april 11 2024

The notice and order was sent to the property owner listed on the current title report on

October 28 2024 and was effectively served on november 4 2024 by substitute service

Notice and order was not appealed the appellant has received information being presented this evening

Staff recommends that the board adopts the decision confirming the total charge of

$1,877.50 for the notice and order

On the property known as 2610 j street parcel number 007

01 0 5

00 or 00

Thank you. All right, mr. Lewis. I'm i'm tony lewis

property manager

For the 2610 llc a property ownership

um

So, yeah, I guess first of all we want to say that um no issues as far as you know making the repairs on the stairs

There's a second item that came up that caused some delays in the project. It was windows

It's a historical victorian property that needs these upgrades

In order to meet the compliance

So, um, yeah back in april. We were made aware of the issue on the stairs

with uh, mr. Murata

We immediately engaged comstock johnson architects

To provide their services with drawings basically to work with the city and move the thing forward as quickly as we could

So we went ahead with that process

And then uh in october of this year

We did get construction drawings plans that were all approved by the city ready to move forward

And we would have completed the stair project at that time

Well, then what happened is we were made aware of the windows that also needed to be replaced because they didn't meet the historical requirements for that

that property

So that stopped us on the stair project. Um, we found out from the city that we couldn't move forward

With the stair project until the window project was submitted as well

So this was in october

We immediately went forward with the window project same group. It's comstock johnson architects. We've spent significant sums with them to get it to go forward

And we submitted those plans

in october

And then there was no response from the city for about six weeks

We lost a good amount of time

in this effort

In the meantime on december 2nd, we received the notice in order for the

$177 and it was for delays in the process

So we've kind of felt like, you know, we've made our best efforts to move it forward to get the thing done

As quickly as we could to comply with everything as far as the city goes

um, that amount subsequently went up to

$2253 because we didn't pay it by

8 january 2nd

so

Our issue is we feel like we've tried our best to move the project forward

We feel that the delays with the city internally have cost us, you know, that time

Which ultimately led to this this fee that you know is being requested to be paid

Um, we've got some verification. I can pass this out just via emails, which it was

uh an email from

Sean Darcy

Sean de Corsi, I'm sorry. Um, who said uh,

Thanksgiving break basically, uh, our project was not assigned to a planner internally

This is when we lost that that time frame

And subsequently we received the notices. So anyway, we don't think that's that's correct and that's why we're appealing the

1800 actually $2,200

fine at this point

Well, just so you're aware the appeal today is only 1877

Well, it says if it's not paid by the 2nd of january, it jumps up to

2253 I've got should I pass these out? You guys want to see? No, you can address that, leah

So that's that um, so today we are only addressing the um the 1877

So our request would be to remove that the um, and then also there is a

Lean that's been placed on the property. We'd like that taken off as well

And then just as a side note, I know this doesn't impact what we're talking about right now

But we've already um as far as compliance with the city and fees that we've already paid

There was a site plan

And review we paid

$5,433 that was back in november

There's a $380 monitoring fee that we paid

At the end of january of this year

Just kind of in good faith because we understand there's some costs involved

You know to monitor our project

Um, let's see then we paid a rental housing inspection. I think this is an annual inspection. That was $120 in february of this

this year

And then most recently there was a plan review fee of $851 we paid that march 12

That's for the um

Oh, i'm sorry. Can you guys hear me? Um, anyway, that that's for the um

Windows uh, we're in uh, I guess the building department right now on the windows

As soon as that gets approved, we're gonna go forward with the whole thing

So as soon as you were informed and i'm assuming it wasn't the inspector here that informed you about the windows

It was the planning department

I'm not sure on yeah, it was identified. Was it was it you or maybe it was listed on the initial violation list

The windows were listed on the initial violation list. No there was an expired permit

It was stairs and then when we got ready to pull permits for the stairs. We were ready to go

That came up at the 11th hour. I'm not sure who reported it or found out about it

But that was that was not until like october when we found out about the windows

So mr. Chairman if you don't mind I can speak to this point

There is situations when you're dealing with the historical buildings that we can actually send them in there for one item

But the historical preservation people are very very concerned about looking at what's going on with that structure

They may make a site visit themselves as part of their work

And if that's how it happened they saw the situation with the windows

They are definitely going to make note of that and they will hold up a permit

Um in case, you know, you got to put it all at one time

however

From looking at the case

The notice in order is essentially other than the monitoring fee is all that we've assessed

so apparently we've taken in account that

Planning and historical is not the easiest process to get through and we were not

penalizing you with admin penalties

During the process, but what I think Ludwig is speaking of is that you had a

initial

Point to get it started

To submit it originally. Is that how we got to

The notice in order?

