The meeting of September 10, 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 the approval of the city council.

Your board members are myself, Brandon Fisher, the Chair, Mr.

Boyd, Vice Chair, Mr.

Antablin, who is not will be here at six, Mr.

Amad, and Ms.

Taylor.

Yes.

We also have Leah Billings, Secretary to the Board, Peter Limos, Code and Housing Enforcement Chief, Bo Cosley, Principal, Building Inspector, and Evinda Carr Council to the board.

We'll now ask the secretary to call the roll.

Yes, sir.

Present.

Boyd.

Here.

Taylor.

Here.

Let us now please rise for the opening acknowledgements in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nissanon people, the Southern Maydu Valley and Plains My Walk, Patwin Winton 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 together 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 claim allegiance to the flag.

To the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, maybe seated.

I would now like to explain the reason for this hearing.

For item number two, we are here to determine whether the owners of the buildings and structures in the cases before us this evening have violated the provisions of Chapter 8.96 or Chapter 8.100 of the Sacramento City Code.

The question here is was the property in violation of the city code at the time the notice and order was issued, and was the notice and order properly issued.

If it is shown by a preponents of the evidence that an owner has violated the dangerous buildings code or the housing code, then this board will issue a written decision ordering the owner to correct the dangerous or substandard conditions or demolish the building within a reasonable time.

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

If the owner decides to do the work required and the work is progressing in a reasonable manner, the city inspector may grant an extension of time not to exceed an additional 120 days.

To complete this project, however, if the owner fails to comply with the terms of the decision, then the city may repair, secure, or demolish the building or structure, and the cost incurred for this work may be made a personal obligation of the property owner and either a nuisance abatement lien or special assessment against the property.

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

For items 4 through 13, 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, cost or other amounts claimed by the city reasonable and justified.

This board may revise, create, 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 protest 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.

For tonight's meeting, 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.

You can please please keep your appeal statements concise.

Staff will identify themselves and provide a summary of the case, including the recommendation at which time the owner can respond.

We will now begin with our agenda this evening.

Item.

Number one approval of the minutes from August 13, 2025.

Is there a motion?

So moved.

I second.

Yes.

Void.

Aye.

Taylor.

Aye.

The board member has reviewed the minutes.

They can vote on them.

Thank you.

All right.

We would now have item number two.

Case uh inspector Lil Ludwig Morata for address 2018 6th Street owner.

Frank Alexander the Second.

Please come forward and the secretary will swear you in.

I can have all parties for item number two for the property located at 2018 6th 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.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Morado.

Please begin.

Good evening.

In the matter of agenda item two, case number 25-011-478.

Property owner Frank Alexander II.

Property address of 2018 6th Street, Sacramento, 958-18, parcel number 00901 15013-0000.

I'm Ludwig Morata, City of Sacramento Building Inspector for Housing and Dangerous Buildings.

This is for a notice and order appeal.

Case opened March 6, 2025, and is currently still open.

This protest to summary action and fees are not to be heard today.

This is appeals limited to the notice and order.

Initial inspection was performed April 7th, 2025.

Inspections identified the property was in violation of Sacramento City Code 8.96 10 or 110 structure violation 8.96110 electrical hazard.100190 permits required.120 rental housing.

On April 7th, 2025, I arrived at the site with the two-story triplex apartment building to follow up on a complaint of two apartments that were sharing an HVAC system.

On my arrival, the tenant of unit B provided me access to the property.

While on site, I verified that the HVAC system of unit B was being shared with the garage that was being rented out as an apartment.

I was unable to access the interior of the unit located in the garage at this time to perform an inspection.

City records indicate that this building is only registered as a three-unit rental property.

In addition, I observed three of the following three gas meters, three smud meters, three AC units, indicating the original number of units for the building.

Other building violations found indicated under proof height of the electrical service above a walkable surface, unpermitted rear deck, minor plumbing and mechanical violations.

On this day, I issued the notice and order due to the building violations found.

Cloud and title report were also requested.

The notice and order is being appealed here today.

Pictures taken from today's inspection have been included in this hearing packet to depict current and its true conditions.

Notice of list pendants, the cloud was properly recorded at the Sacramento County Assessor's Office on April 28th, 2025.

Property owner was not contacted prior to issuing the notice and order.

Notice and order was sent to the property owner listed on the county assessors' records April 8th, 2025, and it was effectively served April 11th, 2025 by Process Service.

Has received the information being presented this evening.

Staff recommends that the board adopt the decision of finding the property owner has violated the provisions of Chapter 8.96 and 8.100 for the Sacramento City Code.

Ordering the property owner to obtain permit to correct dangerous conditions or demolish the structure within 30 days of the date of this decision.

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

This decision that the second city of Sacramento may repair, demolish, or secure the structure or instituted action to compel compliance in the order.

The property known as 2018 6th Street, Sacramento, 95818, parcel number 009 011 5013 000.

Thank you, Mr.

Morada.

Mr.

Alexander, please begin.

Good evening.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here tonight.

One thing I would like to say is I want to thank Jennifer at the board who assisted or the board's assistant with getting everything scheduled tonight.

I know there's been a request for an extension I had.

I think the last meeting I was supposed to be here got canceled.

So she was very helpful in getting all that done.

So thank you.

One of the things that I want to mention, briefly related to the building, is that I've owned the building since about 2001-2002.

When I acquired it, it was about a 100-year-old building that it was owned by the local gang leader, and it was the local gang uh hangout, which uh generated the crime in the neighborhood.

Beer bottle caps everywhere, uh, dog urine.

Uh it was uh not a very uh pleasant thing.

A lot of the neighbors were very thankful when we acquired the building and started to take steps to clean it up.

I have a history of uh pulling permits.

We had uh pulled permits to have HVAC systems installed.

We had permits pulled to put new roof on the building, we repainted the building, and we took steps to make the building a part of the community.

I think that sometimes it gets forgotten when we look at communities when they do improve and start to become historic and landmark statuses that there are people that do uh participate in the community in such a way that we make these positive changes.

When I acquired the building, uh the MLS reflected that the number of uh bathrooms in this building match up with what's there.

This garage had already been converted into habitational space.

The documents provided by the seller is part of a typical uh MLS uh transaction uh reflect uh that there's you know no hidden defects, including um illegal construction like what's what's there.

So I had no idea that I have an issue and until it was brought up to me with this violation of citation.

Uh, but it was habitational space with a bathroom when I bought it.

When I had done research with open records, I found that in the 1960s that there were permits pulled on this particular uh building in this the first floor, which would have been inclusive of where this garage area is generally located, and there was about $8,500 worth of work done.

Uh it's vague as to what those building permits were approving.

Um it's very, very vague.

I cannot quite understand it.

Um, but what I can tell you from what I understand is $8,500 and the 1960s is equal to the cost of a home.

So it was a very significant remodel job that was done on this building.

Um, I believe, based on how everything looked when I acquired the property, and it's my representation to you under oath that it looked like all of what was done was done in the 1960s because there was paneling on the walls that's sort of consistent with that general time frame when I acquired the apartment.

Now it may or may not have been permitted, but I'm telling you there was a very significant construction project that was done at that time.

It was most likely it was done at that time.

The windows on the first floor of that building are all aluminum.

Uh, the rest of the building on the second floor is all wood casement style windows.

Um, it was probably done again in the 1960s as part of that major remodel.

The bathroom, which I have seen a picture that Mr.

Marata had, Code Enforcement Officer Morata had in his file, but I don't see it here in this packet.

My general recollection is that he has a photo and at least it shows the bathroom being an aluminum window consistent with an opaque window that you can't look in for a bathroom, and it's of the same style design as what all the other first floor windows are.

So it's it's very consistent that this was done again, probably in the 1960s.

And I share that with the board because I want to make it very clear that we did not convert this garage into habitational space.

It's been like that for a very, very long time.

I had no idea that there was an issue.

And although there I'm being cited, and although it could very well be that it is out of compliance, I also want to say there is a small possibility that it could be in compliance.

I just can't tell based on the city's records.

Prior to the hearing, I spoke with Mr.

Moraga.

He advised me that the city's records are many times incomplete.

They're microfiche.

So I went to the city previously and I asked for the records, and I was told they're not available.

I have to request them through open records.

So between those communications with the city and with the code enforcement officer prior to this meeting, I want to say that I'm being cited and the city's records may not be correct.

Okay.

In addition to that, I want to be in compliance.

So I don't want any excuse that I may have that I'm legally entitled to present to this board to be considered as not wanting to be compliant or not wanting something to be safe.

It is important to me as a member of this community that my property be safe and compliant.

So I've taken steps towards that.

Immediately upon receiving the citation, any violation that was listed was completed that was possible to be completed immediately.

I did not hear Mr.

Moraga speak to that, but I would hope that he would please respond to that when I'm done speaking.

There were very many minor things and dryer vent type type thing that needed to be redone.

All of those were done probably within about a week of the citation immediately upon receiving it.

As far as the deck is concerned, it's been approved by zoning and it's been approved by landmarks as having a landmark status as far as I understand what the process is.

There is an electrical code violation that my electrician disagrees with because there's an issue where I'm being cited as the electrical line being above a walkable surface, but it doesn't appear as if there's a walkable surface where this electrical line is located.

To eliminate that, I have asked my architects to redesign this deck in the back that has a landmark-protected status, so it would be smaller and it's no longer going to be an electrical issue at all.

Furthermore, as far as the garage habitational space, I've hired the architects and to go ahead and do all the drawings for the entire building, so that way we can facilitate the application of an ADU process.

ADUs as I understand it are protected, it's existed, probably as I mentioned to you based on all the records and the physical evidence at the property since the 1960s.

The government recognizes that these things exist.

I feel like I'm a victim here to some degree because these things exist.

I thought it was legal space based on how I acquired the property, and we're going through the process to have the ADU legalized so that way we know that it's compliant and it's safe.

Same thing as it's related to the deck.

It's going to be redesigned to be smaller, so there's no way possible that anybody can ever be near the electrical line that there was a photograph of, so that's compliant and it's safe.

I have a letter from all Cal Construction Services.

If you don't mind, can I share it with the board here?

All cows providing the drafting design and permit services to my wife and I so that way we can bring this into compliance.

In order to do all of this, I've asked the tenants to leave the entire first floor of our building.

So I have chosen uh as a requirement to comply with this uh citation that I've received, and also in an effort to make uh the building compliant.

I've lost any rental income.

It's also for the entire first floor of the building, although I don't think it's really necessary, but that's that's sort of what we've had to do.

Um that just means there's two more people out in the community looking for housing.

Um I would have had this done sooner, but it was necessary that those people leave to help facilitate the drafts persons and the structural engineers to do all the measurements required because of furniture and other types of things that are in the way and the difficulties associated with that with people sometimes in a living space.

So having them out was was better in order to facilitate all that.

Plus, if there's any construction that has to take place in order to legalize the ADU, it was going to be necessary to have the entire first floor accessible at any time for any construction related activities.

So I hope that the board um will grant my request for an extension under the circumstances based on all the things that I've shared with you here today to know that we are trying to comply, that we have filed at least the parts that we can that we've all the small items have been resolved as far as the deck.

We actually already started to start to file the paperwork associated with that, and that as far as the ADU, probably I was told by all cal within about two weeks.

Uh, they'll be ready for a submission with a revised deck plans and the ADU plans, which I fully expect will go through quickly.

I would like um to be able to come back to report to the board in two months as to where we are.

Um, I also would like in the meantime, if it turns out that uh everything is moving along at a rate that I see uh proper, the ability to re-rent our unit B apartment, which um I don't believe there's any issues, it's not associated with the garage, it's legally habitatable space and uh not rent D until such time the ADU is approved.

And um, I asked Mr.

Moraga at least to speak to some of that.

Well, I'm I I appreciate your your swift actions on it, but I have to remind the board that all this was done after the fact.

Um the violations were current upon my arrival.

And as far as the remodel, yes, it is vague, however, it you could have had a remodel, you know, 1968 or whenever, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it was converted to converted the garage to habitable space.

It could have just been a utility room, regardless, nevertheless, it's it's nothing is registered and nothing that we have in record shows that it is approved for sleeping purposes.

In addition to it, it's it's you also share an HBA system, HBAC system with another unit.

So that that just shows that that unit is not compliant, it's not standalone sufficient to be rented out, and the electrical, yes.

The one thing that I was hoping that you would be able to speak to is that the items that I emailed you right away were complied with that were fairly small, easy to deal with.

Again, it's after the fact.

Thank you.

And we'll open up if there's any questions or comments from the board.

Thank you, Chair.

I have a couple.

Um, you actually started to answer one question that I have with the construction that was done in the nineteen sixties, you guys had or have you had the opportunity to look at the permit and or um the notes of what was.

Yeah, there's no plans or anything, it's it's very vague on what it says.

