The meeting of May 14, 2025 of the Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board will now come to order.

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

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, Brandon Fisher, the chair.

Other board members, Mr. Boyd, Vice Chair Mr. Antablan, and Mr. Amon.

We also have Leah Building Secretary to the board, Peter Lemos, Code and Housing Enforcement Chief,

Bo Cosley Principal Building Inspector, and a vendor car council to the board.

I would now ask the secretary to call the roll.

Fisher?

Here.

Boyd?

Here.

Antablan?

Here.

Ahmad?

Here.

I would now ask that we all stand for the land acknowledgement and Pledge of Allegiance.

To the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the Southern Maydew Valley and Plains

Mywak, Patwin-Wintan peoples, 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 today in the active practice of acknowledgement

and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples' history, contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

Let's now turn our attention to the flag for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which

it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

You may be seated.

I will now explain the purpose of our meeting.

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason for this hearing for items numbers 2 through 12, we are here

to consider the expenses incurred by the city in the notice and order and the repair, demolition,

or securing of any building or structure done in the housing and dangerous buildings 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, we shall then make a decision

confirming or rejecting the charges.

Any written protests 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 determination whether this hearing

was conducted in accordance with the city code.

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

otherwise.

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

appeal.

Please be concise.

Again, we have numerous cases this evening, so please be concise and stick to the question

that is being presented for your case.

Again, tonight's question is, are the fees, costs, or other amounts claimed by the city

reasonable and justified?

The staff will identify themselves and provide a summary of the case, including recommendation,

at which time the owner can respond.

We will now start with our agenda this evening.

Item number one, approval of the minutes for April 9, 2025.

Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to accept.

I'll second that motion.

Fisher?

Yes.

Boyd?

Aye.

And Tablian?

Yes.

Ahmad?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

We will now move into the Housing and Dangerous Buildings case cost recovery contested.

Item number two, Case Inspector Richard Leiker and Oliver Daniels.

Please come forward, Oliver Daniels, for item number two.

Mr. Daniels, you can also choose to sit if you would like.

All right.

All right.

The secretary will swear you in.

Okay.

May I have all parties for item number two for the property located at 2791 34th Avenue?

Please raise your right hand at the following question.

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.

Thank you.

Mr. Leiker, you may begin.

Well, my office...

Mr. Leiker, I'm sorry.

Mr. Daniels, you'll speak after Mr. Leiker.

Thank you.

This is agenda item number two, Case number 24-042748.

Property owners listed as Daniels Oliver Lewis.

Our property address is 2791 34th Avenue, parcel number 925-0162-007-0000.

It's May 14th, 2025.

My name is Richard Leiker, building inspector for the city of Sacramento Housing and Dangerous

Buildings.

This is an accounting of expenses for special assessment.

Case opened November 2nd of 2024.

It is now closed.

At or about 1830 hours on Saturday, November 2nd, 2024, I received a 3-1-1 request from Sacramento

Police Department to secure one window opening as subject address found open and unsecured.

I contacted Officer Unseen, who stated that he could not contact a responsible person to

secure that opening.

I then contacted Gray Construction, who agreed to respond.

Staff recommends that the board adopt a decision confirming the total charge of $720 for the work

performed by the city on the property known as 2791 34th Avenue, parcel number 925-0162-007-0000.

Thank you.

Mr. Daniels?

Pretty much everything he said is true.

I have here, my complaint is they wanted $1,000 to do this.

I can pass this around so you guys can take a look at it.

$1,000 to put a piece of wood up and six screws.

And that is basically my complaint.

I understand that there has to be some kind of cost occurred when the city comes out and

do some work.

But $1,000 to patch a window when it only costs $240 to fix the window properly.

Thank you, Mr. Daniels.

Any questions from the board or comments?

I guess I'll add a comment.

So I know the total charge from what I'm reading here is $720.

And just...

The city charge, too.

This is...

The securement cost is $340.

And then the city charge is $380.

Well...

Am I missing?

That's not exactly true.

The city charge...

I paid the city already $190.

That was right off the bat.

Then I got the second bill for $720.

And that's what we're here for is the $720.

And this is what I got for $720.

A piece of wood...

Yeah.

No, and what I was going to explain is the $340 is the piece of wood that you got.

The $380 is contacting somebody from the city after hours to come out, take a look, and then

they have to dispatch someone.

So that's where...

It's because it's a city service that's mandated by government code by the city is that if you

have a property that's unsecure, that you have...

Well, here's a picture of it before.

This is a picture of it after.

These are your pictures.

So the window wasn't completely secured, but it wasn't completely open, which is fine.

I didn't mind them coming out and putting a piece of wood up.

That's fair.

But $720 for that, plus another $200 to pay the city?

That's not right.

That's not reasonable.

Sorry, and I just...

The chair, I just asked.

I think we're here not to hear the cost because we can't hear the cost on this case, right?

This is...

Oh, this is cost recovery.

Okay.

Just being sure.

Sorry.

I mean...

That's unreasonable.

No one is going to pay $1,000 to have a window patched.

No one, in their reasonable mind, is going to pay someone $1,000 to come out and patch a window.

And then I got to go back and do it right.

And doing it right was only $250.

And I completely understand.

This is the $340, I think, that the patch cost.

The admin fee is what you're paying us for half of it.

But I get it.

But this is...

So we are not city employees, just so you're aware.

Well, I had to pay you guys.

Well, you didn't pay us.

We're not paid.

Well, I understand.

But I had to write a check to the city for $190.

I get that.

That was the first bill.

And then I don't know if it was you who told me there was going to be a follow-up.

And I didn't mind that.

I didn't mind that at all.

Actually, I was kind of glad that they boarded it up because it kept the vagrants from getting in.

I had tons of trouble with that house over there.

I complained to the city.

I complained to the police.

Nobody does nothing.

And even after this happened, I went down to the police department a number of times complaining, oh, we can't do nothing because nothing's happened.

Well, this is what happens.

And then you turn around and want to charge me.

The city gives an owner, a land owner, all the responsibility but no authority.

And while this happened, I was evicting the tenant.

It took from March of 2024 to November of 2024 to get them out.

And during that process, this is what happens.

So now I go to the police department and complain, well, sir, there's nothing we can do because there's no crime in progress.

Well, that's true.

I'm trying to be proactive.

But no one's going.

So when this happens, this is exactly what happened.

I'm sure this happens a lot.

The city sits on their foot, sits on their hands, and then when something happens, they come after the landlord.

And the landlord can't do nothing.

He's got no authority.

All responsibility but no authority.

I completely understand.

So the $340 securement cost is something that has gone out to bid, and it's the lowest person that bids.

And that's why they try to reach the owner.

They try to reach you first to do the securement.

When they can't reach the owner to do the securement, that's when they pay a company.

So the semi is secured to start well.

And that's the problem is are you registered with the rental housing inspection program?

No, because that's another ripoff.

I don't think that's optional, though.

So that's the problem is if you're...

The city gets a landlord coming and going.

They give him all the responsibility in the world, but they give him no authority to carry out any of that responsibility.

And then I come here, and then you guys say, well, I understand.

But you really don't.

Actually, I do.

The only way it's going to happen is if you guys change the rules.

The law says ignorance of the law is not reasonable.

None of this is law.

This is all either regulation or code.

And codes are nothing more than a filing system of regulations.

And regulations are created by bureaucrats.

And just so you're aware, we are not employees of the city or the county.

We are volunteers that make up the board.

They're appointed by...

I don't have no problem with that.

But I'm saying we can't control.

We can't change it.

So we're upholding the rules of the city council.

So if these are the rules that you want changed, we have to uphold the rules like a judge upholds the laws.

The problem is this is what's set in city council.

And I do understand because these people here have been to my rental properties numerous times.

So you own property?

I do.

And I have to pay the...

Does anyone else here up there own property?

We have to pay the rental housing inspection program.

I have had...

You know what I'm saying.

I know exactly.

But does anyone else own property?

I mean, we're not going to ask...

They don't have to answer that question.

I volunteered it.

I'm just letting you know I know what you're going through because I've been through it.

But I also know that I either have to play by the rules or I have to...

I try my best to play by the rules.

I get that.

But you guys shoot me in the foot every time.

Every time I turn around, there's always something with you guys.

And like I said, I got...

These are the pictures you sent me.

Not me.

These are the pictures you guys sent me.

And you can see from this picture right here, the window is halfway secured.

Now, I have to admit it's not secured good, but it's secured enough.

Okay?

So then you guys come along for $1,000.

This is what I get.

Now, these are your pictures that you sent me.

Okay?

So I think all this is unreasonable.

And I don't mind paying for something.

As a matter of fact, I told the police officer when he finally got a hold of me,

I was glad that they came out and did it.

They did a pretty good job.

But we got six screws and a piece of wood.

$1,000.

I understand completely.

I'll turn it back over to the chair.

Any other questions or comments?

Mr. Lightner?

Excuse me.

Wrong person.

Mr. Lewis?

Daniels.

I've got it backwards.

Sorry.

Mr. Daniels?

I'm just going to restate what our board member has already stated.

Understanding your point, just let me get through it.

The $340 is the cost of the contractor that the city of Sacramento uses to board the window.

That was supplies.

Okay.

Let me finish, please.

The six screws in the board.

The $340, because that is what the contract states or states that's in agreement with the city of Sacramento and great construction.

That's not going to change.

The $380 is the admin fee for the city of Sacramento.