Okay, so that's how that's other than can I ask are there any additional fees for monitoring that you are issuing?

They are he already paid them

The monitoring one one. Okay, but our monitoring fees paused right now while you're waiting for

Yes, okay, and we could apply them even while we're waiting

I mean, I know but it's like we're still going out there

But when we see when we see the progress and we see something happen, we're not penalizing like he thinks

That I get I'm not clear on the on the 1800 dollars. What is that for?

That's merely the cost of the notice in order to say you have to do this

So the moment we have to put that in a notice in order and send it to you officially with first class mail

Those fees is not like a penalty and a fine

It's just a fee for the cost of the notice in order in the process

Why were we given that notice in order when we've complied in every way with the city all the way through as quickly as we can?

Why was that given well if you if you did that

I'm just saying it clearly we wouldn't be there unless there was a problem

We only go to

situations where there's already an existing problem

I think what he's saying is if you would have pulled a permit to do the stairs the first time

Instead of repairing them without a permit there wouldn't have been a fee

That's why when they saw the stairs and he gave you time before he had actually plenty of grace grace period gave you

Quite a grace period before even

Yeah, I feel like if we would have had the

You know permits in hand on the stairs. We would not have received this

Uh, $1800 fee. I think you're correct. Yeah, but it got stopped because of the windows and the historic

You know planning

You still should obtain a permit prior to work starting

Yeah

That's not the case

Any questions, you know, do I have a recommendation?

I will recommend

staffs recommendation. Oh, excuse me. I'll make a motion to recommend staffs

Sorry

Recommendation that the board adopted decision confirming the total charge of $1877.50

For the notice and order on the property known as 2610

Jay Street Sacramento

apn number

0070105

0040

0000

Second

In tablain. Yes. Fisher. Yes void. All right

So the board found in favor of the city of sacramento, however, I will say

I would say one of the biggest reasons we probably did is the fact that it's been a year and I understand that you went through the process

But we also have to evaluate we're required to evaluate

Whether the costs this department for the city did to inspect the original stairs was

Was fair. I will say if you are continuing to get a monitoring fee

I would have recommended that those be paused or stopped or waived

But since this is the one-time fee for the for the entire process

The board did find in favor of the city

So one question on that. Um, is it $380 moving forward like every month? They can do that. What is what are we looking at?

Yes, so 380 a month

But no

But I think they said they've stopped it, right? Yeah, because I see that it is held up. I did verify with the coursey and

So that's what I'm saying if they would have actually charged you that

380 a month which they were allowed to back all the way through at least october to now

I would have had probably an issue with that

But considering they've only charged you the one fee

I mean at the top of the 1800 now

This is the 18 there's a possibility of another one of those coming another $1800 fee. Is that no, no

That's the only one admin penalties. There could be upwards of a thousand

Yes, say you drop the ball on not keeping the ball keeping it moving forward on your submitter

That's gonna happen because I'm I'm in charge of it

So the 380 dollar fee then just so I'm clear we should not expect another one of those or are we going to get that?

It's it's pending depending on you know if progress if you keep moving forward

I can explain to you this way. I can explain to you this way the 380 dollar fee is

Is we are supposed to do that as long as you're without the permit that's mandated by city council

But what he's saying is is that we will take everything in consideration

But the moment the ball is in your hand mean it comes back from planning or preservation

Whatever saying you have to do something

Then that's time restraint if you don't actually comply within a timely manner

Then we will revert back to either a mountain fee or an administrative fee right in addition

You did the work without a permit initially

Which means we could actually quad fee your actual permit when you go to do the permit

Because anytime you work without a permit you've broken the rules

So we're being very generous very lenient. We consider this historical stuff is hysterical. I get it. It's hard

So we always try to consider that all right now. I appreciate that so

The 380 dollar fee then once if we get the once we have the permit and as long as we move at that point

Everything sees but we're not going to get the 380 dollar if there's more delays internally at the city

Like we don't have the permit if if it's deemed a good reason

Because it could be that the balls in your court and you didn't perform. So you would get the the yeah, we're

Definitely pushing ahead. So all right. Thank you. Thank you very much

All right, we're going to hear a case 13 and 14 simultaneously. So that'll be inspector carter

And the representative I apologize

Can you I want to make sure I don't want to say it wrong. Do you mind saying your first and last name?