It's literally a valuation and a signature that's finalized.

Thank you for that.

But now with that said, even though the with the vacay in the 1960s, when the unit was whatever the construction was, let's say it would went from a single family uh resident into a triplex.

If in fact in the 1960s, would it still be required for each of the units to have their own power source and meter?

Absolutely.

Would in the 1960s the permit for construction would each of the units be required to have their own water source and metered.

Well, excuse me, we weren't metered watered, but um water source, i.e.

coming from the main, but then you know what 19 let's leave the water out because it was a different flow back then.

I just thought about that.

But for gas, electric um electric, each would have had their own meters.

Correct.

So there would have been four four meters for gas, four meters for electric.

If in fact the permit was for units.

With that, let me take it uh to another question.

In the 1960s, when the garage unit was converted into a uh standalone unit.

Wouldn't it have been a sealed wall versus a roll-up garage door?

Not necessarily.

No, but I'm a I'm asking specifically for a um I don't think I worded it correctly for you.

In the when the work was done in the 1960s, if the permit go back to the fig eighty of the permit, if it was if the garage was going to be a single unit for livable space, would it it have to be a permanent sealed wall instead of that roll-up garage door?

Yes, correct.

And the garage roll-up door is still there in place as it is in your pictures?

Correct.

Side note, did you take these pictures?

Yes.

What kind of camera did you use?

Um my iPhone, the city.

They look terrible, bro.

Oh, uh, I'm just saying it I I first I thought that was all mold, but then I realized it was just bad.

Might be the printer.

Camera work.

Might be the printer.

Mine looks a little better than your i yeah, it it it looks awful.

It really looks like mold uh infestation uh on all the pictures.

That's why I'm asking.

Not putting you on the spot, but you might want to get a side camera.

And a new iPhone.

Chief.

Anyway, moving along.

Um, seconded.

I support the working man.

Anyway, uh, no bias.

Uh the so we're covered there.

So what you came across were three meters, electric and gas for a four-unit dwelling, as it was stated and admitted to uh acknowledged to the AC uh from one of the units was being shared for two, so we all know.

Also, our rental housing records show just three addresses.

Thank you.

You beat me to it because that was gonna be that next question.

May I speak to that for a moment?

Go ahead.

So um when we received the rental housing uh documents, they're pre-completed, and we have a responsibility obviously to review them when we sign them.

Uh my recollection is that I had replaced the three units with four, and um I wrote a part of the open records to request those, and the response that I received was they were not available.

So I do want to make sure it's clear to the board that there was an attempt to communicate that information.

I also want to make sure that the board was aware that the rental housing inspector uh had come out to that particular property before, had actually been on the deck, and um had told me that the deck was in a grandfathered status, although it was an unsolicited question for me.

He just offered it right up.

There, your records will find that there was a request for a minor repair to the deck where there was a railing that was just a tiny bit loose, and we just had to tighten up a bolt related to the railing.

So you'll see that in your records, there have been people out there.

We've you know been very open about the property.

There's no attempt to conceal.

So I just want to make sure it's very clear.

To your point in the deck, as far as your knowledge, well, with your knowledge, it was there as you said at the time of your purchase in two, what was it, 2000?

There was a deck there at the time that we purchased the property.

Our records show that we did have a contractor go out and make repairs, and so it's very unclear at that point as to exactly if it was exactly to the same perimeter.

The uh photos that Mr.

Baraga is showing us are indicative of it maybe being different, but landmarks and zoning seem to have cleared it.

But either which way we've asked our um architects to go ahead and redesign it so it would be smaller.

Gotcha.

And um, when was the landmark designation deemed for your property?

When when we in that particular area, it was converted into a landmarks district.

Um, I mean, I'm sure you would probably know better than I do, it's part of the South Side Park um neighborhood, and uh that landmarks designation was probably within the last five years, ten for sure, but probably within about the last five.

I I couldn't tell the exact date.

But I do know that that's part of the process when we file paperwork, they reviewed the plans that I personally had submitted for the deck, and it cleared landmarks and it cleared zoning when it went to the building department.

I just didn't have the skill set to be honest with you to draw up the plans in a way that the building's department would accept it and PDFs and had to be this way and that way.

And so that was one of the reasons why I had to engage uh all cow is to go ahead and pick it up from there, plus uh now we were getting closer to a period of time where the tenants were leaving the first floor, and then it was going to be the time where we were going to be ready to start um doing the uh uh applications for the ADU, which I was gonna have to bring in a specialist for that.

So it just happened to dovetail with that.

Um, does landmark designation exempt any property from meeting city code, city building code?

Normally it's the features in the front of the property.

I mean it's that's their own.

They kind of pick and choose sometimes depending on.

I'm sorry, a little louder for me.

It's depending on if it's uh some contributing features of from the front of the property.

I don't I'm not sure the decks really gonna be a factor on holding up anything.

I my review was visibility, and I would I would submit to Miss Moraga that primary in the front is probably important, but what I read in the code was vis was visibility, and that is what I submitted was the visibility showing it's visible from multiple angles, including the front of the property from South Side Park, from the alleyway, it's it's all visible in multiple places in the alleyway.

I wanted to point out too that there's housing in the alleyway, which I believe we're as a community we're starting to approve housing in alleyways, where that's people's permanent housing, it's not a place that we just put trash anymore.

So I would also submit that how things look from alleyways make a difference.

Gotcha on it.

Let me just finish with the deck real quick.

If I heard you right, you're you've hired a contractor to make alterations to the deck that's in landmark status, which means you can't change the size of that deck because of the facade since it is visual, as you just stated from the street from the side from the alley.

So would you walk me through what it is that you're seeking to change?

Yes.

So as a result of the uh citation related to the electrical, what we're doing is we're asking the uh contractor to shrink the size of the deck, or not the contract, the design people to shrink the size of the deck, and we'll have to go back through a landmarks review for approval associated with that.

Seeking approval before the work is done.

That is correct, yes.

Just walking you out through that, just saving you a little grief.

Yes, thank you very much, no, for sure.

I wish I wish you were at the desk.

When I went down to uh the building department, you're very helpful walking it through.

Thank you.

There you go.

No problem.

But that to the side.

I'll I'll finish up so somebody else can ask questions.

The uh Mr.

Morada, with your knowledge or it may go to the chief, not he isn't a few more years in.

Can an ADU be created from an existing an existing dwelling, not adding on an attachment, but by bisecting an existing.

It is possible, yes.

Okay.

So the garage can leave it is shut me off.

Oh, there we go.

So the garage can seek the designation as as um Mr.

Franklin has it is seeking to get the ADU.

Yes, you'll have to have plans and plans would have to go through planning and approved.

And then go from okay, great.

So we're all on the same board.

Fantastic.

You're on the right track.

Let me finish.

But now let me come back to why we're here, because these violations existed at the time the violations were dinged to your recognition, like your best recollection was that it was built for four units, but as what's pointed out, there's three meters for electric, there's three meters for gas.

That means it was built for three units, not four.

Somewhere in the mix, somebody got a fourth unit in there because they split the AC with one of the three, so we know the violation is there.

Understanding you going forward, the work you've done, what you're seeking to do with the ADU, uh landmark designation alteration, blah blah blah.

Kudos, but again, we come back to why we're here and from what has been presented.

Um, not passing a judgment now, but it's easy to see that the violations are violations unless there's something I'm missing.

And with that, I'll step back and ask one of the other board members if they have any questions.

Mr.

Lane, the questions or no questions on my end, all right?

Is there a motion?

A little clarification, just for clarification for the gentleman.

Um, if if someone tells you or use the word grandfather, you should challenge them always, because that is not really something that the city does.

You know, the the fact that it goes all the way back in the records go back.

If they use the word grandfather, that is a term, obviously, and you understood it, but you should challenge them to be sure because we don't allow grandfathered if it's illegal.

Thank you.

And and the only thing I would just add to that is just according to my testimony, it was unsolicited, it was a comment made.

Um, and it was my understanding that um uh the the rental inspection officer is also a general contractor.

I just I just am repeating what it is that I was told unsolicited for whatever reason it was stated to me.

I understand.

That's why I offered it to you.

Another thing I like this is a matter of it just added confidence that okay, I just fixed this one railing and we're in compliance, and I hope that the board would appreciate that as a property owner, I again I want to be in compliance, and I want things to be safe, and I think that's why we're all here, and we all have that common goal.

So if there's something that's in violation, it's in violation, we have to make it safe, and we have to make a compliance and we're all here.

Another item I like it is to consider is that being your property being a historical and landmark, you should also challenge the fact that whether it's visible or not visible, because as a landmark, it's in the exterior item.

Yes, that's exactly how I understand it, and that's that's exactly why I said that you know it had a uh landmark status.

So when I'm getting cited saying this electrical thing is like that, it landmarks as saying it's fine.

Now, granted, building department may say something else, that's all fine.

The reality is is that we're fine with moving forward with making something smaller, so this way it's gonna be perceived to be safer, but um I'm just communicating exactly that I did the things I was supposed to do, which was I was asked as a result of a citation to make things compliant.

So I went as it exists in its current form today to um apply and show that the stairways and and and the deck and everything was compliant and fill out the paperwork accordingly.

So I got through two of the three stages just on my limited skills and ability.

I'm not a builder, uh definitely don't have the skill set of Mr.

Boyd uh or or you, uh Mr.

Cosley.

Um but uh I tried my best to uh um to to muddle through the process as best as I can as a citizen.

One last item, hopefully to give you a little comfort is that all we did is the minimum, which was we had to cite you for the original notice and order.

We haven't hit you with any other monitoring and or administrative penalties because of your diligence.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Cosley.

Oh, yes.

Yep.

Almost said thank you both, but thank you, Ms.

Cosley.

Because if the monitoring fees would have you would have been hit with the cash register would have started ringing.

But with that said, that was cleared up and appreciative, I'm sure.

From your end as you stated, I do have one last question.

What is the name of the inspector that told you it was grandfathered in?

If you recollect.

If not, no worries.

I want to say William.

I mean, off the top of my head, I'm very bad with names, but William comes to mind.

Appreciate that.

Just wondering.

But as it was pointed out, so now you know.

What I would tell you is you could look through the file, you'll see a violation requiring correction for a railing on a deck in the rear of the property.

And the rental inspection officer who issued the citation would be that person who you could follow up with.

I was trying to have you do the work.

No, I appreciate that.

Well, there does exist a rental housing inspection inspector name.

I mean, and uh, but I recognize that you know maybe he's not the proper person to approve it.

It's just there are things that happen in life that provide comfort, but don't necessarily mean that they're factual.

So you buy something, the MLS says it's a number of bathrooms, it's habitational space.

You have a sense of comfort that that's what you're requiring.

But today I'm finding out in front of the board that maybe I acquired some violations along with that.

So we're here working to try to correct that.

And one last thing though, I'd like to advise you is to never trust MLS.

Because they have nothing to do with the records in the actual building.

I I can I can appreciate that as being a participant in this process here today.

I did it really late.

He's asking for more than 30 days.

He's asking for more than 30 days on one number two.

So the number two is 60 days.

Between my screen, not going as large as I would like it in my eyesight.

But the chair was just filling me in on something.

No side barring.

Sorry for we were speaking under the uh our breath here in a public forum.

It was just he was bringing to make sure to my attention that you were seeking beyond 30 days for item number two.

Yes, the um we've already filed the plans for the DAC, so there should be evidence of a permit application for that.

And um, as far as uh and it's my understanding that the plans are currently in the building department that I filed, although I was told that they're not compliant with the way that the building department would like to receive the plans, and so I hired all cal, which I provided you with the letters.

So they came out and measured, I want to say within the last uh two two weeks, maybe um could be three weeks, they measured the property.

Um I was told about a week ago that there would be ready for submissions within a couple of weeks for both the DAC and the ADU, but with things being the way they are, uh I'm I'm sure you're probably familiar with construction, obviously, that that could change a little bit, but I'm sort of going off of their time frames that they're communicating with me.

Um I'd like to come back in 60 days because I think at that point I should be able to report back to the board with activity on in terms of the DAC.

Um I've directed them to file the necessary paperwork for demolition permit on the existing DAC.

Uh and um for us to be able to uh get the the new DAC and stairs approved, and so that's gonna take time for that work to occur and also for you to see the the new one in place, and then as far as the ADU that'll be going concurrently um on its own track, which uh however the speed is with that, if anybody here can comment as to how fast that is, I would appreciate it.

Um I am incentivized, although I don't have the fines, but I do have an incentive, and that I would like the housing to be available.

It is an income property, and right now the penalty that I have is that there's no income because I had to ask the tenants to leave as I stated earlier.

Um I would like to be able to re rent the B unit, which is completely fine.

Uh, but if I need to leave it vacant, I also understand that, but I only want to re-rent it at the point at which we already have the ADU situated um such that it's not going to require any work in the B unit.