Let me finish, please.

The administrative costs for the city to do paperwork is what they're charging you $380 for.

Let me finish.

Actually, let me ask you the question.

You stated that you paid $190.

Do you have the paperwork, or would you tell us what was that $195 for?

Well, it was administrative fees.

Do you have the paperwork so we can take a look at that, because I don't have that in front of you?

I can say it's the termination.

The termination of it.

Never mind, Mr. Daniels.

It was answered.

That $195 was terminating the cloud that was put on the property.

So that's another administration fee.

So that was the $195.

So wait, let me finish.

Just quickly in concluding, two things.

One, do you have your contact information clearly visible in case of an emergency for law enforcement to get a hold of you after hours or during business hours?

Business hours are...

Let me restate the question.

Do you have your contact information clearly posted on the property?

Oh, no.

Okay.

So because there isn't readily available information on the property, so law enforcement could contact you, they'll do a dig.

Well, law enforcement could get a hold of me.

If you let me finish.

Get a hold of me.

If you let me finish.

They're only going to go so far to get a hold of you.

They did.

So you granted them the okay.

I did not.

Okay.

It's going to be one or the other.

If they got a hold of you, they would have...

If they got a hold of you, they would have asked you, do you want us to secure the window or no?

If it was a no, you would have to show up before law enforcement left.

Well, no.

Okay.

By the time the police officer Blair got a hold of me, it was already done.

Okay.

And I told...

Right.

So we go back to my point.

So they weren't able to get a hold of you, so they went ahead and the city of Sacramento code enforcement...

No, they did not get a hold of me.

Code enforcement.

...tired to them doing the boarding, but they eventually did get a hold of me.

Right.

That's where it's going with.

Right.

Well, you understand.

So that's why the order was put in for gray construction to seal your window.

Let me finish, please.

Let me finish.

I'm walking this out very slowly for you.

You're complaining because of the cost.

Yeah.

Two things happen.

You didn't have your contact information clearly visible for someone to contact you,

which you could have said, no, don't call anyone.

I'll be there in 10 minutes to come board it up myself and or go ahead and secure the building.

Of course, you would have asked what that cost was.

But going past that, if you were registered with the city of Sacramento's rental house program,

to which you said is a ripoff, your information may have come up quicker to get a hold of you,

to contact you, so it would have let you make the decision, either city board or secure the window,

or no, you'll do it.

So with that said, two things are going to happen.

These good folks are going to get a hold of you with the paperwork to make sure you get registered

because it's not an option, as a board member has stated earlier.

You don't have that option not to.

Once, once, excuse me, I have the floor.

If you'll just wait just a moment, Mr. Daniels.

So in the future, if this was to happen again, you may be contacted much quicker

now that the city has your information in the rental property program.

In addition, if you post your contact information near the front door and the side,

a business number, I'm not saying your personal, a business number for contact,

so if an emergency happens, they can readily contact you.

So again, it comes back to, I understand, we understand, we don't set the price, period.

We don't do that.

$340 for six screws and a piece of board.

I don't mind that.

The $380, I understand, administration fee, we have nothing to do with those costs.

You're here to appeal.

Somebody does.

The city of Sacramento and its contract negotiations.

So that would be the city council that you would have an issue with.

We are the board to hear appeals when matters like yours come before us.

That's what we can control.

Okay, fine.

I don't have no problem with the boarding.

I have a problem with the cost.

I just walked through it and so did.

Well, no, you really didn't.

You just said that it's a city, but you really didn't tell me why the cost is so high.

Because $340 is for material and labor.

Due to a contract with great construction that the city of Sacramento has.

That's their rate.

$380 is the administrative fee that the city of Sacramento has set.

It's not per case.

It's just $380 each time this happens.

Whoever, if it was your neighbor's window, it would cost them $380 in administration fee.

It's not...

And what about $200 to the city?

The administrative fee.

That $195 is to clear the...

I forgot what it's called.

The cloud.

Clear the cloud that's placed on your property to make sure that you pay for the services rendered by great construction.

All that because they could not contact you in a timely manner.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to that.

I have no more questions, Chair.

Any other board members?

Is there a motion?

Is there a motion?

Chair, yes, I will make the motion and...

Hold on, let me just read this real quick.

And go with staff's recommendation that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of $720 for the work performed by the city on the property known as 2791 34th Avenue,

APN 925-0162-007-0000.

Second.

One more time and then.

Second.

Fisher?

Yes.

Boyd?

Aye.

And Tabley?

Yes.

Ahmad?

Yes.

So Mr. Daniel, the board has found in favor of the city of holding the charge of $720.

You'll receive notice in the mail confirming this decision.

And there's extra steps that you can take and it'll be within the packet that you'll receive from the city.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Item number four.

Inspector Elijah Prock and Jose Martinez.

Please come forward to be sworn in by the secretary.

Hello, my name is Jose Martinez.

One second, Mr. Martinez.

You've got to be sworn in and then Mr. Prock.

Okay.

If I could have all parties for item number four for the property located at 3845 Ivy Street,

please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

Do you solemnly...

Can you raise your right hand?

Uh-huh.

It...

It...

It...

It...

It...

It...

It...

It...

It...

It...

It...

It...

It...

It...

Okay.

Yes.

Yes.

If you'd come forward.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Okay.

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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 see.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Parker, may it begin?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Parker, may it begin?

Good evening, Mr. Chair.

My name is Elijah Prock.

I'm a city building inspector for Housing Endangerous Buildings.

This...

Okay.

Okay.

Let's restart.

My name is Elijah Prock.

I'm a city building inspector for Housing Endangerous Buildings.

This...

Okay.

Okay.

Let's restart.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Let's restart.

Okay.

Okay.

Let's restart.

My name is Elijah Prock.

I'm a city building inspector for the City of Sacramento Housing Endangerous Buildings.

Okay.

All right.

This is for the agenda item number four.

Case number two four zero three nine two three six.

Property owner is Aguilar Jose Rene Martinez and Rosa Lillian Rutia Menjivar.

Property address is 3845 Ivy Street, Sacramento, California 95838.

Parcel number is 252-0061-001.

Today's date is May 14th, 2025.

And this is for the accounting of expenses special assessment.

This case opened on October 8th, 2024.

The current case status date is open.

The subject location was identified to have a large addition including the utility room built without the benefit of a required permit.

I do have the report.

You can just...

You have that?

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

There's gonna translate for him, same report I have.

in this case.

The case,

the second

And

the

Go

Fund

with the title 8100 and the title 266 of the city of Sacramento,

and it's a big deal, and it's not good.

And then they say that for that, they ask for that,

and they ask for the construction,

and they ask for that, and they ask for that.

And they ask for that.

And then they ask for that.

Okay, he does agree with everything that is here.

He says that he acknowledges that he went.

Mr. Ilajabrok.

Yeah, I was on that, but it sounded like he interpreted the whole thing for him.

I'm just going to read it for the record.

Okay.

The subject location was identified to have a large addition,

including the utility room built without the benefit of a required permit.

The above described property was determined to be in violation of Title 8100

and or Title 896 of the Sacramento City Code,

and to be a hazard, unsafe, and a public nuisance.

Due to the extent of severity of unpermitted construction,

a notice and order was issued on November 8th, 2024.

The costs associated with the notice and order,

which were properly issued,

presented to provisions of Sacramento City Code,

are being appealed today.

Notice and order is $1,360.

The termination is $190.

The title is $47.50.

The total costs are $1,597.50.

And this is for the invoice number CDDCHC20902.

The notice, the cloud was properly recorded in the Sacramento County Assessor's Office on December 18th, 2024.

The notice and order was sent to the property owner's address listed on the county assessor's records on November 8th, 2024,

and was effectively served by conspicuously posting the notice on the front of the property,

and simultaneously mailing it by certified mail, return receipt requested, the first-class mail which was not returned.

The notice and order was not appealed.

The appellant has received the information being presented this evening.

Staff recommends that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of $1,597.50 for the notice and order on the property known as 3845 Ivy Street, Sacramento, California 95838.

Parcel number 2520061001.

Please see the documents attached.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You may not speak, but please speak into the mic also.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

I sent him to tell him why I'm buying this.

I just had a few months ago that I had bought the house and that the house was like this.

He says that he does not agree.

He thinks this payment is unfair.

He bought the house two months before.

The house as it is.

The house was the way Mr. Elijah Prock saw it.

And he went there because he wanted to fix a place that is called the laundry room.

They call it the laundry room.

And Mr. Elijah Prock told him that he needs to fix that.

And he gave him some time.

And before that time was over, he received the document saying that he was assessed with a fine of $1,000.

$1,597 before he even could do something about it.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

We'll be right back.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Praise God.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

What I'm looking for, well, two things.

You hear the dollar amount.

I'll do this as quickly as I can.

Mr. Martinez purchased the property as it looks now with the addition already on the property.

Do I have that correct?

I'm asking.

Yes.

When?

Oh, I'm sorry.

There's no permit to look it up.

I just thought about that.

Sorry.

I'll just say this.

The notice was issued on day one due to the egregious violations found on site.

There was a large addition added to the back of the house.

Whether he purchased it like this or not, I really don't know.

It hit me as soon as I asked the question.

It doesn't matter, though.

Right.

Thank you.

Here's the addition was built without a permit.

That just happened.

As it was stated, you purchased a property.

It was already that way.

It was still built without a permit.

That's a violation.