Vishwa gajendra. You can call me vishwa. The vishmar

Vishwa, okay. Thank you sure

Ah, I see. Yeah, sorry about that. All right

She will swear you in okay

Can I have all parties for the property for items number 13 and 14 for the property located at

Five nine eight one slayer circle. Please raise your right hand

And answer the following question

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing

Shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

I do

All right

inspector carter go ahead

agenda item number 13

number 24 dash zero two three

one eight nine property owner is vishwa

and

gajendra memena

Our property address is five nine eight one

Sawyer circle Sacramento, California nine five eight two three parcel number one one seven zero eight four

zero zero two one

zero zero

Today's date is April 9th. I'm sorry

Yes, today's day is April 9th

2025

City staff is Jeremiah Carter

Case was opened on June 5th

2024

The current case is now closed

On June 17th 2024

I went to the property and spoke with one of the tenants who confirmed

That something was constructed in the backyard, but didn't offer any other information

And stated that they didn't feel comfortable with me performing an inspection at the time. I left my card with her

To give to her husband for a return call. I took elevation photos and sent a preliminary letter to the owner

On july 29th 2024. I met with the tenant at the property for a scheduled inspection

There was a 16 by 16 foot gazebo constructed in the backyard with the working electrical outlets and lighting fixtures

He asked what needed to be done to legalize the gazebo

I told him

There would need to be an application and plan submitted to the city's building department for a building permit

He then said he will be submitting everything soon

On september 23rd 2024 as a 30 day inspection. I've had no contact from an owner

No permit our application was submitted or issued

The structure still existed in at the property. I took front elevation photos

I requested and notice an order be

Be issued on the property

The notice and order fees are being appealed appealed here today

On september 27th 2024. I spoke with the property owner who said that he

Has not spoken with the tenant about the gazebo in the backyard and was unaware that it was built without a permit

He said he will be speaking with the tenant about removing it or acquiring a permit and getting back to me next week

On november 1st 2024

On my 30 day inspection. There has been no contact from the owner or tenant

No one appeared to be home. I left my card on the front door

I was unable to see the backyard structure because of a tree blocking the view of the backyard

I requested a monitoring fee be issued

I'm sorry. I requested a monitoring fee to be issued, which is also being appeared appealed here today

On november 15th 2024. I received a call from the property manager

Saying that the structure was removed weeks ago. Later that day. I met with the property manager at the home

The unpermitted structure had been completely removed. No other violations were visible

Took elevation photos and the case was then closed

The notice and order costs are

$1,360

The other cost is a monitoring fee of $380 for a total cost of $1,740

Staff recommends that the board adopts a decision confirming the charges of item 13 of $1,360 for the notice and order

invoice number

Um

cdd ch

20590 on the property known as

5981 Sawyer circle in Sacramento, California 95823

apn number

117084

002100

And staff recommends that the board adopts a decision confirming the charges of item number 14

$380 for the monitoring fee invoice number cdd

chc

20838

totaling

$1,740 on the property known as 5981 Sawyer circle in Sacramento, California

95823

apn number

117084

002100

Thank you. All right

Go ahead sir. Yes, sir

So yes, I was unaware of the property at the time that I received a notice of order, which I had no idea of

immediately following that I called Mr.