Gotcha.

Keep looking for what you're looking for.

I don't know if the board has to address that issue as well as the time frame issue.

Um Mr.

Morana, can you speak to that?

Can no the B unit at all violations that the units will have to remain vacant until all violations are verified and complete.

States that on the violation list.

Thank you.

One option you could have is you could pay an expedition or expedited fee if you wish it to go a little bit faster than not.

Thank you.

I'll ask the people that are uh assisting us with that.

And is Mr.

Moraga able to assist that process as well?

I'm so sorry.

Is Mr.

Morata able to help with that too in terms of expediting things?

That would be through your building department, the one you're submitting the plans through when you submit them up there at the time you are, I could suggest that you would like to expedite the hill.

Thank you review.

The ADU is faster than everything else because the ADU doesn't go through the planning process in advance.

You do it during the building permit process, so it is a little bit faster.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Now that we have it all cleared up, I'll make a motion that um to go with staff's rec recommendation that the board adopt the decision finding the property owner has violated the provisions of chapter 8.96 and or 8.100 of the Sacramento City Code ordering the property owner to obtain a permit to correct the dangerous conditions or demolition or demolition the structure within 30 days.

Excuse me, or demolition the structure within 60 days from today's date being November 11th.

Or you think that was September.

No.

Within 30 days, excuse me, within 60 days, so out to November.

Yeah, and he's the chair.

I'm just kidding.

We're loose, folks.

We're loose.

So instead of a 30-day provision for demolition of the structure, it is now my motion is for 60 days, and that date being I'll just put a date versus saying days, um, November uh ninth.

Close, so make it even make it easy, November 10th.

This is uh have it at November 10th, and ordering that uh hold on, let me read this, and ordering that if the property owner fails, refuses, or neglects to correct the dangerous conditions or demolish the structure within the time set forth in this decision that the city of Sacramento may repair, demolish, or secure the structure, or institute an action to compel compliance with the order for the property known as 2018 6th Street, Sacramento, California, 95818, APN number zero zero nine zero one five zero one three zero zero zero zero.

Second, sir, yes, I Taylor.

Aye.

So Mr.

Alexander, the board did file in favor of the city.

However, we did extend it to the 60 days that you requested, and you'll receive formal notification of our decision in the mail.

Uh and I also encourage you to continue to work with Mr.

Morata.

Thank you.

Do I need to reappear, or is it just basically continue to work with Mr.

Marata and then we resolve it that way?

Yes, in fact, do you have his contact information?

So what will really be good for you to constantly be in contact with them in terms of when you're in the planning department or the building, sometimes things occur which he may not be aware of, but you're doing behind the scenes.

Always communicate to him via email, letting him know that this happened, this happened, and that goes a long way in keeping you from being back at this board.

Excellent.

Thank you very much for your assistance this evening.

Thank you.

Now call item number four.

Inspector Daniel Lother for address 3316 cutterway.

Colleen O'Keefe.

The secretary will swear you in.

I can have all parties for item number four.

Are they property at 3316 cutterway?

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.

Lotha.

Please begin.

Good evening.

We're here for item agenda number four, case number two three-zero six three zero.

Um case was opened, or property address is 3316 cutterway, Sacramento, California, 95818.

Case was opened on January 8th of 2023.

Building inspector Martinoni arrived at a single family residence, and due to a complaint of a tree down on a house, there was a major structural damage to the single-family residence caused by the tree.

Building Inspector Martinoni uh talked to the property owner, Hunter Parnell and provided him with his contact info.

Emailed him the link and applications needed to obtain a permit.

He also informed him that structural drawings would be needed.

He let him know that he'll be monitoring the case until a CDD permit is issued or July 9th, 2023.

Photos were downloaded into the electronic case file.

August 16th, 2023.

Building inspector Martinoni checked the Excel system and there was a DR file started.

Uh requested that a DR file started.

The request is for the site plan and design review for the tree damage in January of 23.

The project consists of a design and construction of a remodel in addition to existing family residence in an R1 single unit dwelling zone on 12 acres in citywide design review district.

The project will include the following elements.

Number one, reconstruct the existing front elevation of the chimney due to the tree damage.

Number two, installation of a new stair from the ground floor to the second story edition.

Number three, second floor addition to include uh a den bathroom, master bedroom suite, the design review DR23-149 was approved July 27th, 2023 by Kevin Valente, and is ready to be submitted to the building to continue the permitting process.

December 13th, 2024.

I was reassigned to the case and I arrived on site and found the dwelling still in the still with a tarp over the roof.

The chimney still standing but detached from the structure.

He said that the owner went with another contractor, but is still rent is still renting his fence to the owner.

He said he was going to remove his sign.

The permit was approved in planning and design review, but now the owner may need to start over with a new contractor depending on who submitted.

There are no submittals to building, the property is still in violation.

I am requesting a prelim letter be sent out March 14th.

Prelim letter to be sent out.

On March 14th, 2025, I arrived on site with building inspector Tefoya.

I found that the dwelling is still in violation.

No change to the property, and there is no submittals to the building department for the per for the permit process to continue.

I have not heard from the owners of the property.

I am requesting a notice and order letter be sent out and placed in a cloud and title report on the property, which is being appealed here tonight.

As of August 29th, 2025, Molly O'Keefe submitted to the building department, and it was found to be incomplete and was given directions on how to correct the submittals so they could take it in for review.

I have included the violation list, case photos, a title report, the less penance, and the invoice for the fees that we are that are being appealed here today.

Staff recommends that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of invoice CDD CHC 21761 for the total cost of 1597 and 50 cents for the notice and order and the work performed by the city on the property known as 3316 Cutterway, Sacramento, California, 95818, APN 01 30 27 200 60 000.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Lofer.

Ms.

Miss O'Keefe, you can begin.

Hi, I'm Colleen O'Keefe.

Molly O'Keefe is my nickname.

So that's what he was calling me.

Let's see.

I'm the owner of the property at 3316 Cutterway.

Um I respectfully request that the Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board remove the remaining fines associated with our property.

3316 Cutterway.

While we have complied with the city requirements and already paid $1,380 in fines with monitoring and penalties, we continue to face financial and logistical hardships that have made timely repairs extremely difficult.

On January 8th, 2023, during the severe winter storms that led California to declare a state of emergency, the hundred plus foot cedar tree in our front yard fell into our home at midnight, blocking both exits.

My husband, niece, nephew, and I, along with our two dogs, were forced to escape out a bedroom window.

This incident caused significant structural damage, which has made the repair process extremely challenging.

The year prior, we submitted a permit application to remove both the cedar and redwood tree in our front yard.

The redwood was infested and had a fungal infection, and the cedar had an asymmetrical canopy.

And our tree service company informed us of the potential destabilization of the roofs, roots that would occur when we're moving and grinding the redwood stump right next to it.

Due to the cedar being a fraction of an inch over the protected size, the city denied the removal of the cedar tree, even with the concerns above uh brought up to the city are wearist in writing.

Only the redwood was removed in October of 2021 and not the cedar.

For over two years, we have been in dispute with our insurance company over the proper repair amount.

Multiple contractors have confirmed that the funds offered are insufficient to complete the repairs.

Forcing us to pay both rent and our mortgage.

We also welcomed our first child earlier this year, adding to the strain.

We started the appraisal process uh this April due to our two parties disagreeing with the amount of loss.

Um I have received information from our appraiser that we should be reaching a settlement within the next two months and will be starting construction as soon as the appraisal is complete.

Until then, we have secured the property with fencing and had a contract or stabilize the structure for safety.

Given these circumstances, we respectfully request that the remaining fines be removed.

We are committed to repairing our property and expect to be under contract with a GC within the next two months.

We understand our neighbors' concerns and share their desire to see our property restored.

Our only goal is to repair a home and return to our community as quickly as possible.

That's all I have to say.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Uh, any question from the board?

Alcholist.

Sure.

I have a question.

So you've been working on this with your building with your insurance company, so it looks like in a few months we're gonna hit three years now.

Unfortunately, yep.

In January, yeah, it'll be three years.

Okay.

So I know we're here to hear the housing and dangerous building cost recovery.

And so is this part that they mentioned earlier?

Was the city just in the cost that they issue?

So my question to the city would be how many are is this being billed on a monthly case?

Because I know it can be monthly, how often, how many outstanding bills does she still have in addition to this one?

As she stated that she has paid 1380, which was the first administrative penalty and monitoring fee on that has been placed on the property after the notice and order was not contested.

So right now she only has the notice and order and one admin penalty and monitoring fee, which she's already paid the admin penalty and monitoring fee.

If it is a it is a monthly rotation, depending on my schedule and when I can actually get to the property, is when it gets assessed at this point.

Um, so I guess what I'm asking is how many monitoring fees in almost three years have you assessed?

One.

Okay.

I think that's um so just so you're aware, the monitoring fee, and I understand.

Listen, I I completely get the three years is a long time.

That's probably one of our longest, and I will say during the 2022 23 winter storms, I can't remember what year it was, I also had property damage to my house, and they covered all of the administrative fees that were because of the drug their feet to take care of it.

Um, but at least in my opinion, what we have to judge is have the count has the city incurred fees by doing these monitoring because they're allowed to assess, I believe it's what $380 every month, and it looks like over three years they've only assessed it once so far, so unless I missed something, okay.

No other comments for me.

What?

Oh, these are notice and order fees, not monitoring fees.

Got it.

Thank you.

So he understands.

The only other thing I might state is that I think I might have spoken to Ms.

O'Keefe.

And um during that time, she suggested that they were going to have to have two more appraisals, and that she wanted to have additional time.

I've allowed her 65 days for that to occur.

It sounds like she had that set up that it was going to happen.

So I gave her 65 days to get those dual appraisals so that that can go back to the insurance company to counter whatever the insurance companies were stating, and that entire time was used up in additional, I think.

Umspector local gave her another 30 days.

So in that respect, we were very considerate of the fact that they were having the difficulties.

But as you just stated, at this point where the city is sitting, we will continue now with the monitoring fee and possibly admin penalties, depending on what's necessary.

Uh, and she will have to try that we cover that from the SRS.

So I want to make sure you understand what he just said.

I do, yes.

Okay.

But just to clarify, um, so we started the appraisal process in April, and I don't know if you guys are familiar with the process, but you know, I we have an appraiser and our insurance company has an appraiser.

So they're kind of doing binding arbitration right now, so it's out of my hands on how quickly they get it done, unfortunately.

Um, and I have given updates to them, which there's not very many updates to give, unfortunately.

I check in with them, see if they've almost come to a number, and they told me I just checked in with them last week that it should at the latest be two more months for them going back and forth trying to decide on a number.

So right now it's kind of out of my hands with at least the settlement amount.

Regardless of how the board rules, I would make sure that any of the fees that you've paid for both building inspections and permits and fees um that you submit to your insurance company as well.

Um I'm just gonna say for mine they paid, um, but I don't know what your insurance is, so just your word.

Once we enter the appraisal process, we're not allowed to put any of that into it anymore.

We've talked to them about it, and so these are just kind of on us now.

So luckily what you're saying is you have two more months before that can happen, though, right?

So, two more months until the appraisal process is over.

Okay.

Everything's done with, we have money to move forward with hiring a contractor.

Yes.

Okay, I have no other questions.

Is that any questions?

I just have one question.

When you were getting the trees removed in 2021, was that at the request of the insurance company, or was that was just something you know that was the request of me.

Yeah, we saw the one tree was just looking like something was wrong, and so we had the arborf come out and let's look at it.

And yeah, so that was on our request.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Right.

Is there a motion?

Or any other comments from the board?

I have to turn this on, I forgot no sidebar.

Um, we're facing the aftermath of what happened, but they couldn't, it may not have happened if they're allowed to get rid of the tree, but because it's a um was it a quarter inch past the number?

Well, but with that, um let um board member tablion uh make his motion.

But as was pointed out, Mr.

Cosley and by the chair, this all did start in January of 23 with just one monitoring fee.

So with that, a lot of time has uh wish we had the magic one.

We don't, but my comments that was my comment.

Yeah, and before I make my motion again, it's just we're an impartial board, we're not part of the city, and so the fact that the city has waived almost three years' worth of fees, which is I will say, I don't know who you know at the city, but I've never had that much on mine, like I had several when I had to do it.

Um so I will say that I I completely understand, but our job today is to understand whether or not the city fairly imposed fees, and I just want you to understand why I'll be doing my motion.

It's just it sounds like there's only two over almost three years.

Um, so with that, I'm gonna confirm the total charge, make a motion confirming the total charge of invoice CD DCHC 21761 for the total cost of 1597.50 for the notice and order of work performed by the city on the property known as 3316 Cutterway, Sacramento, California, 95818 APN number 013027-2006 000.

Second, second.