Here's the city code.

Sacramento city code.

The violation goes to the property.

Not the owner.

The property.

Great.

That used to be done.

The violation is not to give you, but to the property,

which, therefore, with the property that you can pay the due to the property,

because it is the property that receives the money.

Yes, it is illegal.

Yes, but then, he told me that I had to remove it,

and then, if I remove it, I have to pay it.

What was that?

Okay, he says that Mr. Elijah Brock told him that he was there

because he had a storage room that he did build in the middle of the backyard

to put some storage, and Mr. Elijah graciously went and told him

that he was going to check, because that did not have any permission.

Then, he suggested to Jose Martinez to make two smaller storage rooms,

and so he did.

He made two storage rooms according to the measurements that he gave him,

and that was okay.

But then, he thought that was the end of it.

Then, he came with this about the laundry room, which is where he has his two machines,

dryer and laundry machine.

And it's part of the house that he bought.

And he got the understanding, perhaps he misunderstood,

and he said that if he did build these two smaller storage rooms,

he was not going to pay for fixing the laundry room, according to code,

because he was not according to code, Mr. Elijah said.

Gotcha.

What was just described?

Is that the trends, your memory of what was told to Mr. Martinez?

I could recap my first meeting that I had with Mr. Martinez and his helper, his friend.

So, again, the notice and order was issued on day one, due to the fact that there was an addition

added to the back of a house, and it was rather large.

And there was some major gross violations found pertaining to electrical being covered up,

and the proximity of the electrical service drop to the top of that addition.

So, that is the reason for the notice and order.

When the access was allowed in plain sight, you know, the laundry room came into view

where it was determined to be also built without a permit, albeit by possibly previous owner.

Nonetheless, you know, this issue was stressed at that time that, hey, you know,

this will also need to be resolved via either having it removed or permitted.

And, like you stated, I graciously agreed.

I said, look, if you're going to work on at least, you know, start removing the addition back there,

I will not be assessing any additional fees and fines, which I did not.

So, what is before us today is the cost for the notice and order only, and that is it.

I think, in a nutshell, the monies today is because of not the work that Mr. Martinez has done,

the work that was already done to the house.

As you said, the conversation about making the laundry rooms to the specifications, that was understood.

But the penalty here is the violation for the large addition to the house that was put on by whomever built it without a permit.

There's no way to say, we can't find you.

Find you.

Because once the inspector saw it, it's a violation.

So, he wrote the fee.

I wrote the fine.

The violation, excuse me.

So, that violation comes to the total of the dollar amount that you're seeing here from day one.

As soon as he walked on the property, ah, bad news.

There's no changing that.

That's why we're here today.

He could have also violated, found a violation for the laundry room before the work was done.

But he did not.

So, that's, we're not discussing that.

That's not on the table today.

Unfortunately, the work that was done, the addition to the house, again, all violations stay with the house,

regardless if it was Mr. Martinez or if you owned it or I owned it.

We would have to pay because we are now the owner of the property that has the violation.

Allow me to ask you this.

If I understood correctly, then the violation has to be paid because it is applied to the storage room that he did build without permission.

And it's not, doesn't have anything to do with the laundry room.

Oh, you're calling it a storage room.

So, but we're speaking of the addition, the large addition to the property.

Yeah, well, see, this is the, let's say that this is the house.

Yes.

And on this side, next, in a part of the house now, is the laundry room.

But that is the backyard.

And within the backyard, which is two times bigger than the whole house, he started building storage room because eventually he wants to build another house to get a relative coming in there.

And all of a sudden this thing happens and he doesn't understand exactly what is he paying.

A fine for building that room, that storage room there, or because of the laundry room that was already annexed to, or was part of the house.

Right.

Yeah, the hearing tonight is about the laundry room that was affixed to the house, not the storage units that he built.

So it was about-

May I correct for the record?

So the, again, the addition to the house that what earned Mr. Martinez a notice and order, not the laundry.

Laundry came into the light when the inspection was done.

And yes, it is a violation, but this is not the reason why the notice and order was issued.

It's the addition that was attached to the house.

And that caused other, you know, structural and electrical issues that had to be addressed by actually removing that addition, which Mr. Martinez did at the end.

Okay.

So, in order for me to clarify that to him, what is he paying, what is he being asked to pay?

Or the building that he didn't build there, that eventually he tore down and built two smaller ones?

Or the laundry room?

And the laundry room, I understand, it was already there, and as you said, it is a property.

And the owner has to pay, regardless of who the owner is.

That is the thing.

Yes, but the only problem is, and if I'm reading this, why is that so loud?

The only reason is, this is still an open case, right?

Yes.

So, that means he could possibly incur additional charges every month that this isn't fixed.

So, he either needs, and correct me if I'm wrong, he either needs to tear it down or he needs to get a permit to.

So, at this point, the addition was addressed by having that removed from the property.

It was.

He built smaller sheds on the site, which, you know, both are less than 120 square feet.

No heat to it is attached, so that really is exempt from permit requirements.

And for the laundry addition, they had contacted a design professional and were able to obtain a permit,

which just got issued last week, I believe, sometime within the last seven days.

Okay.

So, that's been addressed also.

So, as long as he continues and finishes the permit and works with the building inspector.

Okay.

So, for now you can see you know, if you already know what the bill gives his credit and the

rights officer who said to the是不是 Haha, but…

Well, I already have the permits, but now I have the permits for the

the lavanderia, but I already spent 4,000 dollars and the inspector came and said

that it's not good, that it's supposed to be from the beginning.

And the permits I asked for is that it's already done.

And here I have the permits.

And he has the paperwork for building in the backyard in that house that he wants.

But they told me that he needed to get a permission to fix the laundry room.

And so he paid for that and went to the other side.

But yesterday, when an inspector told me that he couldn't do anything, he went there to

approve the OTC, what he needed to do that, but he told me that he couldn't approve that.

Because according to him, his understanding was that he had to go all the way down to see

the fines and fees for this case.

So that's all we can talk about.

But we're not here, so we can't talk about, so we're only here to talk about the fines and

fees for this case.

So that's all we can talk about.

So, if you're not here to talk about the building inspection and the permit, you'll have to

work with the inspector or?

A couple of things here.

One thing, number one, what is before us, they're just fees.

There are no penalties, no fines.

Just fees associated with the notice and order and what constitutes a notice and order.

The inspector that went out there, I don't know, it wasn't me, it was another inspector.

And so I was also, was gracious enough to let him have a regular CDD permit, which means

the fees that otherwise would have been charged by our department, a lot, lot less.

Again, due to the fact that, you know, the laundry addition, albeit it wasn't built by him or enclosed by him, but

nonetheless, it was work without permit.

And so I'll extend that essentially leniency to where he was able to obtain a regular CDD permit and, yes,

there will be some inspections that will need to occur and maybe some exposure for the inspector to verify that that enclosure is built correctly.

So does he need to work with you though?

No.

No.

As HDB is concerned, we could potentially close the case knowing that the permit was finally issued.

Okay.

So it sounds like for this case, these are just the fees and fines associated with the city for identifying that structure as being out of code.

And this should be all of the fees for this code violation.

All of the other fees that you're paying are for the building permits and that not separate.

So, this will be a part that I'm proposing this by today.

I don't understand that.

And that $4,000 would like $1,97.

This is just the fine from him coming out and inspecting, yes.

It's a one time, but it's done now.

No more fines or fees will be coming.

No.

Again, what is before is just a notice, not a fee.

So again, this is just the initial fee, if that makes sense, for them coming out, doing the inspection and outlining the costs.

So, that's thelb on that bill?

What do you think?

Depending on the decision of the board, you'll receive information of our decision and the

next steps that you can take after the decision of the board tonight.

It'll be a written by mail by USPS or maybe not.

Are there any questions or are you asking for us?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

When did he purchase this property?

What was the date?

What was the date that he purchased the property?

February of 2024.

February of 2024.

Did he receive a notice about the fence?

How did he see?

How did he receive a notice about the fence and made it?

because in February and March of 2024,

a code enforcement officer was there for the fence.

And the pictures of March of 2024,

there's no addition on the back of this house.

It's as it was sold.

So he didn't purchase this property

with that patio and addition added on this property.

The patio, yeah, he bought that property.

With the backyard and the house.

And then he installed the property there,

the storage room of that place.

Later on in...

The laundry room was already there.

But when he lived in the backyard,

and he moved his toilet room.

And that was somewhere around...

Elijah, are you able to look at case 24?

Look at a citizen-serve case for me.

24...

006646.

Look at Cherie's photographs from March 5th, 2024.

Is that missing the laundry room or addition

that you cited him for?

Is that missing the laundry room or addition

that you cited him for?

So I'm looking at the photographs here

in the internal system.

There was a code case in March,

or the photo was taken in March of 24.

And there is no addition

in the back of the house there,

in the back of the house.

Again, my case was the illegal work without permit

when I showed up there in November.

And I saw what I saw,

and that's what caused the issuance

of the notice and order.

So I have an issue that the property owners testified

after under oath that he bought the house

with this work done.

And I'm here to tell you it was not done

when he bought this house,

and it was not done three months after

he closed escrow.

Thank you, Mr. Lemos.

All right, so does he understand

that there was a prior case

after he had purchased the property

and there was a prior case

where someone came out to his property

after he had purchased it

and the addition was not there.

And so when Inspector Brock came out in October,

the addition is now there.