Jeremiah

Once I called him he said well, there is a structure at the back

I tried getting hold of the what he called the tenant and actually I did

Eventually in that notice it said I have a 60 days to remove this structure

Or get a permit so in my understanding there would be a 60-day follow-up. I didn't realize that's going to be a 30-day follow-up

That's one of the thing

The other thing is that as soon as I contacted the property tenant the

Tenants said well, I'll acquire the permit

But nevertheless he never did within 15 days. He said I'm going to remove the structure

So within that 15 days or within that 30

Little bit within the 30-day time period. He actually removed the structure. I was physically there

The structure was removed. So at that time I also gave a notice to the tenant because he is actually

you know

Didn't build that without my

knowledge

So the tenant actually

Accepted the notice and he actually moved out of the property at that time as well

So those are the two things that had happened and that's why I'm actually

Contesting the amounts

The time when I received it which I was unaware of that structure immediately following the awareness of the structure

It was hopefully removed and also the follow-up

I was unaware that there was going to be a 30-day follow-up when in the letter it said 60 days

So that's those are the two differences that I had

So I will say in looking at this on june 17th the inspector and somebody correct me if I'm wrong

On june 17th the inspector sent you the preliminary letter on june 17th is what I'm reading here

So then the 60 days I imagine would have started somewhere around then and then the inspector

Did not issue the notice in order until september 23rd

Which was more than 90 days. Does that sound right?

So it sounds like they may have come back out to inspect in 30 days

But they didn't issue your notice in order for 90 days, which is 30 days past that 60 day mark

No, the 60 day was on the

September 24th

notice of order

So the notice in order maybe what I'm saying is they actually sent you a preliminary letter to the owner letting you know of the violation

on june 17th

probably they did but probably that had sent it to my

what he called a

Office I mean Sacramento house

And I never received that are you registered with the rental housing inspection program and they are they actually have my 777 lowline drive

Is that the correct address?

Yes, okay

I'll ask the board if they have any questions

Yes, um

Jeremiah, so do you guys have the copy of where the notice was mailed to in the return receipt?

It's 777

Yeah, notice the folder foster city california

Is that your correct address that is correct and the notice for that I did receive and that's I'm not contesting that

That time when I received the note I did not receive the preliminary

Notice I received the notice for the for sure, okay

um

supervisor Pearson

The preliminary notice is a courtesy

So it's a courtesy

Um, if it didn't get to you

It's unfortunate, but that it's a courtesy

It uh, if if one was mailed out to you

The city

Doesn't have to mail one to you. It's a courtesy that one goes out

it

And as supervisor Pearson has just stated a courtesy notice was sent out whether you received it or not

In your hands is a different issue, but they are uh supervisor Pearson is saying that they have the receipt

Stamped that it went out and um was was delivered to you correct

Um, the preliminary notice is not

Ever seen

It's just first class mail first class my mistake

Because we would have to put a cloud on the property if we sent it out certified mail

So we only send the preliminary letter first class. Thank you. Thank you for that correction. So

Two-year point hold on. Let's make sure

Our uh folks are okay

We don't we don't want you to die on camera

Getting nervous about your decision

But uh, so to that as was stated by the chair there it was uh post 90 days

It was more than 90 days

Notice of order when it said 60 days to remove the structure

In the notice of order which I received on 9 24. I complied with that immediately

receiving that right. I mean I was within that 60 day win

Oh

We're all clear on that what what it's maybe jiving with you maybe not jiving with you the understanding is

two things one

As soon as the structure was removed

Should have been reported to the city. Hey, it's gone. So now we deal with it

Uh the city and yourself what it dealt with it

You didn't reach out to the city after the city had already contacted you in person

And said hey, there's an issue with that structure

So once the structure was removed, you didn't take the step to contact the city

To let the city know the structure is now no longer there

In fact, I did I did I mean the time when I actually the tenants moved out

I did the inspection. I told the property owner to call the city

I did tell the city. I mean, that's what Jeremiah is saying that the property owner of property manager actually called him

And told him that the structure was removed weeks ago

I did make a point of making sure that the property manager reaches out to him immediately

And from that so that's where you weren't able to meet with the property manager

Yes, so

So from on september 23rd was when

The notice and order was issued on september 23rd. I hadn't um

When I went back out on um because I was just in the in that area

You know inspecting another home. I drove by

and um

Then I actually spoke with the

property

Owner on september 27th

And he that's when he told me that he was going to be speaking with the

With the the tenant about getting the either a permit or having the

Having the the gazebo removed

And then that was that was the first time that I had spoken with the actual the property owner

At times I have been dealing with the with the tenant

Thank you. And that's what was in jibing for me because right and and that's what I actually I reached out to him twice

I reached out to him once

Immediately following received for the order that I'll be talking to the tenant and then I