Fisher, yes, void.

Aye.

And tabling?

Yes.

Taylor.

Aye.

So Ms.

O'Keefe, the board did find in favor of the city for the total costs.

You'll receive formal notification of our decision in the mail and any next steps that you can take.

Uh, this is not legally advice, but uh speak with your insurance company about all of these fees to see if they'll cover them since they're the ones that are kind of slow walking the process.

Uh, we wish you the best.

Thank you.

So Keefe, can I ask you one thing, please?

I'd like you to be a little bit more consistent in getting in touch with the called you several times.

The email or phone, whatever you prefer.

Thank you.

We'll now call for items five and six.

Aaron Gildeslee for 2160 23rd Avenue.

There is no one here representing the appellant, so Mr.

Gildersleeve, we asked if you could do just a shortened version for us this evening.

Okay, have all parties for items number five and six for the property located at two one six zero twenty-third 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.

Mr.

Gillislee, thank you.

So it's for agenda agenda item five and six case number two three-zero three eight three four two.

Um property address located at 2160 23rd Avenue, Sacramento, California, 9582, parcel number 018 0104010-000.

Um again, my name is Arian Gildersleeve, a building inspector for the city of Sacramento.

This case opened on October 11, 2023.

It's currently open.

On October 12, 2023, I arrived on site for an initial inspection of a single family home.

I knocked on the door with no response from the sidewalk.

I could see the stucco had been removed on the southeast corner of the home.

And uh new house wrap had been applied.

Photos were taken.

I placed a business card at the front door.

November 30th, 2023, I arrived on site for a 30-day inspection.

I knocked on the door with no response.

The house wrap on the southeast corner was still visible.

I placed a business card at the door and photos were taken.

January 25th, 20224, I arrived on site for a 30-day inspection.

No one responded to me regarding the open case.

The sighting of the home was still exposed.

Photos were taken upon further research.

I found that no building permit was issued for the project.

I requested a preliminary letter to be sent out.

March 14th, 2024, I arrived on site for a 30-day inspection.

The property owner failed to contact me in correspondence to with the preliminary letter.

The sighting of the home was still exposed.

Photos were taken of the current conditions.

I requested a notice and order, cloud and title report to be sent out.

On April 19, 2024, the property owner Kristen Abrahamson contacted me via email stating she would begin the process of applying for a building permit.

On February 28, 2025, I arrived on site for a 30-day inspection.

The permit application RES-2418607 had expired due to failure to complete the process in a specific time frame.

I took photos of the current conditions.

April 9, 2025, I arrived on site for a 30-day inspection.

No building permit had been issued.

Photos were taken.

I request requested the second monitoring fee to be sent out, which is also being appealed this evening.

RES-2509559 was issued July 21st, 2025.

And as of September 4th, 2025, no inspections have been scheduled.

Itemized and total cost of work is two monitoring fees totaling $760.

Staff recommends that the board adopts the decision confirming the total charge of $380 for item number five invoice number CDDCHC 21689, issued March 3rd, 2025 for the monitoring fee on the property known as 2160 23rd Avenue.

And staff also recommends that the board adopt a decision confirming the total charge of $380 for the item number six invoice number CDDCHC 21856 issued on April 11th, 2025 for the monitoring fee on the property known as 2160 23rd Avenue Sacramento, California, 95822, parcel number 018 0104 010 000.

Thank you, Mr.

Gittisleve.

There are motion for item five and then item six.

Yes, I'll make a motion confirming the total charge of $380 for item number five invoice number CDDCHC 21689 for the monitoring fee on the property known as 2160 23rd Avenue Sacramento, California, 95822 APN number 018 010401000.

Second.

Yes.

Void.

Hi.

And tablion?

Yes.

Taylor.

I have a second.

On item number six, I'd like to make a motion confirming the total charge of 380 dollars for item number six, invoice number CDDCHC21856 for the monitoring for the property known as 216023rd Avenue, Sacramento, California, 95822 APN number 018 010401000.

I second.

And Tablion?

Yes.

Taylor.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr.

Gillesleeve.

Items 7, 8, and 9.

Inspector Jason Martinoni.

Address 3721 Broadway.

Damien Haigwood on behalf of the appellant.

As you come forward, the Secretary will swear you in, and then we will begin with Mr.

Martinoni.

I could have all parties for items number seven, eight, and nine for the property located at 3721 Broadway.

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Montmoney.

This is agenda item.

Sorry, this is agenda item number seven, eight, and nine.

Case number two one-018995.

Property owner John Smith.

Property address 3721 Broadway.

Road Sacramento, California, 95817, parcel number 014013-0127-000.

City staff presenting Jason Martinoni.

On September 28th, 2021 at 1 p.m.

I arrived at the multifamily residence to follow up on the above complaint.

Apartment A and B, non-working appliances.

Toilet does not work, windows nailed shut, heater rigged up, water leaked down from apartment C down on me.

I've been asking for two years to have my stove repaired or replaced.

I only have one burner to cook on.

Anytime we ask for something to be repaired, we are made to feel guilty or ignored.

A man lives in the laundry room behind my unit.

It's illegal to rent this out as an apartment.

It has a locked door and is not suitable for living quarters.

They rent it out for $500 a month to drug addicts or people who are desperate for who are desperate.

The laundry room runs on my power, and whatever the tenant uses is added to my bill.

When I arrived, there was a man out front who identified himself as the property owner, John Smith.

I informed him that why I was there and he agreed to let me inspect the exterior and interior of unit A.

The tenants in unit A were very reluctant to talk with me, and there were multiple violations on the interior and exterior.

The stairs leading up to unit C are dilapidated and dry rotted.

The property owner said he did not have the keys to the laundry room, so I reschedule an inspection on Wednesday, September 29, 2021, at 1030 a.m.

to inspect the laundry room.

Photos were downloaded into the electronic case file.

On September 29th, 2021, at 10 30 a.m.

I arrived at the multifamily residence with Inspector Paul Lovato and Building Inspector John Carpenter to inspect the laundry room and the structural inspector so he could look at the stairs.

The stairs will require structural plans to repair or rebuild.

We determined there was no one living at the laundry living in the laundry room.

On July 27, 2022, at 9 a.m.

I arrived with Inspector Gildersleeve to follow up on the above complaint.

The submittals were made on April 14th, 2022, and they were incomplete, and there has been no follow-up by the property owners' representatives.

First inspection was performed on September 28, 2021.

I have been in contact with the property owners representee, but due to the amount of time that is passed with no permit issued and no response to the permitting corrections, a notice and order was issued and the photos were uploaded into the electronic case file.

On September 12, 2022, at 1010 a.m.

I arrived at the above location due to the above complaint.

I checked our Excel system and there were no active submittals to obtain a permit for the current violations.

The first housing and dangerous building monitoring fee was issued.

Photos were downloaded into the electronic case file.

Multiple inspections were performed between 2012 and 2022 to August 7, 2023, and due to no permit being issued to correct the violations.

Uh building monitoring fees were issued.

On October 31st, 2023, permit COM-2322792 was issued for the repairs of the interior of the apartment.

It expired on April 28, 2024, with no inspections performed.

There is still no issued permit for the stairs, but there was a submittal with corrections sent back from permitting.

April 10, 2025, at 11:30 a.m.

I arrived at the Molly family Family Structure to follow up on the present violations that required a permit.

Permit COM-2322792 expired on April 29, 2024.

The permit application for permit COM-2322790 for the front stairs expired on April 22nd, 2024.

The front stairs have now been removed without the benefit of a permit or inspection.

And there is a pile of construction debris in the front yard that has sheetrock, wood, toilets, and sink.

Some of these items require a permit to replace.

At Building Inspector Lothar's last 30-day inspection, he stated that in the notes that there was work being performed on the interior of their other units without an issued permit.

There has been no contact with building inspector Lothar or me.

A housing and dangerous building administrative penalty of two thousand dollars and a housing and dangerous building monitoring fee of three eighty for the month of April 2025 were issued and photos downloaded into the electronic case file.

This is one of the monitoring fees being appealed today.

On May 19, 2025 at 1 p.m.

I arrived at the multifamily structure to follow up on the present violations that require a permit.

Permit COM 2322792 expired on May 29, 2024.

And the permit application for permit COM-2322790 for the front stairs expired on May 22nd, 2024.

The front stairs have now been removed without the benefit of a permit or inspection.

There is a pile of construction debris in the front yard with sheet rock, wood, toilet sinks.

Some of these items require a permit to replace.

At BI Lothar's last 30-day inspection, he stated that in the notes that there was work being performed on the interior of the other units without an issued permit.

I talked to Damian Hegwood and asked him why.

Oh, he asked me why he was receiving penalties.

I explained that his permit has expired and that he needed to get a permit for the stairs and it was ready to issue, but it was never paid for, and the application is now expired.

I explained that he needed to obtain a new permit for the interior work, and he needed to contact permitting to see if he could reactivate the application and obtain the permit for the stairs.

A housing and dangerous building monitoring, oh, sorry, a housing and dangerous building administrative penalty of $2,000 and a housing and dangerous building monitoring fee of $380 for the month of May 2025 was issued and photos were downloaded into the electronic case file.

This is one of the monitoring fees being appealed today.

On June 23rd, 2025 at 1 p.m.

I arrived at the multifamily structure to follow up on the present violations that require a permit.

Expired on April 29, 2024, and the permit application for permit COM 232279 for the front stairs expired on April 22nd, 2024.

The front stairs have been removed without the benefit of a permit or inspection.

I checked the Excel assistant.

There has been no submittals to obtain a permit.

A housing and dangerous building monitoring fee of 380 was issued and a housing and dangerous building administrative penalty of 2,000 was issued for the month of June 2025, and photos were downloaded into the electronic case file.

July 9, 2025.

Permit COM-2514433.

For the front unit B permit to complete the work under the expired permit, COM-23227902 for minor electrical minoplumbing and repair and replace wall heater expires on 9-7, 2025.

No inspection has been performed at this time, and the permit application COM-232279 0 for the front stairs expired.

May 22nd, 2024.

The total cost is a thousand one hundred and forty dollars.

The less penance and cloud was properly recorded to Sacramento County Assessor's Office on July 13, 2022.

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

A preliminary letter was sent September 29, 2021.

The notice and order was sent to the property address listed on the current title report.

It was effectively served on July 4th, 2022, signed by certified mail.

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 charges of 1,140 for the housing and dangerous building monitoring fees on the property, known as 3721 Broadway Road, Sacramento, California, 95817, APN number 0140-1310-2700.

Item number seven, invoice CDD, CHC2 1554, Housing and Dangerous Building Monitoring Fee of 180 was issued on January 29, 2025.

Item number eight, invoice C D C H C2, 1862, Housing and Dangerous Building Monitoring Fee of 380 was issued on April 14, 2025.

And item number nine, invoice C D CHC 22108, Housing and Dangerous Building monitoring fee of $380 was issued on May 20th, 2025.

This report was submitted by myself, Jason Martinoni Building Inspector with Housing and Dangerous Buildings.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Martinoni.

Mr.

Higgle, please begin.

That was a lot.

Well, um, first, thank you, Jason.

Um, Jason's been very diligent with uh serving us.

So I can't really say nothing about that though, but uh actually the owner, of course, John Smith, that's my uh grandfather.

He's the one who's been owning the property for so owning the property for over 40 years, we're 45 years.

He's been like a businessman and a pillar in the community for a long time.

He took me in when I was like 17 to teach me the ropes, teach me the business.

Um, although when he did take me in, I did inform him that you know the property, it is getting old and it does require some repairs to it.

Um, even though I was young at the time, he didn't really pay too much attention to me.

He said, just continue to work and I teach you that when time when time comes.

Well, around September 20, 20, well, September at the time we got sick.

Right.

In that time period, we was planning on doing the eviction on the tenant because he wanted to do actual remodel to the uh to the unit.

So we told the tenants saying you know they had to start looking for another place so we could be able to start doing remodels.

Around that time, that's when she was a little upset.

She didn't want to move, so she put in the report on the property on a property, and she made a couple of statements.

Some was true, some was false, and that's how we got here today.

But then within that same process, um, within that same process to owner John Smith, he ended up having like a severe stroke.

All right, a stroke and a heart attack.

I'm sorry I didn't submit the doc uh the documents to you.

We had a severe stroke.

Remind you, I don't, I'm very inexperienced with how to manage property.

Uh, he didn't really train me to that extent yet.

So he got sick and then everything fell on me.

So everything happened all at one time.

So when he got sick, um, then Jason, I mean if the Jason started coming by, he's like telling me about all the things that needed to be done to the property.

Um, didn't know where to start, didn't know where to go, didn't even know who to turn to.

So within that same process, uh, my grandfather, he's bad ready and he couldn't really walk, he couldn't move, he couldn't really, you know, he couldn't take care of himself.