And so the addition was made

after he purchased the property.

Does he understand that?

The laundry room.

The addition being the laundry room?

Yes.

The night called for 점¢.

The laundry room.

Whoa!

What taki jump?

He said that when he went there, it was already there.

He is not an expert, but he works in construction.

He can say that probably that addition has been there for at least five years.

I'm not sure what he's considering a laundry room.

I'm talking about this patio that's underneath the electrical drop, all of the siding that's

on that patio area, whatever's enclosed in that patio across the rear of the house.

I don't have to do anything.

I don't have to do anything.

I only did that.

I moved the Porsche because he told me to move it because it was dangerous for the house.

I made two little cars there.

But he was already there.

The last room I had to do.

And the only thing that he did was that Mr. Elijah told him that it was illegal.

The storage room that he was building there, he tore it down and built two smaller rooms,

seven feet or eight feet from each side of the fence.

And also, according to some wires to avoid making it dangerous for the electricity.

Mr. Perak, is there a way for you to send us the photos that you're looking at?

Aliyah, do you know if he can do that?

You can, I can't upload them here, but if you, I don't see them on the screen.

No, this is, what's that?

Right, it is.

It is case number 24-039236, March 5th, 24.

March what?

March 5th, 24.

It clearly shows that there was no addition on the back of the house.

And come November, there's addition.

And rather large one.

Give me one second, I'll pull it up.

You're welcome.

I'm sorry, I gave you my case number.

One second.

That's okay.

It is 24-006646.

I have that case.

Okay.

Board, I'm going to show the property.

What we're doing here.

So this is the library.

The library room will be here.

We're talking about this.

No, this is.

We're talking about this.

Yeah, I'm going to walk my computer up.

Uh-huh.

That's what you recited.

I'm just going to clarify.

This is in March, after he bought the property.

This is in March, when you bought the property.

Elijah, can you?

That addition is not that.

The addition is when you bought the property, it's not there.

The addition is when you bought the property, it's not there.

The board is there.

It's increasing.

The note is posted in front of the house in February.

This is what it put in the letter.

It was March.

I'm going to show the board these same photographs.

Okay?

Mm-hmm.

It's going to be this photograph.

I'm going to show them.

Can you see that again?

Mm-hmm.

Well, the end.

That's the number one.

I'm going to show them these two photographs.

Yeah.

Okay?

Let me, let me, let me, can you show me that again?

Yeah, man.

And that goes all the way across the back of the house.

That's what the notice was issued for.

He issued a notice for that. That notice had a fee.

And Elijah's charged nothing else since the first day he went there.

It was the first day he went there.

You removed that?

This is the photograph of what Elijah cited.

He said there's a laundry room inside also.

Elijah cited it all across the back of the house.

This photograph is a lot of people.

This photograph is taken on March 25th.

This photograph is taken on March 25th.

This photograph is taken on March 25th.

This photograph is taken and taken on March 24.

Then the hairdryer says that the office

I'm sure it's the same.

That part, Mr.

Lachito, he needed to remove.

OK.

But he issued a notice that day.

That's the only thing we're here for.

He issued a notice that day.

He issued a notice to tell you.

Yeah, that's what I was like.

Something don't look right.

OK.

That's what I was like.

OK.

OK.

Yeah.

Hang on.

I have a question for our attorney.

Mr. Martinez stated under oath that he did not add the addition.

We now have evidence that it was after he purchased the property.

Is there something we need to do as a board?

No, I don't believe so.

We're here to determine the facts that are relevant.

And the city's presented its facts.

The appellant has presented their facts.

And the board's role here is to ultimately determine which facts are accurate and base their decision off of their belief of the accurate facts.

Thank you so much.

All right.

I will entertain a motion.

I'll make the motion.

I'll make the motion since I get back to my screen.

Oh, man.

I can't see this work.

I will.

Unless somebody else wants to.

I will make the motion of staff's recommendation that we, the board, adopt a decision confirming the total charge of $1,597.50 for the notice and order on the property known as 3845 Ivy, Ivy Y Street, Sacramento, California.

95838 APN number 252-0061-001-0000.

I second the motion.

Mr. Martínez, the board has filed in favor of the city.

And you will receive notification via mail of our decision and any next steps that you can take.

I will add there are optional payment plans that can be selected in that information that will come.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And may I make a suggestion?

Probably, you know, for these things, it will be good to add pictures because it is my understanding that we were discussing about the laundry room when it was not necessarily

the laundry room that Mr. Elijah mentioned before.

But the thing that was next to the next to the house.

And I remember him saying, if you remove that, you won't be fine.

And that's why he did remove that part.

And we never discuss that anymore.

But I mean, having pictures there, probably, at least for me, I'm a visual kind of person.

There are pictures.

We're looking at them.

Yeah, yeah.

And that was wonderful.

It was a wonderful way to resolve this situation.

Oh, you're saying his information, there's no pictures in the packet that he received?

Well, on this.

There's no pictures?

No.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Thank you.

We'll take that into consideration.

Thank you.

Why did they get everything we did?

Oh, they're in there.

They're there.

I think about it.

Okay.

At the very end, they're in there.

Yeah, they're in there.

He got them.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think that's right.

Yeah.

I think about it.

Okay.

At the very end, they're in there.

Yeah, they're in there.

He got them.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think that's right.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Just real quick.

So, just for clarity, because we're all asking.

So, you're saying that Mr. Martinez did not receive the information that has the pictures

in it until today?

Yeah.

Well, they were here when we came.

He did today, but now we understand what you're saying.

Gotcha.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

We're very grateful to you.

Thank you so much.

You're doing a great job.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now, we're ready for the item 5, Inspector Ludwig Mur East.

Address 22110 Street.

And Tracy Brzezinski.

You'll be sworn in by the secretary, and then we'll start with Mr. Mur East.

If I can have all parties for the property, for item number five for the property located at 22110 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 shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Good evening.

In the matter of agenda item number five, case number 24-036664, property owner is Tracy Brzezinski Family Trust.

Property address is 2211 O Street, Sacramento, California, 95816, parcel number 0070253016000.

Today is May 14, 2025.

I am Ludwig Murata, City of Sacramento, building inspector for housing in dangerous buildings.

Type of report is accounting of expenses special assessment.

Case opened September 17, 2024.

It's currently closed.

On October 10, 2024, I received a complaint about work being performed without the benefit of a permit at the subject address.

Upon my arrival, I observed workers entering the upper level of the home using the rear entrance located near neighbor's alley and 22nd Street.

I spoke to one of the workers and explained the nature of my visit.

Once provided access to the interior, I observed an interior remodel in progress, which included the kitchen, bathrooms, and bedrooms.

Minor electrical work, plumbing replacement, drywall replacement, and interior finishes were all in progress of being replaced.

Records indicated no permits were issued or applied for such work.

A red tag stop work notice was posted on site.

On this day, I issued a buster prelim letter and the notice in order.

A cloud and title report were also requested on this date.

The costs of the notice in order are being appealed here today.

Photos taken depict its true conditions on this day have been attached to this hearing packet.

On January 1, 2025, the building finals were approved, the work was complete, and the case was closed.

The CDD invoice CDDCHC20786 for the total cost of $1,597.50 are being appealed here today.

The notice of list pendants cloud was placed properly recorded at the recorder Sacramento County Assessor's Office on November 5, 2024.

The property owner was contacted prior to the issuance of the notice in order.

The preliminary letter was sent October 11, 2024.

The notice in order was sent to the property owner address listed on current title report October 11, 2024,

and was effectively served on October 14, 2024 by substitute service.

Thespecific account is Agent 8045 for the notice in order under property known as 2211 O Street

Parcel number 00702530160000.

I'm so Incовых for Ms. Brzezinski, you may be in the case,

but I do not the position to vote on the entry pod.

I do not themondра work in the queue for 8-10-25.

So be it on the company.

On your campus we are going through direct crimson genommen.

Just a brief chronology.

I mean, I second what Ludwig, that's what happened.

We started an interior remodel, had removed the items from the kitchen.

We had already replaced the tile, exchanged like for like.

So the day he came out, I believe it was Friday, the October 11th, I was not there.

But the minute my industrious crew let me know, I called Ludwig right away.

And when he told us we needed a building permit, my general contractor and I filled out the forms immediately or within a couple of hours.

It was a Friday.

We got the building permit about three weeks later.

So I paid a hefty penalty of $940 in addition to the building permit fees.

Subsequent to that, we had an inspection by Ludwig.

We had, I think, three or four inspections.

So we were going forward working with him.

And I mean, essentially, we had final inspection.

I see that you see the photos of the property where my contractor did not protect the floors.

I'm sorry that I did not provide the after photos because it's quite beautiful.

So as we were going forth with the project, I received the notice and order the day before Thanksgiving that mandates the owner take corrective action within a certain time frame to bring the property into compliance,

clean and remove junk, trash, debris, and inoperative vehicles, repair, or demolish a substandard or dangerous building.

I actually, in my infinite naivete, thought there was an error because this is not a hazardous and dangerous building.

And we are very judicious about being good stewards of the property of the city.

I have, I'm working with your staff to, we've proposed a duplex for the other side, or rather the lot behind it.

And I mean, again, we're a little, we're very judicious about cleaning up the trash.

So I was surprised by this.

And so again, we've, the project is finished.

I'm very happy with it.

And, and ultimately the, the punitive nature of the fees and the notice and order, it just adds to the cost of our housing.