Once the tenant actually moved out

I had the property manager reach out to him and meet him over there at the property

So at least he takes the pictures and takes whatever he needed to do

Right november 15th, but again going back to november 1st

Excuse me. Yes, um

According to what um, Jeremiah just stated after september 27th the conversation with

Yourself and the

The tenant I hadn't had though I had not received a call from the tenant

Or anyone stating that the

The gazebo had been removed

In that time

The tree in the backyard that was that kind of had grown

It was you know leafy during that time of the season and so I wasn't able to see

if there was anything that had been removed or if the if the um

The structure was still there

So that's why

If if I may

But the fact that you went

On november the first whether it was removed or not when you went to the site you can assess a monitoring to be correct

So yes, so the monitoring freak is reasonable

Whether the gazebo was removed on by november the first or not when you went to assess the property

That monitoring fee is assessed at the time of your visit

Yes, thank you, but he was in the proximity. He didn't go to visit that site. He was in the proximity. He just wanted to

See if it was removed. I think the bigger issue is you've mentioned september 23rd is when they issued the notice in order

That's when the fee was issued

Right, they gave you 90 days before that with the preliminary letter to let you and the tenant know to take care of it

So in those 90 plus days nothing happened. So that's when they issued the fee

So whether you would have done it one day after that letter or 60 days after that letter

You're still issued that fee because they gave you three months to fix an issue

That's why you got the letter is when they sent you the first letter on june 17th

They asked you please fix this problem and I only know that because I've received the letter myself

I get these letters sadly more than I want to get them

No, in fact, I would have actually would have been on his case if I would have received it

I mean very similar to this one. I mean

The notice of order the time when I received it immediately following that

I mean you can ask and I get that but they are showing that they did send it to your 777 address in june

And they sent it to your tenant and I will say I have I've assessed my tenant the fees when they do things that the city has asked

Them to do and they won't I get your tenant has moved out. It's up to you to pursue after that

But at least in my opinion, it's been 90 days and that's when he issued the notice in order

Any other questions from the board? Are there any other

Yes, the only thing is that I I really hope I mean since he

I've reached out to him a couple times, right? I mean basically he was in the proximity and stopping by the property

He was not going to see the property and I've actually called him

I think that those fees should be waived. I mean that's that's what much

request is

What fees should be waived? I mean

Even notice of order, right? I mean, okay. Well

The notice of order is the the violation. I think what you're saying is the

$380 site secondary site visit. Yeah fair enough fair enough

I'll take that

So what you were just saying by happenstance he came by

And since he couldn't verify the structure had been removed

he

Jeremiah

Submitted the monitoring fee, but what you're correct me if I'm wrong. I believe what you're stating is

He was not required to come out that day that he came

He just happened to be driving by

Saw it and then you have the monitoring fee and you're asking that that fee go away simply because he wasn't

Assigned to come out that day not only that they can I mean I respect the building inspectors and they they can stop by any time

I that's not my issue. My issue is it was removed at the time, right?

I mean it was removed immediately following that and right following that the tenant moved out. So

Gotcha and the tenant moved out when and moved out on

November the 10th or November the

The

10 time period is because that's when I met the property

Management and I asked them to call Jeremiah immediately. I think it was November 14th when you went went there

I don't recall the date because it was on about November 10th day that

They moved out. Yeah 15th

50 days after the initial contact

After five months 50 days from june

Now you see our point. Yeah, I know I totally get it but unfortunately I wasn't able to

Well, okay, let's let's figure. Let's that is fine. Okay, if we can remove that's

$380 that'll be great. Well the monitoring fee was issued in november, correct?

That's when he was not so so the monitoring fee was november the first which means now here. You had the notice on order in september

60 days approximately later is when the monitoring fee he said the the tenant didn't move out till like after that monitoring fee

So he said he removed it after soon after the tenant and moved off. So that was a valid

Visit and

monitoring fee under 11-1. It's valid. The the item was still there

No, no, no, and it was nearly 60 days after he got the notice in order

Which is again even more days after he got the preliminary at the same address

So I'm not sure what he's arguing as far as the monitoring fee

It still existed and it wasn't it was november the first that he came by he didn't it wasn't the random time that he

Happened to be in the neighborhood. He made a visit there almost 60 days after you got the notice on order