And at the time, there was I couldn't really uh, I couldn't uh receive any income because we had to rent out the apartments anymore.

And the store in the front, we couldn't even run, I couldn't run the store in the front, the sustaining income to take care of uh to take care of the upcoming construction that needed to be done to the units.

Um there was no support coming from the city for him because they were just very delayed with their process.

They didn't actually start, I didn't start receiving assistance for him.

Four years later.

So within the process, I had to kind of like earn hard money just trying to survive.

So anyways, though, so um I end up finally getting some instructions on how to be able to go through the process.

I submitted the I submitted the the plans.

Um I submitted the plans to the actual to the city of Sacramento to get the stairs did and uh minor permit to get the stairs at the first time.

Um in the process of me submitting the plans.

I get and I get I get things moving finally, and then I ran into another issue.

Um the contractors, so I didn't really uh I guess the contractor seemed that I was like I said, inexperienced, so every quote that I was getting just to do get the stairs is 15 to 20,000.

It was just it was outrageous, and I could I didn't see like how can I pay 20,000 dollars just to do the front and the back.

I just honestly felt like they were taking advantage.

So uh I decided to go with the owner, I decided to go with the um the owner builder to try to, you know, get it built on a behalf of the owner to try to no get the stairs done, um, get it built and done like this.

So I was able to submit.

Um, I was able to by that point the plans expired, and I had to resubmit the plans all over again.

Um I fell, I resubmitted the plans, resubmitted the pen uh permit all over again, and then like I said, I kept running into issues, you know, dealing with, you know, just dealing with my grandfather and then just school like this, so I couldn't really manage to take care of it.

Um, so I really don't have any excuses other than like uh it was just everything, I just everything kind of fell on me all at one time, and it was a heavy load.

It was and they were finding me every month, and then the stairs kind of got to the point to where I was like, well, um it was really like bad condition, and I just said no we're gonna tear the stairs down with the intent to uh tear the stairs down and it put block it off.

Um I didn't know at the time that they needed a permit to do that.

So I found out that was the wrong thing to do, and they fined me for that as well.

So and then uh um the debris that's the debris that's outside that debris was from so after we end up issue, I believe after or before, not a hundred percent short of time sequence.

Um I issued uh I got the minor permit to get the apartment unit A um refurbished, I mean um, excuse me, renovated or so I could be able to start the uh on the minor permit.

In that process, I realized that I I found out that um I wasn't supposed to go about it in that type of way.

I hadn't needed permits to pull.

So I just kept getting myself deeper, deeper, deeper into a hole without the proper guidance and then and then um that's just how that's just where I'm at right now.

So no.

Fortunately, I was able to get some assistance as far as like on how to go about the process.

I was able to I was able to repay, I paid for another partner uh the minor permit.

Um I know I did I think I just look at the case.

It expired on the 7th, on the 10th.

I didn't really realize it expired.

But anyway, so I paid for the minor permit and I was able to um hire me a carpenter or a licensed contractor, of course.

And he's he agreed to be able to do the work.

Um, I was able to obtain some finance, I was able to attain some finances to be able to get the job done, but I I definitely don't have $20,000.

I definitely don't have like with the fees and monitoring fees hanging over my head and all the expenses, it's it's just making it difficult for me to be able to even complete the process because I'm getting fined every month, $2,000 on top of $380 every month.

It just is just difficult to move being fined.

So it's like um, where I'm at right now in the process, uh, all I could do right now is just continue to try to seek some uh additional uh support to try to get the work done.

But as far as like the fees is accurate, I mean it happened so I have been nothing to say.

It was just he got sick and it fell on me.

And even to this day, he's still sick.

Like he's his units, he stays in this, he stays in his own unit on the triplex.

Can't even move his body, it's pretty much bed ready.

And so it's just nothing mean to do everything, so it's just a little challenging right now.

That's all.

I ain't got nothing else to say, so thank you, Mr.

Higwood.

Any questions or comments from the board?

Um, yes.

Uh I'm sorry, I what was your name again?

Uh Damien.

Damien.

I mean, Mr.

When you were um, yeah, when they were sworn in, it was Damian versus John Smith.

It was Damian who was sworn in versus John Smith.

Yes.

I didn't catch it.

Yeah.

Um and the date when your grandfather got sick was when?

He's he started in 2021, 2020 started getting like severely ill.

2021, that's when he his body, that's when he uh started to break down.

I believe he had a stroke at that time.

And then recently he just had a uh a stroke and a heart attack, and recently he just had another uh massive stroke.

Sorry to hear that.

Do you remember when in 2021?

I can't give you the exact day.

I got to pull up the paperwork.

I got you.

But you were saying he was falling ill in 2020.

Yeah, like he's eighty eight at the time.

You find out like eighty-four or something like that.

Gotcha.

As you said, things keep piling up.

They're not gonna go away.

It it's just uh fact of point, and being that this started in March of 2021, right?

Uh when the case was open, and then September 28, 2021, on the visit and the uh violations started to be written.

I have that correct.

Yes, right on.

September 28, 2021 was the initial inspection.

No, actually, I had made an inspection before then, but could not make contact.

That was the first contact I had with the property owner.

Thank you for that clarification, and from that, as you said, you're moving forward latest permit expired.

Yeah, on the 7th of this month.

Two days ago.

Three days ago.

It's crazy.

I understand it happens.

Uh hold on one second.

With the permit, even though it it expired, is it too late to ask for an extension, or does a way that the housing endangers building permits work within the first 60 days, if there's no progress, we can expire them.

But they're technically good for 180 days.

Okay, so I haven't made the request to expire this permit yet, because I knew we were coming to hearing with it.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

So what was just said, what is available possibly?

The hard expiration date for this permit is going to be January 5th, 2026.

Technically, I should have expired it on the 7th.

But I knew we were going to appeal here, right?

I've talked with Damien, I know the situation.

So appreciate that.

So you I'm glad that you guys have been in contact.

So with that stated, I'm not giving direction, but the opportunity is there for an extension that you would have to put forth that motion before the permit gets expired.

The last permit that was issued expired with no inspections.

That's the I'm sorry, say that again.

But no work done.

Got you on that, and that was all part of the technically, yes.

I should have expired that permit on the seventh, and I'm sure that Mr.

Cosley will talk to me about that.

But yeah, no, I hear you.

And then um, as you said, it things continue to pile up.

It things happen, it's life.

You know, it's it it happens.

Uh again, that was the first permit.

It has been a lot of time um that has gone by.

Um the upside was the getting the second permit and going forward because nothing was uh addressed on the first permit that you had that expired.

With that said, as you said, you found someone they're ready to do the work, if I heard you correctly, but so uh let me ask the question, then you answer.

So is all what is missing now is a permit for that contractor to do the work?

Is that what you're stating?

Uh no, I um I already issued, already submitted the permit, so it really was just finances, it was a financial thing.

Can I clarify something real quick, Mr.

Boy?

There's two different issues here.

There's the violations on the interior of the apartments, and then there's the stairs, which are the egress to the second story, which is the third apartment.

I let him get the permit, minor permit for the interior, so he could work on getting the plan submitted to get the permit for the stairs, but then the first permit expired, and then the submittal for the permit for the stairs expired, and he was literally at the point where all he had to do was pay for the permit for the stairs.

So even though he has this minor permit, there's still another permit for $20,000 stairs, because now they've been removed, there's no egress out of that third unit, unless you jump out a window.

You understand?

Oh, I'm with you.

Maybe I misheard the third unit, but it is currently empty, correct?

There's yes, it is, but it's still I'm with you.

Um I was gonna say, man, that's some death-defying tenant.

Um glad there's nobody in there.

Uh uh I was getting there, but I was just walking it through.

As was stated, I don't know how much stairs cost, 15-20 grand.

Yeah, so roof.

I don't know about stairs.

But with that said, the interior on your last inspection, the progress there is what?

The only inspection I did on the interior of the building was during the initial inspection that I mentioned here with Mr.

Smith.

The permit was issued, but no inspections were ever called in on the permit.

The second permit has been issued, and this has now come to the 60 days, and there's been no inspections on this permit.

So he's had two permits, and there's been no inspections.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Martin uh Martoni.

You see it from the city side.

Yeah, I see it.

Understand, of course, if we had each of us had a stack of money, just throw the money on it and get it done and go forward.

It is rugged.

It's unfortunate.

Um again, my um feelings go out to you and uh the free grant um understanding your grandfather's condition.

It it's it's tough, it's rugged.

The the it's it sounds cold, but we all have to keep moving.

With that said, understanding just putting this in a nutshell and I'll and I'll get off the microphone.

It has been a long time.

And in this case, things happen and then you know they pile up at this because of the amount of time.

It's it's there's been a um a lot of time and a lot of leniency.

And appreciate the appeal, the reasoning behind it.

Some of this, my opinion, could have gone away, just simply investigating on your own.

You know, um, I'm not saying what you should have or what you shouldn't have done.

The internet it has a lot of information, just simply reading what can I do?

Can I go tear downstairs?

You know, once the city got involved with the first inspection, asking uh city staff, is there a cost for this?

Is there a cost for this?

What can I do to mitigate as much as I can um cost as I can?

What that said, you have an understanding, general understanding of one plus one is two.

I'm not being uh the issues are silly, but step by step, it's a lot of pressure.

Uh, I'm not downplaying what you've what you've uh what you're living through.

Uh with that again, it's it's I was trying to find something here, but it's really simply the matter uh of time, not only just the time, but the lack of motion that hasn't happened during that time.

That is that's playing a major factor here.

I'll step back from the mic.

I'll forgive me and some um information.

I don't know if you were ever aware of it, but um when they send out these packages to you, basically uh telling you of the fines and the penalty.

They also send something that tells you that you're allowed to uh request a hardship through a different process.

So when these fines and penalties start to stack it up on you, I think you should try at least that avenue because the hardship allows you to go to present the same story you just presented, and it's a possibility that they could waive that based on the conditions that you're explaining.

So the one that you have currently, I believe.

I believe that I'm sorry, I believe that uh our secretary is telling you that you you may be a little bit late on the September one, but she's willing to extend that if you can get the information by contacting hearings again, and they'll they'll walk you through that process again how to uh apply or appeal to the hardship process.

So you'll do that one for the one you have currently, which is September, and then there's another one behind this one.

Of course, that you still haven't expired on time, so you can do that as well.

So I mean, at least it would possibly give you a chance to alleviate some of the the fees or the fines that are upcoming, so that you can kind of like get a little bit caught up at some point through this process, because obviously the main thing like you said is from a financial standpoint, so that would be something you should consider.

I have a good question while my why my minor permit is still active, uh since it's still going.

Will I still be getting fined administration penalty every month while I'm working on the minor permit?

You do not get penalized when you have an active permit.

We do not give you fines and penalties.

This will be all of the ones that maybe were either before or in a lapse.

Okay.

Here's the issue though, I'm concerned with he just mentioned that he can close this out at any time.

So before we finalize anything, you have a permit that's currently as of the second active.

Do you plan on doing any work over the next couple of weeks to keep that?

Because otherwise when he goes back to the office tomorrow, he might be closing that permit out and the fees can start again.

So I would highly encourage that any work that you plan to do, you talk to him to see if maybe he can give you at least a couple of weeks extension so that the otherwise you're gonna start all over again and have to pull another permit, and then the fees can start again.

But I want to make sure you did hear what he said is he could close that out two days ago, three days ago.

Today's the 10th.

So yeah.

So like I said, as soon as he gets back, you can close it out.

I would highly encourage you to work with him.

Either is this your last case?

Is this your last case tonight?

Oh yeah.

So maybe you have to.

There we go.

So after in the hallway when this case is over, have a discussion with him because you don't want that permit closed out if you can keep it open.

Thank you.

Inspector Martinoni, the the current permit right now, does that apply to uh in any specific unit or just both interiors of the both interior unit of the two existing units that's occupied?

I've never been in the top unit.

Okay.

Stairs are the issue with the topic.

Your grandfather is in one of the lower units.

Yeah, he is, he's in A.

Okay.

All right.

It was in B.

No one.

A and B are vacant.

I mean, excuse me, C and B is vacant.

Okay, so only the one unit.

A, so yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, the two bottom units are A and B and then the top unit is.

So the grandfather's the only one occupying and he's in one of the bottom units.

There's no stairs to get into the top unit.

So I know he's he's there's nobody living on it.

And that's the one with the violations.

No, the two minor the two minor permits, the the minor permit covers A and B.

The st the the permit for the stairs are the stairs leading to C.

Correct.

So obviously your priority would be on addressing the one your grandfather is in at least initially.

No.

Because the one that he's in.

Oh, well.

If that's the route I need to take, then yes, uh I I address that one.

Well, what was your thinking in terms of getting income?

That's why you would be trying to address the other one.