So that's why I'm here today.

We try to keep our rents below market and affordable to the citizens of Sacramento, and this doesn't help.

So that's it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments from the board?

So just out of curiosity, so you and your contractor started the work, but didn't pull the permit.

We started the work without pulling a permit.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Exchanging like for like, and yes, we did not get a permit for that.

Okay.

And then just, just for clarification, I think they use the term dangerous in housing buildings for any work that is being done without a permit that could impact and cause a dangerous in housing building.

issue.

I don't think they're necessarily stating, and he's shaking his hand, yes, that you have.

It's just, it falls under the office of the dangerous in housing buildings permit area.

So just to clarify, I don't think they were trying to say whatever you did was.

Notice, an order has standard verbiage that kind of covers everything that we deal with.

So, like the junk, the cars and everything.

That's the standard verbiage that's in there.

Okay.

Yes.

I was, that was not applicable here, but thank you.

I just wanted to clarify that because you made the comment.

So, I mean, yes, the, in my opinion, the fees were added because a permit was not obtained.

If a permit was obtained prior, these fees would not have been added on.

But I will also applaud, I mean, the issue started in October, and you finished it within a few months.

So, it was pretty quickly rectified.

Any other comments?

Anyone else?

Yes.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Just one second, Mrs. Brzezinski.

Well, I can ask while I'm trying to decipher my own bad scribble.

Sorry.

The property is a rental property, as you stated, correct?

It is, yes.

And how long, prior to this work or the siting, how long have you had it as a rental property?

We bought the property, it's a Victorian house built in 1880.

And we bought it in 2014, so we've owned it for 11 years.

I have long-term tenants.

And I think that was in the upstairs, when my husband and I bought the property, we actually,

my late stepfather was an architect, so he designed, the previous owner did historic windows in the first floor.

So, we got, we actually developed the downstairs into a two-bedroom, two-bath,

and I think that was completed May of 2018.

So, we've owned it for 11 years.

We, again, developed the downstairs.

And I have plans in with Henry Fuse of the historical planner to build a duplex in the back lot along Neighbor's Alley.

I think I answered too much.

No, not at all, thank you.

No, I appreciate the information.

And you've had it as a rental property since 20, since you purchased it in 2014.

Or let me ask, I won't put words in your mouth.

You bought it in 2014.

Yes.

When did you start renting the property?

I had it vacant during a good part of the construction of the downstairs because I didn't want a tenant to have to deal with, you know, electricity being turned off.

And then I had a first tenant.

So, I started renting it, I think, maybe in 2015.

And then I had to do an eviction.

It was a terrible experience with a tenant who had some challenges.

That was traumatic.

And then I think I left it vacant for a few months.

And then I found a lovely group of women who lived there for about six years.

And when they moved out, I went in to decide what I wanted to do to make repairs and improve it.

So, it's been a rental property since we bought it, but it hasn't been rented 100% of the time.

Got you.

And when was it when you first registered the house with the rental property program with the County of Sacramento?

I got something in the mail.

I mean, I got something in the mail saying that they were going to have a rental inspection.

I do have a property manager that took care of the rental inspections.

We just had one probably not long before.

It was in the last year.

I can almost remember the gentleman's name.

He inspected the upstairs, and then he wouldn't inspect the downstairs until he sent a separate letter.

So, they were both inspected.

Got you.

So, let me go back to the question.

So, you first registered the property with the program when?

Well, when I got a letter.

I didn't even know the program existed.

And you received the letter when?

I don't know.

Probably in the last five, six years.

Last five or six years.

Asking me to register it.

So, I registered it.

Somewhere in the last five or six years.

Gotcha.

Yeah.

I mean, I think.

Just, I'm just asking.

Yes.

Just for clarification, Chief Lemos, when did the rental property registration program begin?

I'll make it easier.

Was it prior to 2014?

Yes.

Thank you.

2007.

2007?

2007?

I think that's one of those organized.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Okay.

So, again, you hadn't heard of it until you got the letter on the property in 2014, which

at that time you were to have registered the property as a rental property with the County

of Sacramento.

Going forward, once you received the letter somewhere five or six years ago-ish.

Yes.

It could have been eight or nine.

I didn't even know the program existed.

Gotcha.

We have a couple of rental properties and we pay the TPP.

I understand.

And the inspections happen every five years in the rental property program.

It's a fluctuation.

Should be five years, but it can, gotcha.

Okay.

Just doing simple math, sorry.

Oh, yeah.

We've had a couple inspections.

So, with the tenant protection program.

I had one recently.

I mean, it's probably in your records.

Right.

That's why I was just using the math of five years where it's supposed to be like the renewal.

Yeah.

In the inspection.

With that said, going...

So, your contesting is the total dollar amount of the fines.

Correct.

Yes.

We complied immediately.

I mean, again, I partner with the city on a handful of projects and I didn't...

You know, I went into this property.

I didn't have as judicious a plan for this because we had a gate that had blown down.

I had people living underneath the staircase.

So, I was...

I did not want to have a squatter.

I had a squatter before.

So, I brought my crew in and I thought, well, let's remove the counter...

I want to redo the kitchen, freshen it up, and let's replace the tile in the bathroom.

So, yes, I chose to do that without a building permit because we didn't do anything structural

and I didn't think it was necessary.

Yeah, I should...

I think this might be my last or second to the last question.

So, in 2014, when you, as you stated, started doing renovations to the property as you bought

it, you kept it vacant pretty much until somewhere in 2015.

Was it renovations being done or are you stating it was just paint and rugs or was it actual work

being done?

Well...

Oh...

Construction...

When we bought...

I don't know that I...

Well, when we bought it in 2014, it didn't need anything.

It was absolutely stunning.

The previous owner took very good care of it.

The downstairs unit I wanted to develop.

So, my stepfather designed plans.

He worked with the city to get planning approval to do a duplex, to convert it into a duplex and

do a two-bedroom, two-bath downstairs.

And we did that.

We started that, I think, in 2017.

And I know that we finished construction.

May of 2018.

Gotcha.

And then I slightly misunderstood you.

So, the work that was done in 2017 beginning is...

Beginning...

Permits were pulled.

There was no issues.

You went straight ahead.

Once the permits were pulled, all the work was done converting the downstairs.

Correct?

Yes.

Fantastic.

So, then I ask...

You've been through the experience of remodeling and or...

I'll say remodeling.

Understanding the program that requires permits.

But this time you chose not to.

So, this time is why the violation...

The sighting of the violations happen.

Hence, the dollar amount.

So, you are experienced as an experienced renter.

A property owner that rents out your experience pulling permits to having construction work done

to the same property pretty much speaks for itself as a knowledge, a past knowledge of the extent of the violation,

which has happened.

Understanding permits are needed.

And when a permit isn't pulled, this is the outcome.

To that, I won't speak for the chair.

But if there aren't any other questions, I'll make a motion.

I think there's a board member that has a question.

I'll just ask real quickly.

Why did you not pull...

Did you say it was because you thought you were doing like for like?

Was it electrical and plumbing?

Well, it was, again, I knew I wanted to freshen up the kitchen,

and I didn't think I needed a permit to do...

to replace the cabinets with new cabinets.

The other...

The cabinets were dingy.

The marble...

The faux marble shower was dingy.

So, I simply put nice new tile there, which there's a photo of.

But at any rate, it was like for like.

And Ludwig let us know that if we replace the shower fixture,

there's a valve involved and we needed a permit.

So, I thought exchanging like for like,

we didn't have to...

We didn't need a building permit for that.

Thank you.

Or let me...

I won't...

Let me rephrase.

Is minor electrical work...

Is the minor stopping on just electrical work,

or is it minor electrical, minor plumbing?

Plumbing and electrical.

Oh, my...

If you would, just expound a little bit on that.

There was some new circuits for the ceiling fans.

The shower pan was...

The membrane was changed.

Shower valves were changed.

And then, like she said, cabinetry in the kitchen.

And then some drywall also.

All minor doesn't require plans,

but the...

There were lots of cracks in there.

But as soon as you touch something that's existing,

even though it's like for like,

extents...

Depending on the extent you're doing,

it requires a permit.

And in her case, it required a permit.

I'm with you.

Just wanted to make sure that you heard him say it.

Oh, I did.

I heard him say it when he came to visit.

I mean, it was...

Gotcha.

Just for the session here.

Sure.

We were in discussion of...

And making sure what the minor on minor was.

So to that one moment, please.

Thank you.

All right, I apologize.

So, I completely understand, first of all, being up here, the roles and obligations.

I hate this one.

The roles and the obligations of the city, but I also understand both and what you've

talked about, specifically about the work that you've done, the work that you continue

to do, and adding.

I think what I'm more impressed about is the two-month turnaround on the job and completion

instead of dragging it out.

But with that, I will say, definitely these records stay, so make sure that any work

done in the future is done with a permit.

However, I will make a motion confirming the total charge.

Oh, well, you didn't have that in there.

There we go.

So, I'm assuming your total charge, because in the staff recommendation, it's not there,

but it's $15.97.50.

Is that what it is?

Correct.

All right.

So, I'm confirming a total charge of $12.97.50, a reduction of $300.

I know it's a small amount, but it's at least something.

It is something.

From the notice and order on the property known as 2211 O Street, Sacramento APN number 0070253016000.

I'll second the motion.

Second.

Fisher?

Yes.

Boyd?

Aye.