No, no, no, no, no notice the photo. I got september 24th

September

October and he came november 1st. Yes, which is before the 60 day notice

Okay, uh supervising building inspector

There is not a 60 day time limit on it

The the notice and order says that you must commence work within 30 data permit and commence work within 30 days

and

Complete the work within 60 days. Okay

It you're after 30 days of the notice and order. We are perfectly within our right

To issue a monitoring fee which we do we reschedule another inspection at 30 about approximately 31 days

Jeremiah was out there on november 1st, which I have pictures. He took pictures of the front of your house

And it was about 35 days after the notice and order you received the notice

So it fell within our legal timeline to do the work or to monitor the property

So i'll tell you what he has we've already talked about item number

13 let's go ahead and rule on item 13

Before we move on to 14. Let's get that one out of the way. Do I have a motion for 13? Yes, mr. Chair

I moved at the board to set the staff recommendation confirming the total charge of for item 13

$1,360 for the notice and order

invoice number c d dc

20590 on the property known as 5981 so your circle Sacramento, california 95823

apn number 11708402

100

And tablion yes, is sure yes void. All right

All right, so we're gonna go ahead and move on to item 14. So 13 is done. So we've we have ruled

Uh in favor for the city for the $1,360 for the notice and order

Um, we'll move on to item 14. Is there any other questions from the board or any other?

Okay, do I have a motion for then item 14?

Yes, mr. Chair. I moved at the board except the staff recommendation confirming the total charge of item 14

$380 for the monitoring fee invoice c dc hc 20838

Second on the property on the property known as 5981 so your circle Sacramento, california 95823 apn number 11708402 100

Sorry about that second

And tablion yes is sure yes void. All right

All right, so again

The board did find in favor for the city however again, I think it was the amount of days

I would recommend as soon as you get one of those letters to reply within the first 30 days

Um, we do you will get the final ruling in the mail and you can also make a payment plan on that if you would like

Thank you. All right, we will move on to item number 15 housing and dangerous building case cost recovery uncontested

What

Is that what I said 15?

The following lines shall be heard as blanket items

The city staff recommends that the board adopt a decision confirming the total charge noted by each agenda line for the expenses

incurred by the city in the enforcement

Of the provisions of the housing code and or dangerous building code with respect to the property known

By the physical address and or parcel number apn

As noted within each agenda line for items

Lined item line numbers one through 52 and lines 54 through 293

All right, so

Is that on line? Oh

Oh

So move I just I was like wow I was surprised how small there were

Yeah, all right. Sorry. Do we have a motion? So move

All second

It's on the digital version

And tablion

Yes, did I did I make the most did somebody second?

Oh, I lost track. Sorry

His meeting shouldn't go this long anymore. Okay, and tablion. Yes, sure. Yes, boy. Hi

All right moving on to

The next item which I'm assuming is 16. Oh, there we go election of chair and vice chair

Uh, is that even possible because

Oh, yeah, so I just can't so it would have to be the two of you

One of you would have to serve as one and one of you would have to serve as the other because

I was going to say this is going to be quick and easy

And I'd like to

Make a motion that brandon fisher be chair

All second

And

Tablin yes, fisher. Yes

void

Hi

Did you forget it was here?

I moved that Mary boy will serve as vice chair

I just realized if I abstained I could stay another month

Stay another month

Continue

All right, I was joking for the record

Yeah

A second did I know it?

All right, okay and tablion. Yes

All right, okay and tablion. Yes

Fisher. Yes void. All right

Board comments ideas or questions

Any yes

What

Oh, let me guess was it my auctioneering

Oh, I heard some laughter from the audience during the through all of this. No, I just I would I'm commenting on you guys

I would like to recommend that maybe we reduce it by one for the next

By one like maybe one less I would love to get out of here after three hours

So if possible like that was a lot we did have a reschedule

Okay, so don't

Don't don't add to it then

Principal building any other comments or questions. Yes principal building inspector

costly we do the board does appreciate your comment and

We are here to

Drive money for the city as you guys want us to do that last statement was just a comedy

Say anything but sometimes

There was levity folks that was levity the second part of this ends. Thank you guys

Thank you. All right. Thank you madame attorney

That will conclude this hearing

All right, we made it

So