No, the other one's in this uh the one that my grandfather's in right now, the condition is not is is not as critical.

Not as critical.

That's why he's in there.

So the department B in the stairs are way more critical.

I was gonna do the one he's in last.

Okay, so I have a conversation with Inspector Mazzanoni.

You guys should be able to work out something to utilize what you have left existing on this current permit.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

All right, I'll call for a motion.

We have to do them each separately.

I'll tell you what, I'll I'll do a motion.

Um, I and I'll just say out loud what my intent is before I do the motion to the board.

Um I understand uh this one has a little bit more, and I understand.

Uh I'm out of everybody on this board, I'm usually the one with we're four years into a thing, and I I get the that we're four years into it, but this one has I think three.

So I think as long as uh again, as long as you're working with the building inspector, because if we were to waive one of these and you don't continue working, these are going to start again monthly until you have a new permit.

So I'm I'm fine waiving one of the fees of the three.

Um so I'm just gonna let you all know.

I'm gonna break it out by the first, second, and third, and then I'm just going to go item one, two, and three, and I'll I'll cancel the third one so you all at least are aware of what I'm doing.

Uh unless somebody else wants to, I don't want to say that I'm gonna make all three motions that somebody else wanna.

No, okay, so then I'm gonna confirm for invoice CDDCHC 21554, housing and dangerous code building monitoring fee of 380 dollars for the property known as 3721 Broadway Road, Sacramento, California, 95817, APN number 014013102700.

I stick yes, void, and tablion.

Yes, Taylor, aye.

I make a motion confirming the total charge of three hundred and eighty dollars for invoice C D D CHC 21862 housing and dangerous building monitoring fee of 380 dollars.

Um for the property known as 3721 Broadway Road, Sacramento, California, 95817 APN number 0140131027000.

I second yes, void, all right and tablion.

Yes, Taylor, aye.

I make a recommendation for invoice C D D C H C 22108 that it be waived for the property known as 3721 Broadway Road, Sacramento, California, 95817 APN 014013102700.

I second, yes, void all right and tablion.

Yes, Taylor.

I oh yeah, Mr.

Cost.

I call on the other road because it says road, Broadway Road, Broadway Road.

Sometimes it'll say Broadway and sometimes it'll say Broadway Road.

I'm it's on the I sounded weird when I said it out loud, yeah.

And I thought maybe it was just me.

But it's Broadway as one word.

Broadway.

Yeah, I was like, Oh, well, I'm not doing that all over again.

So you can annex the road from the record, but so Mr.

Higwood, we did find in favor of the city for items seven and eight, confirming the charge of 380, but we waived the the charge for item number nine of 380.

We're gonna uh encourage you to still work with Mr.

Martinoni.

Um, I would encourage you, this is not advice, but I would encourage you to also, since you're in Oak Park, I know a lot about property in Oak Park to call tomorrow morning.

Habitat for Humanity Oak Park.

Google it and call them.

All right, and they can help you.

All right.

All right, appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You have their contact information so you can find out a little bit more about the uh hardship.

I do.

Did you give it to me?

Um yeah, we've um give us a call tomorrow.

It's just the hearings and appeals.

Okay.

Um, I think you have my direct cell phone number.

I got it.

I believe I do.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

You received formal notification of this in the mail as well.

Okay, all right.

Item number 10, Inspector Elijah Proc.

Appellant.

This is for a property 1714 13th Street.

Diana Wild.

And board members, just for our record, the 1100 that is being appealed today is up the remaining balance of she's made a payment and this is the remaining balance that she's appealing.

Yes, the eleven hundred is the remaining.

It was confirmed and she's re she made a payment and now she's appealing what's left.

And what's left is eleven hundred?

Yes.

Okay, so I see that's why it says 1597, but then in his staff recommendation it says 1100.

Correct.

Got it.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

The secretary will swear you in, and we'll begin with Mr.

Proc.

I could have all parties for item number 10 for the property located at 1714 13th 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.

Mr.

Proc, please begin.

Yes, good evening.

Uh my name is Logia Proc.

I'm a CD Building Inspector for Housing and Dangerous Buildings.

Uh, this is for the agenda item number 10, case number 23-03-2224.

Uh, the property owners home solutions for you LLC.

Property addresses 1714 13th Street Sacramento, California, nine five eight one one, parcel number zero zero six, uh, zero two eight two zero one seven.

Uh today's date is September tenth, twenty twenty-five.

And this is for the accounting of expenses special assessment.

Uh, this case opened on August 27th, 2023.

Current case status it is open.

August 31st, 2023.

An initial inspection was conducted at the subject property.

The rear deck was observed to be uh weathered, deteriorated, and unsafe.

Building inspector Boland, we'll call him inspector from now on, left his card for the complainant.

September 12th, 2023.

Every inspection was performed with the complainant present.

The deck was confirmed to be unsafe and deteriorated, and the railing was noted to block bedroom egress.

Other violations were also documented.

September 15th, 2023.

Staff met with the owner who had acknowledged the deck was unsafe and agreed it would be removed.

The owner expressed interest in rebuilding it in rebuilding it, but it was informed that a permit and preservation review would be required.

October 23rd, 2023.

A follow-up inspection confirmed that the duck had been removed and the second story door was now boarded over, but not removed.

The owner again expressed her intent to rebuild and a timeline for plan submitted was discussed.

November 27, 2023.

The reinspection showed no progress and no permit application submitted.

The owner was given 31 days to obtain a permit and remove or legalize the unpermitted exterior door at the second story, now leading to nowhere.

January 3rd, 2024.

The owner emailed staff indicating her intent to install a Juliet balcony at the second story door.

January 8th, 2024.

The inspector responded to the uh that no structural work could proceed without her permit.

Every inspection of the day showed no progress, though the owner reiterated her plan to legalize the door and add the Juliet balcony.

April 4th, 2024.

Every inspection revealed no visible changes.

The owner claimed delays due to the tenant's eviction.

October 21st, 2024.

The inspector sent a warning email, noting there had been no permit pro uh no permit progress in six months.

The owner was given a deadline of November 25th, 2024, after which a notice and order would be issued.

November 15th, 2024.

The inspector met with the owner at the site, and she agreed to either remove the unpermitted door or apply for a Jew at Balcony permit.

March 11th, 2025, after the case reassignment, a routine inspection of the site was conducted on the above discredit property.

It was determined to be in violation of Title 8100 and Title 896 of the circumvent and to be a hazard on safe and a public nuisance.

Records showed no indication of any submittals to building division four or issuance of any corrective permit for unpermitted work as identified.

On the same day, I contacted the owner regarding the status of the case.

She asserted that she had an agreement with the inspector that no enforcement action will be initiated on the property.

The owner declined to provide any timeline for obtaining the required permit and was confrontational and dismissive throughout the discussion.

On July 16th, 2025, the owner submitted a permit application.

However, the permit fees were not paid preventing preventing issuance.

The property therefore remains subject to administrative penalties and monitoring fees until a permit has been issued or completed, inspected, and approved.

Uh there's an update uh from a couple of days ago, actually from yesterday.

So the fees were just finally paid yesterday.

And the permit is now issued as of yesterday.

The costs associated with the appropriately issued notice and order being appealed today.

Uh as noted, the total costs were 1597 and 50, but a payment was made, so the staff recommends that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of eleven hundred dollars for the work performed by the city on the property known as 1714 13th Street Circumanto, California 9581.

Parcel number 006 0282017.

Please see the documents attached.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

This is wow, you may begin.

I heard.

Can you hear me?

Okay.

Um I'm Diana Wilde.

I've owned this building for about 20 years.

Um previously in the 70s, uh, my husband and I moved and restored, moved across town and restored a Victorian.

Can you just ensure that your yeah?

Is it the green light on?

My husband.

There we go.

Yep.

Sorry.

That's okay.

Uh my husband and I moved across town and restored a Victorian home that's now on the register of historic buildings.

The only reason why I comment about this is because obviously I have some building experience.

Um I like a Victorian buildings, that's why I bought this particular property almost well over 20 years ago.

My concern about all of this is there's a lot missing in this report.

I will let you know.

Okay, so I came on board on September 15th, 2023.

Um, have to back up.

Uh, I'm sorry, I will get this.

Apparently on September 12th, um, Travis Bolan met with the um complainant who is a tenant in apartment C that has on the second level and has this nice deck.

I was in the process of trying to evict her, and in retaliation, she made this complaint.

I did not end up evicting her because I was given notice two days before the trial that since the building is under an LLC, I had to have representation.

Um that costs money, and so I canceled the eviction.

And unfortunately, she's still there causing all sorts of problems.

Um anyway, on September 15th, um, I met with Travis.

I didn't not acknowledge that the deck was unsafe, because I didn't feel it was.

However, it had not been permitted, and that was the glowing reason to take it down.

Which we did.

I hired two men, and they got it removed.

My job was to remove any remaining nails in every one of those boards.

Not one of those boards was rotted.

Not one.

I inspected every board before they were taken off.

Um, secondly, I wish I had been advised that perhaps I could get a variance and keep the deck.

Where it says that maybe it's not here yet, where the deck extended beyond one of the upstairs bedroom windows.

That was true.

It could have been cut back.

And I wanted to rebuild that deck.

It would have to be smaller to get away from the um property line.

It was right up next to it.

Um there was a reinspection on November 27th of 23.

Um, and in January 3rd, um, I let Travis know by email that I'd done some research, and then I wanted to install a Juliet balcony at the second story door.

Um he then promptly said, no, no, you can't just do that, which I didn't know, but that you needed a permit.

Um in October of 24, he warned me rightly that he would issue this notice and order, which did not happen at the time.

Um working on April 4th of 24, uh the owner claimed delays due to the tenants' eviction.

That took hours, it just got settled in court yesterday.

Can't say I'm not doing things.

Um November 15th, the inspector met with the owner at the site.

She agreed to either remove the unpermitted door or apply for a Juliet balcony permit.

Travis said he would contact the preservation department to determine how to proceed because we had to deal with preservation as well as uh planning, and he didn't know which came first.

I certainly didn't know.

Um, and because I was still trying to work on this eviction, and I had a tenant, there's only three units, and another tenant broke her lease and left, so he knew I was on overload, so he voluntarily said, I'll call the preservation department, I'll work with them, I'll get back to you.

That was November 15th, 2024.

Two days later, he emailed me and said, please send me copies of your proposed Julia balcony.

There is one of them, which I emailed to him, and there is the other one that I didn't like as well, but it was a possibility.

So we were moving ahead, we were trying to make things happen.

Notice the gap in time from November 15, 2024 to March 11, 2025.

What in the heck was going on in those four months?

I was sitting at home waiting to hear back from Travis.

I don't know how the building department or the preservation department works.

I was doing what I thought was correct, waiting for his direction.

Thanksgiving came, Christmas came, the new year came.

Like, what am I supposed to do?

March 11th, out of the blue.

The phone rang.

And it was Inspector Prof.

He had obviously been to the property.

And he was.

On the war path.

This is how he started the phone call.

Hello, I am Inspector Proc from the Sacramento Community Development Department.

I'm now handling your case.

You are out of compliance.

You haven't taken care of the door.

Why haven't you replaced the stair railing?

I was pretty shocked.

Number one, somebody knew.

Number two, being treated that way.

At this, and I didn't answer him.

At this point, I asked him to stop talking for a moment.

I explained that he was very adversarial and speaking to me as though I were some uncooperative, anti-compliant building owner.

His response was, don't you like the words I'm using?

I told him nicely that I prefer to work as a team to solve problems rather than act in an adversarial manner.

He made no comment.

I then explained to Inspector Proc that Travis Bolan and I had met late, early last fall to move the project forward.

Travis was aware that I was in the midst of trying to evict the tenant who had filed the deck complaint in retaliation.

Plus the tenant in apartment A had just broken her lease and left the unit with every appliance broken and messed throughout that unit.

Travis was aware that I was on overload, that I'm a single older mom and pop owner, and now with severely limited rental income to put towards the problem.

And that is why Travis volunteered to contact the preservation department himself to see if a Julia balcony railing could be installed.

Travis requested I email him two pictures of potential balcony railings, which I did.

Since Travis was the lead on this particular part of the activity, I'd been waiting for him to get back to me with the results of his research with people familiar to him in the preservation department as a plus.

Inspector Proc's announcement during our phone conversation that Travis Bolan was no longer with the building department was certainly news to me.

And I then understood why I was not I had not heard back from Travis.

I asked Inspector Proc if there were any notes in the file regarding Travis Bolin's plan to research Julia balconies with the preservation department.

And sullen no was his answer.

I then asked him if the two Juliet balcony pictures were in the file.

Again, a sullen no was his answer.

The obvious and immediate question in my mind was why had no one in the building department contacted me since last November after Travis Roland left.

That was four months ago.