And Tablian?

Yes.

Ahmaud?

Aye.

So, Mrs. Brzezinski, we did fine in favor of the city.

However, we reduced it from $1,597.50 to $1,297.50.

And so, you'll receive notification of this decision in the mail,

and along with the payment plan, if you need it,

all the information will be included in that packet.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

May I pay it online at the Citizens Portal if I...

Okay.

All right.

Well, thanks for your time, everybody.

No problem.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

We're now calling for item number 7, 2137 Sarazen Avenue.

Inspector Eli and...

And...

If it was wrong.

Mm-hmm.

7.

7.

Is that...

7.

7.

7.

Is that...

7.

Is that...

7.

Is that...

7.

Is that...

7.

Is that...

One of the ones that are not...

That are just being read in.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's one of the ones...

Oh, thank you.

So it's all...

7.

Yes.

Yes.

And this is just...

Okay.

All right.

So there is no appellant, and so we'll just read it in for the record, and then the board

will make a decision.

Number 7.

Number 7.

Yes.

You'll be sworn in by the secretary.

Okay.

Can I have all...

Okay.

Can I have all parties for item number 7 for the property located at 2134 Sarazen 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.

Thank you, Mr. Eli.

You may begin.

All right.

This is item agenda number 7, case number 23-040379.

Property owner is Eilena Gutierrez.

The address is 2134 Sarazen Avenue.

Partial number 035025400100.

Hearing date is May 14, 2025.

I am William Ealy, Building Inspector for Housing and Dangerous Buildings.

This is accounting of the expenses, special assessment.

The case was opened on October 25, 2023.

The current status of this case is closed.

October 26, 2023, I met with a complaint, took over her issues of a leak in the shower

that was getting the floor wet.

There was an issue with the toilet also.

I spoke to the owner who stated she was in New York going through medical treatment.

She said she would send me her information so I could send her the preliminary letter.

October 28, 2023.

When I did not receive any information from the owner, I sent the preliminary letter to

the address on file with the county.

January 8, 2024, I went to the property and there has been no change, no contact from

the owner, so I am requesting the notice and order be sent.

On April 26, 2024, I received an address in New York for the owner from the clerical department.

I had the notice and order resent to that address.

On June 11, 2024, after receiving no response to the notice and order, I had them do online

publishing.

September 18, 2024, I issued the second building monitoring fee of $380 and the administration

penalty of $1,500.

The monitoring fee of $380 is being appealed today.

October 24, 2024, October 24, I stopped by the property and spoke to the tenant.

She had a plumber come in and repair the issue, so I closed the case.

The itemized and total cost of the work was the $380 from the monitoring fee.

The invoice number is CDDCHC20529, a monitoring fee of $380.

The notice of Les Pendis-Cloud was properly recorded at the Sacramento County Assessor's

Office on March 5, 2024.

The property owner was contacted prior to issuing the notice and order.

The preliminary letter was sent November 29, 2023.

The notice and order was sent to the property owner's address listed on the current title

report, was effectively served on August 2, 2024, by process service.

The notice and order was not appealed.

The appellant has received the information being presented this evening.

The staff recommends that the board adopt the decision confirming the total charge of $380

for the work performed by the city on the property known as 2134 Sarazan Avenue, APN number 035025400100.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments from the board?

If not, we'll take a motion.

I'll do a motion if there's no comments or questions.

I'll go ahead.

I will do a motion confirming the total charge of $380 for the work performed by the city

on the property known as 2134 Sarazan Avenue, APN number 035025400100.

Second.

Okay.

I'll do an motion.

I will do a motion for the decision to go.

Fisher?

Yes.

Boyd?

Aye.

And Tablan?

Yes.

Ahmad?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. D. Ly.

Now for items eight, nine, and 10 will be read together.

2601 Kad 표 Avenue, Daniel Lauther.

That's it on its.

That's it on its.

All right.

They'll be reading for the record and then the board will make a decision.

Mr. Latham, please raise your...

The secretary, what's where you're in?

Can I request, chair, there's nobody here for this one?

No one's here for this one.

Can I request...

Concise.

Thank you.

No, I still want you to read it.

I just want you to be concise.

I don't want you to read this whole...

I don't.

I ask the chair if it's okay if I say, just read a summary.

Yes.

Not this whole thing.

Summations.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to dismiss you.

I'm sorry.

I thought you wanted to go with the appellants that are here.

Oh, I thought there were no appellants here.

Not mine.

I'm confused.

There are no appellants here for...

No, just read a summary real quick.

Yes.

Please.

I could have all parties for item number 8, 9, and 10 for the property located at 2601

Kadju 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?

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Latham.

Good evening.

We're here for case number 22036857.

Property owner, Law IT for property address 2601 Kadju Avenue, Sacramento, California, 95832.

Case was open on September 12, 2022.

Case is still open.

On September 14th of 22, I arrived to confirm work without a permit.

Knocked on the door.

The tenants answered.

Allowed me in to see the work that was done.

I confirmed that someone has enclosed the carport and done full interior remodels of the kitchen,

bathroom, adding electrical lighting throughout the home, new windows.

There was expired permits.

I was asked.

I was asked.

R.E.S.

2-1-1-7-9-5-3 for a water heater changeout, minor plumbing.

I requested a buster prelim.

On November 19th, 2024, I arrived on the property to do a 30-day inspection.

I have not had any contact from the owner, and no issued permits were found.

I, the property is still in violation.

I requested the seventh administrative penalty of $4,999, which has not been appealed, and

the seventh monitoring fee of $380, which is being appealed here tonight, along with two

others.

As of May 7th, 2025, there is still no communication from the owner and no submittals for the permit

issued.

Staff recommends that the board adopts the decision for items number eight, confirming the total

charge of $380 on invoice CDD-CHC-20508 for the work performed by the city on a property

known as 2601 Kadju Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95832, APN 05-300-810-13000.

Staff also recommends the board adopts the decision for item number nine, confirming the total charges

of $380 on invoice CDD-CH-20765 for the work performed by the city on the property known

as 2601 Kadju Avenue, CA 95832-810-810-1300.

95832-810-810-1300.

Staff also recommends that the board adopts the decision for item number 10, confirming the

total charges of $380 on the invoice CDD-CHC-20933 for the work performed by the city on the property

known as 2601 Kadju Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95832, APN number 05-300-810-13000.

I've also included the violation list and photos.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Laudter.

Any questions or comments from the board?

If not, we'll take a motion.

I've got a motion, unless there's questions.

Nope.

Okay.

I have a question.

Can I read all?

Do they have to be separately?

Separately.

Confirm the staff confirming, making a recommendation confirming for item number eight, the total charge

of $380 for invoice CDD.

Can I waive the reading of the address and everything or do you need the whole thing?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Can I convert $300 for the invoice of CDD-CH-C-20508 for the work performed by the city on the

property known as 2601 Kadju Avenue?

Kadju.

Kadju.

Sacramento, CA 95832, APN number 05-300-810-13000.

I'll second the motion.

Fisher?

Yes.

Boyd?

Aye.

Entablian?

Yes.

Ahmad?

Yes.

Thank you.

I'd like to make another recommendation for item number nine, confirming the total charge

of $380 for invoice CDD-CH-C-20765 for the work performed by the city on the property

known as 2601 Kadju.

I'm sorry.

What is Kadju?

I got it.

Okay.

Avenue, Sacramento, California, 95832, APN number 05-300-810-13000.

I'll second.

Mr. Herr?

Aye.

Yes.

Yes.

Boyd?

Aye.

And Tablin?

Yes.

Ahmad?

Yes.

I would like to, for item number 10, make a recommendation confirming the total charge

of $380 for invoice CDD-CH-C-20933 for the work performed by the city on the property

known as 2601 Kadju Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95832, APN number 05-300-810-13000.

I second.

Fisher?

Yes.

Boyd?

Aye.

And Tablin?

Yes.

Ahmad?

Yes.

Thank you, Ms. DeLatta.

And Tablin?

Yes.

Ahmad?

Yes.

Thank you, Ms. DeLatta.

We'll now call item number 11, Mr. Lovato.

And, excuse my mispronouncing, I'm going to, I ask that you correct me, Urania Lazar Lazarakis,

Dema Hardy.

Dema Hardy.

Dema Hardy.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

The secretary will swear you in.

Okay.

If I can have all parties for item number 11 for the property located at 3634 Treffelin Way.

Treffelin.

Thank you.

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?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lovato.

You may begin.

This is agenda item number 11, case number 24-044110, property owner Eugene G. Tim Hardy.

Property address 3634 Treffelin Way, Sacramento, California 95834.

Parcel number 225-13000-350000.

Today is May 14, 2025.

My name is Paul Lovato.

I'm a building inspector with Housing a Dangerous Building.

This case opened November 16th of 2024, and current case status is closed.

On November 16, 2024, I received a call from the 311 operator at 1015 a.m.

stating a securement is required at 3634 Treffelin Way of two doors that are four foot by seven

foot, and the request is coming through animal control officer.

I then tried to contact the officer on site who was Officer Way, and I received a recording

that the number is no longer in service.

I then contacted Gray Construction and had them dispatched to the site where the securement

was performed.

Pictures were taken before and after securement for the case documents.

I then called Gray Construction while they were on site to figure out why the securement

was needed and the reason was no responsible party was on site.

Gray Construction then stated they were not given much information.

Officer had just stated there was no responsible party on site, and the officer stated there will

be no one on site for a while.