Plus, where were the notes from Travis's and my last meeting and the pictures that I had sent to Travis?

Inspector Proc did not answer my questions, but instead switched his interrogation to the supposedly incorrect railing on the front outside staircase.

I told him that Travis Bolan and I had reached agreement that I would replace that railing to a mushroom shaped railing as soon as the winter rains were over.

That's now completed.

Our phone conversation came to a close after I told Inspector Proc that I would now reach out to the preservation department myself to see how to proceed, which I did.

I spoke with Sean DeCourcy, and he kindly gave me directions for going ahead with applying online for a building permit for the simple but effective prefab 42-inch high railing from Home Depot or Lowe's to be installed in the doorway as a Juliet balcony.

He figured there would be no problem with this fix.

As a result of our phone conversation on March 11th, Inspector Proc should have now recognized that I am not a responsible property owner, that I had been waiting for Travis Bolden's research to be completed, and that I intended to get the issue resolved in a collateral manner with the building department, and that I was not the cause of the four-month delay.

Instead, the very next day, Inspector Proc fined me $1,597 and issue a notice and order.

It's like I hadn't even been heard.

Excuse me, I regroup here.

Okay.

So I'm once that Mr.

Tim, just gonna interrupt real quick.

So just so you're aware, I'm gonna ask a quick question.

Did you did you file an appeal for a notice the notice and order?

Because that's not what we're here for.

You're so and that's why I'm trying to stop you so you don't waste too much time, but we're here to hear the fees.

I don't, and I've I've been on the board, but I've missed a few meetings over the last year, but I don't recall.

Was there a notice and order?

Because you're you're telling us why this shouldn't, and in the beginning, um the chair should have mentioned the two types of cases, the notice and order.

So you're appealing the fees here today, but when you appealed the notice and order, you would have that's the reasons why.

So right now, your your appeal is saying that the $1,500 or $1100 that's remaining is unfair and unjust from the city.

Right.

But your arguments are that you're contesting the whole notice and order itself.

I'm just stating that that occurred.

Okay.

So I just want to be sure that you're aware that you we're not hearing the appeal of a notice and order.

No, no, no.

Okay.

I agree.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh huh.

Okay.

Um, when I got that fine for $1,597.

I didn't quite know what to do about it because I couldn't afford to pay it.

Um back in January 3rd, I had indicated that I wanted to do the Juliet balcony, and the very next day I got majorly injured, and it wasn't until last month that they finally took me off workman's comp.

So I have been trying to move forward on this under duress.

My problem, I understand that.

Um, going ahead on that same day, March 12th, um, it says she asserted that she had an agreement with the inspector that no enforcement action would be initiated on the property.

That's not correct.

I was waiting for Travis to figure out how to proceed.

Um, and then it says the owner declined to provide any timeline for obtaining the required permit and was confrontational and dismisses.

Neither fits.

I was appalled and upset, not lashing out.

I was just quiet because I just didn't know how to deal with this new news.

Um April 24th.

Uh I couldn't figure everything out, and I was trying to figure out what my options were.

So I got out of bed and I drove up here from the Bay Area.

And uh spoke with Inspector Proc to figure out options.

And we came over three, which number one installed Juliet balcony railing.

I really wanted that.

That was my first choice.

Second, remove the exterior door and add sighting that matches the siding, or three, request a permit and build a new smaller deck.

So that we got that information and um so now I had to figure out um how to proceed.

Um my only choice that I came up with was I had to take the door out and replace matching siding.

Um that was the least expensive way to go.

It has been a challenge to try and find that right siding, um, but I think I've managed to do it.

Um my concerns are why am I being fined for the building department's four months of silence and delay?

I was ready to move forward last fall and was waiting to hear back from Travis.

Where are the emails between Travis and me?

They're not in your reports anywhere, so they're incomplete, and the transition between the two inspectors, I can see where the problem came because it wasn't in the file that Travis was gonna do this and figure things out, and he left, so he wasn't doing it.

Why has Travis's verbal decision to contact the preservation department not listed in the file?

Why aren't the two Juliet balcony railing pictures in the file after I emailed emailed him copies?

Where is my letter to Bo Cosley of 417 25?

Where is my letter to Peter Limos of 523-25 on 716 25 when I was applying in person for the permit?

Bo Cosley told me, quote, Travis Bolin had 83 cases when he transferred to a different department, and it took a while to get through all those cases.

Made sense, I didn't cause it.

Why wasn't I told by Travis before taking down the second story deck that the exterior door would be a problem?

There was no mention of that door, only the deck.

It's easy to install a Julia balcony railing or close up the door before taking the deck down.

Here's standing on the deck.

Now I have to hire a contractor to teeter on a two-story extension ladder to do this job at a much higher cost.

I can't do it anymore.

To date, the matching sighting has finally been located.

I have a contractor lined up to do the work definitely before November 7th deadline.

The front stair railing or railings as two of them have been replaced.

So the bottom line is there's been no intention on my part to delay or not comply with the community development department.

I didn't cause the four-month delay.

It was really frustrating sitting there waiting to hear back.

That the building department had failed to get back to me.

Thank you, Ms.

Watt.

I'm going to open up for comments and questions from the board if there be any.

So my first question: how familiar are you with the bundle of rights and responsibilities that comes with owning property?

I've owned property since 1970.

Excellent.

So was this your property or Mr.

Bolin's property?

My property.

I was following his direction.

Right.

And so it just there seems to be a lot of talk on Mr.

Bolin did not do this, did not do this, and if I was awaiting a you know the 30-day notice, 31 day notice, I it just seems to me as a property owner myself, you could have there is a time frame.

I understand your frustration.

However, this is your property, and at the end of the day, this is your responsibility, and not Mr.

Bolins.

There could have been a lot done in that time frame.

And my thing here, we have the we have quite the timeline before there's discrepancies.

And we have here, you know, there was a deadline on November 25th, 2024, before all of these discrepancies come up.

So I'm kind of I'm failing to see here, and I understand the frustrations with the customer service.

I understand, and I'm sure you know, cities working on it, but at the end of the day, this is your property, and there this thing was opened in September of 2023.

And so we've heard a lot of cases tonight about timelines and timeliness, and I understand the frustrations.

However, at the end of the day, this property is your bundle of responsibility, and you had you should have been the one driving, because I didn't I don't think that you know Travis, Mr.

Bolin signed on to be a project manager on this.

You know, the city's a partner in every process, however, it is not his responsibility.

At the end of the day, it is your responsibility to be your own project manager and be driving this process along.

So I'm always unfortunately, whatever may happen, you know, you knew about this with the six months with November 25th, 2024, after which a notice and order would have come into play, and this was before Mr.

Prack came along.

So I just do want to point those dates out before we get into discrepancies before we get into anything like that.

I hear what you have to say, what I don't know about and have no experience with the operations of the building department.

I don't know, and I now looking back, you would say it was wrong, but I felt I needed to wait for his direction that he had taken that lead, and it was up to me to follow.

So I'm gonna just interrupt real quick and confirm with the board.

Uh do we have to take a vote right now since it's eight o'clock?

I can't remember if it's a two and a half hour rule or three.

No, we don't.

We don't have to.

Okay.

Sorry.

Sometimes uh there, I apologize.

The rule before was at 8 o'clock we had to vote to continue because the hearing would end, but I guess it ends.

We're allowed to keep going.

Okay.

Sorry, just confirming.

We don't have to even at the 8:30, then.

Oh, okay.

Perfect.

Sorry about that.

Oh, the time is now 9 30.

Okay.

I didn't know, Bradley, we won't be here at 9 30.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

Okay, sorry, I I didn't, you were, were you done before I'm okay?

Oh okay.

So the only thing I'll add then, sorry, as we move on, um, in looking at the timeline, in addition to what she's mentioned, when it comes to November, I'm sorry, the date I have is July 16, 2025.

You submitted an application.

Yes, I drove up here again.

But you didn't pay the fees, which meant that.

I couldn't.

I couldn't.

I had trouble getting set up to pay the um 1597 with a payment plan.

And in the application and said, How much can you afford per month?

And I said $100.

The first fee was over $500.

And it's like, what is going on here?

I had this constraint, and the first fee for the first month is over $500.

I mean, uh, I was very upset.

So the reason I mentioned earlier is as you've heard, the the city has allowed to charge certain fees and um monitoring fees.

So technically, as soon as you were cited back in August 31st, 2023, you could have been hit with uh $1,500 fee back then, and then it would have started a $380 monthly fee.

So because you didn't contest, and I'm I that's what I was trying to explain earlier.

Your notice and order was never contested, meaning you didn't contest the way this went down.

You are arguing today your contestment of a notice and order, not the fees.

So the fees you never contested and just to to be sure, I mean to clarify, the notice and order is that you got this paper the whole time you were sitting there, you were arguing that you basically should have never got that paper.

It was part of the 1597.

That's right, but you didn't contest that.

That was a different.

No, I could.

They should have sent you the same form as you got, but as the board, we're not the city, so we can't hear that.

We can only hear because you're only contesting cost recovery.

So what we're hearing today, just so you're understanding, is the city is saying they've charged $15.97 for the two years of work that they've gone back and forth, and we have to decide are they overcharging you or are the fees that they're charging correct?

So that's why we can't really take a lot of the other things into consideration because you didn't contest those back when that was up.

That was the hearing.

So today's that's why when he mentioned in the very beginning of this hearing.

I think I did.

Well, today we're only here because it it would have had to go to the notice and order appeal, which was the first case that was heard today.

Then that was the only notice of uh notice and order appeal.

Today, all the other cases except that first one have just been cost recovery.

Okay.

This for the general public, you know what you're doing, you know the difference between all this stuff.

We're actually general public, we're just appointed by the board.

We don't work for the city or the county.

Well, but the point is you're familiar with the stuff and I'm not.

Yeah, and it trust me, I get it because I've had to be on the other end where you are before.

So I I do get that.

That's confusing, and all I keep finding is you know, money being or bills being thrown at me.

Um I will say, just so you're aware, if we do uphold the 15, the eleven hundred dollars remaining, you can apply for a hardship to have that be a payment plan.

I under a payment plan has been put on hold right now.

I see.

Okay.

The first amount was over $500, and it's supposed to be every um, sorry, it's supposed to be a hundred dollars every month.

Okay.

So it's been put on hold right now.

It doesn't appear you have a current building and uh and permit, is that correct?

I certainly do.

It just got you should yesterday, she paid the fees yesterday.

Oh, okay.

So it just that wasn't it.

That's okay.

That's that's last Saturday I put new people, new tenants in one of the units that gave me some cash Monday morning.

You went down and used the money.

I paid for the permit.

Before you get hit again with something, make sure that you're also participating in the rental housing inspection program.

Say that again, please.

The rental housing inspection program.

Are you participating in that now?

Because they can find you if you're not once they come in to inspect.

Oh, yes, I am supposed to self-represent on that because I keep the place so good.

Yeah, okay.

So as long as you're aware, yes, and they filled out the and you have a current building and permit right now.

Yes, I just got you should yesterday.

Okay, so I have no other.

No, with the they come out.

With the thing they either you can either self-certify or they come out because they don't have enough inspectors to send somebody out every year.

So some years they'll say you have to self-certify, some years they'll say we'll inspect.

No, I don't know when she started with the house the rental housing inspection program.

She said she's had this property for decades, so I assume she's been part of the program.

For quite a while.

So I mean, we can look it up.

I can't.

No, they they they went, they came and they inspected everything, and he said you keep this place beautifully, you can self-inspect going forward once a year.

Okay.

When?

Oh, when how many years ago?

10 15?

Ten, fifteen.

Yeah, so you haven't.

Okay.

So at least you're part of the program, so you don't have to worry about being feed.

That's all I'm at.

I have no other questions at this time.

Mr.

Boyd.

Is there a motion from the board?

Thank you.

Um sorry, where are you going?

I'll make a motion uh in regards to staff's record and staff's two staff's recommendation that the board.

But I'm just looking at something else above it.

See, that was just uh, yeah.

No, I was just looking at this is what she was talking about, but there was no date that to your point she didn't know okay.

Oh that was bringing the attention that it wasn't.

Sorry, I was misreading something that the highlight, but there wasn't any information.

I just realized why it was highlighted because there wasn't information anyway.

Back to my point, my motion is uh staff's recommendation to affirm staff's recommendation that the board adopt a decision on the excuse me, confirming.

Let me restate.

I'm making a motion on staff's recommendation that the board adopt or confirm uh hold on adopted decision confirming the total charge of 1,100 for the work performed by the city on the property known as 1714 13th Street, Sacramento, California, 95811, APN number 006-0282-017-000.

Second.

I'm talking.

Yes.

Taylor, aye.

Mrs.

Wow, the board did file in favor of the city confirming the charge of eleven hundred dollars for your property.

You will receive formal notification of our decision in the mail and any next steps that you can take.