On November 18, 2024, I tried calling the animal control officer, Officer Way.

Now that I have a good phone number, I received a voicemail, so I left a message with my information

asking for a return call back.

On November 20, 2024, I arrived on site at 2 o'clock p.m., and as I walked up to the front

door, I see the property is still secured.

There is a posting at the front door from animal control.

I took pictures of the front of the property, securements, and postings at the front door

for the case documents.

The itemized cost of work was $480 for the securement, $380 for administration fees, with

a total of $860.

A notice of the Les Penins cloud was properly recorded to the county.

Oh, there was no cloud.

There was now a notice in order.

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

$860 for the work performed by the city on the property known as 3634 Trefithan Way,

Sacramento, California, 95834, parcel number 225-13-000-35000.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Bellotto.

Mr. Marty?

Yes, hello.

Thank you.

You may begin.

Excuse me?

You may begin.

Okay.

Well, at the time I was at the hospital, I broke my leg, the big bone on my leg, and it

was a long stay in the hospital.

And my husband was also in the hospital, and he had to go to a facility because he couldn't

come home.

He needed assistance.

He needed assistance.

But he passed away in the facility while I was still in the hospital.

So anyway, our cat was in the hospital.

So anyway, our cat was in the house.

So I called, my neighbor was called, and she took the cat in.

And so the city has come and said, my God, thanks God.

And so I'm here, but I didn't see an amount of $800 that I just heard.

It was like $380, I believe, that I received.

And I was wondering because until I receive all the papers, you know, after my husband's passing,

and I can cover expenses better, you know, if there is any way that, you know, the city

can absorb the amount or delay a payment or I don't know what else you suggest.

Yes, so the cost that we are showing for our decision tonight is for $480, the securement

cost, which was the cost of great construction, securing your property, plus $380 in administrative

fees from the city of Sacramento.

So the total is $860.

I didn't receive that amount.

It was $380.

that I received.

Can I?

Yeah.

So I'm looking at a letter here to 3634.

I'm not doing good with addresses, but how do you say that?

Trefith and Way.

Trefith and Way that outlines the $480 gray construction and admin fee that was created invoice date of

11-22 that was mailed to the property address of 3634.

So my family came to help me and they misplaced a lot of papers, but what I had, what I received, it was this amount.

The paper, it was not an invoice.

It was nothing from you.

It was something from the city.

You showing any invoice there?

Yeah.

Yeah.

I didn't receive that.

I received the city.

It was not an invoice.

It was just the amount and, you know, the name and the address and the amount.

So I will just add, the securement fee is something that the city does not do themselves.

They pay gray construction, the $480.

Yes, yes.

That was mentioned.

Yeah.

That was mentioned.

Construction.

And then the city is asking for a $380 admin fee for their work to do the, to call out gray construction.

Yes.

That's the only thing I received.

Are there any, board, do you have anything before I?

Yes.

When did you, and my condolences when you're passing of your husband.

When did your husband pass?

On the 12th of November, 2024.

Okay.

Because I know that I see, are you still receiving mail or were you still receiving mail in his name to your address?

Yes, but I changed.

I changed.

I had to give the death certificate and they scanned it and, you know, I received the mail there.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Because the invoice was only in his name.

I'm just asking.

Thank you.

Yes.

I'm ready to do a-

I was selling a house in Canada at the time.

Actually, I do have a quick question just before you go.

The pictures that we're looking at was, if I miss this in your presentation,

hold on my, oh, there you go.

It wasn't clicking fast enough for me.

Your front door, the pictures turned-

It was boarded up.

Yeah.

Prior to it being boarded up, before a great construction boarded the front door,

was your door staying closed on its own?

Yes.

Yes.

My door was closed.

My door was locked.

And-

And-

I-

I left the house and unfortunately, you know, after I left the house, one day I locked my-

and that's when I broke my leg.

You know, I locked my door.

My door was locked.

And then your doors were locked.

You went to the hospital.

The doors-

I had-

I had the-

the injury.

I had this severe injury.

Right.

So, my question is, so, you broke your leg outside in the house or outside of the house?

Yes, but I locked.

No, no.

Outside of the house.

Okay.

Okay.

Gotcha.

You left the house.

You locked it.

You were outside.

Then you got your injury.

And there was nobody else in the house?

No.

My husband was in the facility at the time.

Gotcha.

No, in the hospital.

Right.

I understood it, but-

I got that part.

I was just making sure nobody else was-

No, no one else except my cat.

Gotcha.

So, I'm just curious.

So, somehow your door was not secured and it was open.

Animal control noticed it.

And so, they-

My door was locked.

I locked my door before I left.

That's what I-

I wasn't sure if that's-

The animal control maybe broke the door down.

Ma'am, was there damage to the front door when you got back to the house when the board came off?

I was trying to figure out what the hell it was.

Yes, there was.

Okay.

So, it sounds like they went in probably the side garage and didn't have access into the house in turn,

so they had to board that one up after they broke that one.

Then they went through the front door, which by the photograph, it only has a deadbolt.

So, there was no way for it to relock itself.

So, they-

Inside, there is an inside door.

Right.

So, I don't know how they did.

Right.

They would have-

That, maybe-

They kicked the front one in to get to the cat.

To the kitchen door.

Right.

So, they didn't kick that one in.

Really don't know.

Yeah.

So, it sounds like they came, went in the side, couldn't get in, went into the front,

got the cat, called us to secure.

Oh, she just went to the restaurant.

I-

I-

I-

Yeah, but she's not the answer for that.

Here's-

Here's my-

I'm speaking to the board, so just-

Just give us a moment.

Yes.

Yes.

Being that-

Animal control broke her door.

What's that?

Yeah, because it's like-

What do you-

Yes.

To be clear, this would be the same process.

The PD went to a house to try to get in to save somebody.

It's the animal services.

Getting in the house to secure the cat, save the cat.

The owner called asking for the cat to be saved.

So, that's-

The PD is, call me.

Right.

That's why we bring it to the board to make this decision of what can be done.

Well, we want to give the cat.

We're with you in this-

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I shouldn't interrupt you.

Oh, no, no, no.

I'll try, you know, to follow up with what you're saying and-

I think back how it happened.

All right.

So, completely understand.

Just, again, that's what the board is for.

I understand that-

We understand there's a special circumstance.

I'm going to make a motion and we will see.

All right.

So, I'm going to confirm the total charge.

Well, the original charge is 860.

I'm suggesting that we cut that down to 660 for the work performed by the city on the property known as 3634.

Trifton Way, Sacramento, California, 95834.

APN number 2251300035000.

I second the motion.

Can I leave this in installment?

Second.

Excuse me.

We have a second.

Fisher?

Yes.

Boyd?

Aye.

And Tablian?

Yes.

Ahmad?

Yes.

So, Mr. Hardy, we did find in favor of the city, however, we reduced the cost from $860 to $660.

You received this decision in the mail along with instructions on how to pay and include in a payment plan.

I think that's included in the documentation.

You received that in the mail.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

No problem.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number 12, Inspector Lovato for 5331 48th Street.

Appellant Yesenia Ramirez.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

The secretary will swear you in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If I could have all parties for item number 12 for the property located at 5331 48th 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

shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Blavato, you may begin.

This is agenda item number 12, case number 24-033728.

Property owner is Yesenia Ramirez-Kilar and Daniel Valavos Ortiz.

Property address 5331 48th Street, Sacramento, California 95820.

Parcel number 022-021-301-2000.

Today is May 14, 2025.

My name is Paul Lovato, building inspector with Housing and Dangerous Buildings.

This case opened on August 25, 2024, and the current case status is closed.

On August 27, 2024, I arrived on site with building inspector Tafoya and knocked at the door.

There was no answer, so I left my card at the door and took pictures around the site.

From the north side of the dwelling, I could see in the backyard there was work going on.

I uploaded pictures to the documents and will be requesting a buster prelim.

As we were driving away, I received a phone call from a lady asking why I had left a card at her door.

I let her know I was on site due to a complaint of work going on without permits.

She stated they were building a structure in the backyard, but it was not attached to the dwelling.

I then explained to her that a structure over 120 square feet, or if it has utilities brought to it, it requires a permit.

I let her know I needed to perform an inspection in the backyard, and we agreed to meet on site on August 28, 2024, at 11.30 a.m.

So on August 28, 2024, I arrived at site at 11.30 a.m. and met with the property owner.

She allowed me access to the backyard.

After inspecting the shade structure, I let her know it would need permits.

The structure was 425 square feet, and they are thinking of adding electrical to it for outlets and a ceiling fan.

I explained to her that plans were required, and she needed to hire some type of designer, architect, or engineer.

I explained to her about penalties could occur, and she needs to keep in touch with me.

On September 9, 2024, I received a call from the property owner.

They have acquired a design team, and they have looked at the project.

They let her know, the owner know, there is going to have to be some work done to what they have built.

It is not to code.

She stated they might have the plans in two weeks.

I let her know to keep me informed on the progress.

On October 7, 2024, I received a phone call from the property owner that she tried calling the architect to find out the status of the plans.

The architect let her know that he had not started on them yet, but will call her once he has started drawing the drawings.

On November 7, 2024, at 9.31 a.m., I arrived at the single family residence to take photos and update the case files.

Due to lack of contact from the owner and failure to obtain the Housing and Dangerous Buildings permit, I issued the notice and order.

I also ordered a cloud be placed on the title and a title report done.

On December 4, 2024, I received a call from the property owner that the awning that was built without permits has been removed.

Due to trying to find a design team to provide plans in order to obtain permits and the penalties they were receiving, the owner just removed the work.

I did verify the awning was removed and pictures were taken for case documents.

Then the case was closed.

The notice and order is, are the itemized cost of work.

The notice and order was $1,360.

The termination fee is $190.

Title cost $47.50.

Total cost $1,597.50.

The notice of the less pendants cloud was properly recorded at Sacramento County Assessor's Office on December 18, 2024.

The property owner was contacted prior to issuing the notice and order.

A preliminary letter was sent out on August 28, 2024.

The notice and order was sent to the property owner's address listed on the current title report at 533148th Street, Sacramento, California, 95820.

It was effectively served on November 18, 2024 by substitute service.

The notice and order was not appealed.

The appellant has received the information being presented this evening.

Staff recommends that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of $1,597.50 for invoice CDD CHC 20903 for the notice and order on the property known as 533148th Street, Sacramento, California, 95820.

So, parcel number 022-021-301-2000.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, may I see you again?

Mr. Senor Ramirez.

Before we continue on, just to know that this young lady appeared before this board before, and she pulled her notice and order appeal to save money per the board's recommendation.

So, now she's appealing the fees here today.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Ms. Ramirez.

Okay.

So, everything is starting on August.

I guess we started doing our project on a backyard, and it was not without a permit.

I admit that it's true.

But I didn't, we didn't, that if it was not connected to the house, it was not required to have a permit.

But, the inspector came and he said that we have to have a permit to get those papers done.

So, we tried to find one architect and an engineer.

And, this person that was going to do the permit and all the, all the papers that, oh, Jesus.

Sorry.

All the papers for asking for the permit, it was the one, it was helping us before to do an addition on our house like on 2019.

But, it was getting so complicated to touch, to get in touch with him because we sent so many messages.

And, it was taking so many times.

It was like so many messages that we were being through.

And, that's what I was trying to call him and let him know to the inspector that I was taking a little more time because we was unable to get the work done.

And, so, the winter camp and we just kind of decided like we were going to wait because we didn't find no one to do the work.

And, then, the inspector told us that it was two things.

It was a demolition and it was two options.

The demolition or the, to get the permit.

And, we wasn't able to get the permit.

So, we pulled everything down.

So, it was done everything.

And, I didn't know that we have to pay this amount.

Because, I always ask, he told me if you keep in touch with, I mean, as long as you keep informing, he was going to be like asking for extensions.

Is that what we're, that's what I did.

And, I didn't thought that I have to pay for nothing.

Even when we closed the case, I asked him that we have some letters about money or things like that.

And, he told me that I don't have to be worried about anything.

That everything, it was closed.

And, now, I get my permit.

And, we're doing the permits already on check.

I don't know if you guys can see it.

But, we already go through all the stuff.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments from the board?

Any questions or comments from the board?

If you would, repeat just the last two sentences that you said.

I already submitted my permit already.

I started working with the architect on December.

It took like six months to be everything ready.

But, we're having all the permits already on the city.

Right now, you have permits pulled, you said?

We're in process, yeah.

In process.

You don't have the permits pulled?

Not yet, no.

Gotcha, okay.

I have a question.

Okay, I got one.

What happened was, she was having a hard time getting an architect or somebody to get the permits.

She knew that with working with us in the Housing and Dangerous Building monthly, she's going to get penalties.

So, to stay out of the penalties, she tore down the work.

We closed the case, so she's not going to get any more penalties.

Now, she's moving forward with getting the permits and so on.

And, then, they're going to rebuild it.

Yeah.

So, why do they need architect or engineer in the first place?

I thought these structures were exempt.

No, this was not like a kit.

You know, this was hand built.

It was, you know, there had to be a foundation for it.

I mean, there was some work to it.

It was almost 500 square feet.

Okay.

And, there was electrical.

So, our counter staff would want to know where you're getting the electrical from, you know.

So, they have to show a lot of stuff.

So, they had no drawings?

No.

Okay.

Or, now they do probably, but back then they did.

Yeah, you guys can check on that.

I don't know.

It might be on the system that it's everything.

I'm just still waiting for it.

Yeah.

Inspector Lomato, so, right now, there is no structure.

Do I have that right?

Yeah, that's correct.

Well, that's a lot of work.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Mr. Mayor, can you just, did you have a contractor building the first one that was not permitted?

The, the, who, who built this one that you had to tear down?

Yeah.

Its, uh, his name is Teresa.

I have all the information if you want me to show you.

Oh, I was, I was just wondering if it was a general contract.

What is it?

Oh, my, yeah, yeah, yeah.

The husband was building the first one.

Okay, all right, thank you.

The husband built the first one and she tore it down to comply with HDB.

And so we closed the case and now she's going through the regular CDD process.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

With the contractor and architect.

Thank you.

Right.

The first process would have been more expensive also because the architect had already pointed

out that it wasn't constructed properly and the permits would have been more expensive

because it would have been HDB case.

Just following up on the chair's question, is your husband a contractor?

He does work for a contractor.

Okay, he's not a contractor.

No, he's not.

Okay, thank you.

He's airsten.

You don't have any professional hardware.

He does work for a contractor or a contractor?

Okay?

Once you step up on the chair, then to pay.

You'reруيänge.

You're willing to do that right!

I can win that every once on you.

I can win one last year, and it is no longer standard.

Right, not only He wants to win one last year.

You're bleeding now.

It's been down.

I was not bleeding.

It was already notre buddy.

Where do I come in?

I think we can win here all the privileges.

I'm literally living this industry.

Yes, I'm very proud of this.

Superchlama.

Are we ready for a motion?

All right.

Nope.

I'm going to make a motion.

I've got to find it.

All right.

So before I make the motion, I will say the fees associated with this, just so you're aware,

and I'm sure you've heard it over the last 10 cases before you, so I'll just be really quick.

Sorry.

The fees are you did do work that was unpermitted.

The fees go to the city for the work that they do to come out and do the communications with you.

However, I also understand that you took, we understand that you looked at the situation.

You started this back in August, late August, and then worked with the city and took it down pretty quickly.

So, again, this is one of those situations where the city is in the right, and it just, you went down the wrong path to get it done.

So we're going to try and give you, or at least I'm going to make a motion to try and give you a little bit of relief.

So I'm going to make a motion confirming the total charge of $1,297.50 for the invoice CDDCHC-20903

from the notice order on the property known as 5331, 48th Street, Sacramento, CA 95820APN number 0220213012000.

I second.

I second.

Can you just confirm the total?

$1,297.50.

Sorry.

I know I go fast.

Okay.

Thank you.

Fisher?

Yes.

Boyd?

Aye.

And Tablin?

Yes.

Ahmad?

Yes.

Thank you.

So, Ms. Rivera, we did find in favor of the city, however, we reduced the cost from $1,597.50

to $1,297.50.

You'll receive notice of our decision in the mail with any additional information you may need, including a payment plan.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a question.

I know this is new for me, but my bank, I think it's connected, everything is connected, right?

So, my bank want me to give her an answer tomorrow about this case.

So, she needs to have, like, a proof.

There's any way that I can pay that amount?

And it doesn't show on my loan from my house?

It's just weird because, I don't know, some ways on how it's kind of connected.

And she was calling me and saying that she needs proof.

I can give you a call tomorrow.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

All right.

Any commission comments, ideas, and questions?

We do not have any contested items today.

Yes, I do, Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

Actually, for staff, well, actually for you, Leah, because I can't remember.

I know we did not have a meeting in February and March, but was there an HCAA meeting?

I thought we had one in January, 2025?

We did.

We had one in January.

Just making sure.

With that said, are we still receiving stipends for these meetings?

If so, I'm asking because I've not to receive one.

Has any other board member received their stipend?

I hate to admit, I don't know if I pay that close attention.

As of May 8th, last time I went to my mailbox and checked it, no stipend.

As I understand it, they're quarterly, so that would have been somewhere in April, but since we only had one meeting in January.

But that's why I'm asking, just to make sure, because it hit me today.

I'm like, yeah.

Actually, if it helps, like, oh, it just went away.

I did get the payment, and I'll show you as soon as my email loads.

It just went away since it's over, but I'll show you when, after the meeting, I'll show you when the last one was so you can, oh, there, it's starting to load.

Okay, so, gotcha.

Payment advance, February 3rd is the last one I received.

February 3rd?

Yeah.

I keep everything in a folder.

No, we had no February 3rd.

Wow, because we didn't, okay.

I do direct deposit, so I don't know if that's faster or not.

I didn't even know that was available.

Had I known that.

For all these years.

That's why I don't pay close attention.

Here's the second part of it.

Whatever information is needed for me to go into direct deposit, please send that to me.

I'll show you some emails tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

Wow.

All this time.

Are you kidding me?

Not waiting, but it just hit me today with, like, coming to the meeting.

I'm like, are we still getting stipends?

Yeah.

But, yeah.

So, awesome.

Exactly.

So, with that said, find out what the penalty is for not paying a vendor within 30 days and how much compounded interest I'm due when you send that email.

And I'm not joking.

Any other comments, questions, ideas?

No.

All right.

Public comments?

None.

All right.

This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Now that we're off record, can I officially ask the police officer to walk me out so that Doug and Peter don't jump me after his-