Um but we do encourage you to continue to work with this inspector Proc.

It seems like you're going in the right direction.

So thank you.

Thanks for your time.

We call now item number.

11 and 12.

419th Street.

Victor Proc.

Uh, and Luke Shauver.

All right.

The secretary will swear you in, and then inspector Proc will begin.

One of the I can have all parties.

Oh, sorry.

I could have all parties for items number eleven and twelve.

Or the property located at 400 19th Street.

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Part.

Please begin.

Good evening again.

Uh, this is agenda item number 11 and twelve.

Case number two four zero one six five four zero.

Property owners, Luke Durham Shover Trust.

Property addresses full hundred nineteenth Street, Sarcamena, California, nine five eight one one.

Parcel numbers zero zero three zero one two one zero two eight.

Today's date is September 10th, 2025.

My name is Elijah Proc.

I'm a city building inspector for the housing and dangerous buildings.

This is for the accounting of expenses and special assessment.

Case opened on April 19th, 2024.

The current case status it is open.

On May 2nd, 2024, the subject property was inspected and found to contain significant unpermitted construction, including a garage conversion and the enclosure of the rear porch into a laundry facility.

A notice and order was issued, and the property was determined to be a public nuisance, unsafe and hazardous under Sacramento City Code, titles 8100 and or 896.

Despite repeated attempts to secure a voluntary compliance, the owner failed to apply for or obtain corrective permits to legalize the unpermitted work.

In accordance, in accordance with Sacramento City Code, administrative penalties and housing and dangerous buildings monitoring fees were assessed for ongoing noncompliance.

As of May 20th, 2025 inspection, more than one year after the original notice and order, no corrective permits had been issued and the structure remained in violation.

On June 17th, 2025, the owner uploaded acceptable plans for permit intake, and an invoice was emailed to the applicant.

Plan review was scheduled to proceed upon payment.

On July 9th, 2025, the initial plan review fees were paid, and the cycle one review process began, resulting in multiple correction notices issued to the applicant.

The owner is now appealing the HDB monitoring fees dated July 29th, 2024.

My mic just cut off.

Oh there you go.

The owner is now appealing the HDB monitoring fees dated July 29th, 2024, and November 27th, 2024, which were properly issued pursuant to Sacramento City Code.

While the owner has since obtained a submitted plans and initiated the plan review process, these actions occurred long after the monitoring fees in question were properly assessed as part of the continued enforcement action.

So there are two fees here.

Um invoice number CDD CHC 20391 is for $380.

And the other invoice is CDD CHC, uh 21699, also $380.

So I'll provide two staff recommendations here for one for item 11 and one for item 12.

Staff recommends that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of $380 for item 11 for the work performed by the city on the property known as 4019th Street Sacramento, California, 95811.

And then for item number 12, staff recommends that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of 380 dollars for the work performed by the city on the property known as 419th Street Sacramento, California, 95811.

Please see the documents attached.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

Shaw.

Actually, before we proceed, I'm reading the appeal.

And is this case currently under litigation?

It is.

It's not an attorney.

Okay.

I was just normal fees that we're pro per in the case.

So I'm not sure how legally it's supposed to work, but I'm trying to get an injunction to stop this, and I'm trying to say that they've broken several laws that this shouldn't have to be.

Sorry, I was just I was asking procedural for internal, yes.

I get it.

No problem.

Go ahead.

I just was curious.

Thank you, Mr.

Anthem.

Mrs.

Shaver, please begin.

Yeah, um, so since we're gonna speak nothing but the truth, I wanted to correct some things that Mr.

Proc already said that he misspoke on.

Um he said the trust is a Luke Durham Shauver Trust.

My name is Luke Durham Shauver.

The trust is Luke Addicken Shaver Trust.

So we'll correct that.

Also, in his story, he makes it seem like I have not been participating or been proactive on trying to do this ever since I got this notice and order.

It's been a nightmare, and I've been nothing but compliant in trying to get this, moving through the slower than molasses uh permit approval process that City of Sacramento has.

And how I'm treated, I can relate with the previous lady.

Um I'm being treated like a multiple felon.

I'm trying to do my best here.

And with no help from some of the employees here.

I have a lot of help from other people that have helped me through this process.

Um the entitlement application was completely neglected when he mentioned uh dates and trying to apply for permits is making make it almost seem like I didn't apply for permits till July.

I've been dealing with this nightmare since May 2nd of 2024, and he did mention it's been a year.

I have been trying to apply for permits for over a year, and I'm still here today without permits.

I can't imagine I can even tell you how many hours I have spent researching, building some of the most beautiful permits are uh blueprints and plans that even my friends who go through reviews and deal with blueprints and plans all the time are impressed with how they look.

But yet, even a year later, now I'm just being told now I have to get a foundational plan.

Why did any of the people previously, including the case manager, not say that that was needed?

Now I'm very well aware that's on a checklist.

That's an item that could be potentially needed, but I was never told it was needed.

So now I'm going through a structural engineer and a new designer and having those provided for the city.

So I am trying to contest anything that's that's acting as if I am not being compliant, which I've been told several times by some of this process that I am not, which I have documented so many times that I have been so compliant, yet waited, like that previous lady had, for a response to questions because this whole process is very unfamiliar to most people, and to navigate through this system is almost near impossible.

So I look on to city officials that are spearleading this program to answer simple questions.

What is the scope?

What is the time frame that this is going to be?

How much is this going to cost me?

Because to manage a project like that, you need to know those answers.

Which those answer or those questions were asked, and months later I got some of the most in unhelpful, almost smirky-like answer to those questions.

Those are simple questions to be able to manage this kind of type of case.

So when I'm even trying to be compliant, for an example of applying for a water hot water permit, which I am legally obliged to do so because I have tenants in that building besides myself, and they all we all have to have hot water.

It seems like I'm retaliatorily denied the ability to apply for that permit.

I had to install that hot water heater permit, anyways.

I can't get a single contractor to install a hot water heater because no one wants to jeopardize their license and install it without getting permits.

I'm stuck in this horrible.

What am I supposed to do?

I'm trying to apply with permits, can't get the permits, so I have to do the work myself.

I've tried everything I can.

Now I'm getting lawyers because I found 18 different violations the city has applied to.

I admit I didn't get permits for conversion of a garage door that I didn't think was a structural issue.

I'm wrong.

I'll admit to that.

But all the things that I have found the city doing wrong, and I am trying my best to navigate through this, is a nightmare.

And I just want the permits.

Let's get this permitted.

Let's make sure it's safe and legal, and let me move away from this this nightmare.

And I can't.

Here I am today when I've been working since 8 a.m.

and a lot of this time that I have to deal with to manage this case, I can't even work because this is taking so much of my time.

Now here I am.

It is 8:30, and we're all here, and thank you for for hearing me.

It's always nice to hear that it's not the city I'm dealing with, to be honest.

So thank you guys.

Um and I'm still trying to fight this.

I've had the longest day trying to even get through all of this, had engineers come over to my house.

So I don't want to take anyone more more's time, but I'm I need this to go away.

I can't afford any of this.

They're having me rip out windows that are perfectly double chain dual windows, but they're not made of wood or aluminum.

So I have to rip out all these windows, half of whom you can't even see.

So I'm trying to navigate just through getting these permits, apply for the $5,000 I've already spent, which I haven't even paid for the permits yet.

That's just the review process, and I know that I'm gonna have to pay for some of the work that I don't even know all of what has to be done yet.

Let me get through this.

Why am I even here anymore?

I want this to be over with.

So thank you for your time.

I can't afford this.

I want this all to go away.

I'll do whatever I can, and I have tried.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Shaver.

Any questions or comments from the board?

Yes.

I have a question for you.

You may have more than one.

When you said you couldn't apply for a permit, after the first inspection, I'm not understanding what was holding you back from applying for the permit.

No, I have to get through an entitlement application process before I can apply for permits.

So even though I own the house, I have to apply for the ability to see if I can even do the work first.

That whole process lasted until July of 2020 or somewhere when I finally got the approval.

So that was its own round of cycles and reviews and processes that had nothing to do with permits.

It was just preservation.

I paid for an engineer to supposedly look through the plans.

Never got a report back from that, that I paid several thousand dollars for.

So I was, I in my mind, I'm applying for permits since day one.

I started submitting the email with blueprints and things that I was giving to the inspector.

But come to find out that this whole circus of a money generating machine to the city of Sacramento, it wasn't even me applying for permits, it was just me applying for the ability to be able to do the work and apply for permits.

Mr.

Prockey, maybe I'm lost here.

For what he just explained, walk me through why he had to do that.

He has to do exactly what I'm sorry.

Apply for the entitlement to apply for an application for a permit to do construction.

Yes, I can explain that.

Um so it is a citywide uh policy that the city adopted.

Any building that is greater than 50 years old, um, they don't have to be necessarily a historic landmark, but if it is a contributing contributing resource and any building over 50 years, uh mostly they are, there's a policy uh that is uh an ordinance that has been set by the council uh city council and that requires all owners across the city to go through that process, the entitlement process.

So this is not just me hampering the process here, but this is something that the city requires of every homeowner if they wish to alter or modify the conditions of their existing structure.

Thank you for that.

Now I did hear you say preservation.

Now, just for clarification, you stated whether it's um landmark under the preservation and or 50 years or older.

Could be under one of the two.

No, uh, preservation.

Um, you know, they there's a list of register of historic landmarks in the city of Sacramento, and so it's available on Lions public record.

Um, so when a building is determined to be a historic landmark, they have more even more stranger requirements for them to go through the process now.

Any building greater than 50 years old, uh, there are some policies still in place that the uh the property owner must follow in order to uh for that to comply with.

And that's the first step in the process.

And unfortunately, you know, there's been a lot of back and forth of a lot of a lot of incomplete submittals, and only now we got to the point where it was finally accepted back in July here.

Short answer to your question, still yes, but it's 50 years old, or it has to deal with preservation in terms of historic same thing.

You still have to go through president.

As fifth that's because you kind of ran it together and still didn't separate it.

Thank you.

And design review.

I mean, that's just citywide, 50 years plus.

The that's what was I didn't hear it in the uh report coming out preservation historic.

That would have added nuances to this.

If it was in there, I didn't hear it and I didn't read it.

That would have circumvented a whole lot of my confusion.

For clarifications, uh, in terms of what you want to do to the property that either is non-conforming or different or creative.

Yes, you have to get an entitlement because sometimes you have to get a variant to do this to do that.

So there's all kinds of things depending on what you want to do with the property, where it exists in the city.

So you have to get an entitlement.

You have to ask them, can I do this to my building that's located here?

That I I'm with you, and but that was throwing me because, like, why that's why I had to say it sounded like I wasn't being compliant.

He said I started applying in July.

I had to make note of that.

And and mind you, when I'm getting charged these housing monitoring fees, at no point have I ever been non-compliant as far as doing construction without a permit since I got that notice in order.

So getting any repeated kind of violations to me is also kind of a slap in the face.

Why are you saying you get a lot of?

Not on no, not since I got my notice of order.

Oh, yeah, yes, but once I I'm just trying to state that once like that I did no work because I have to wait to get permits, is what I'm saying.

So I haven't done none since I guess.

So during that time of putting your blueprints together and so forth so on, you brought in a contractor to assist you, you brought in architect to assist you in the preparation for entitlement application, or you were doing it on your own.

I was doing most of it on my own.

I did have some like people guiding me and consulting me, making sure that I was making all the appropriate um like annotations and there's all kinds of icons and stuff, making sure it was all correct and it was submitted to be as if an engineer or a designer was not designing these blueprint.

So then that wasn't the city's issue for why you didn't submit um your applications.

In a more timely fashion because it was you doing it.

I couldn't apply for the the cycle round of applications and the actual permit process until I got through the entitlement process.

That's was what I'm stating.

So that process was on your behest for however long it took you to get your entitlement.

Well, yeah, so it was back and forth between me and the city.

A lot of the times I was waiting on emails for responses.

I had several questions.

This is something I have never navigated for before.

And uh a lot of the times I wasn't getting any of the answers or responses that I was asking, and several of those emails have been still unresponsive.

So yes, it was backwards forth between me and the city, and uh that's why it took so long to get those.

I mean, this has been a process that's been going on and on.

Right, right?

And just uh, uh, um, despite repeated attempts to secure voluntary compliance, the owner failed to apply for or or obtain corrective permits to legalize the unpermitted work.

That was under the May 2nd, 2024.

My point being.

That wasn't the city's issue.

That came down to you.

Correct.

As I said, when I what if I can finish?

But so if we're gonna paint a picture here, this use all the colors.

So it's not the city caused me not to have this done in X amount of time.

So then a year later I was able to because the city prevented me from just for clarification.

Yes, correct.

And okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I'm good for right now.

Okay.

All right.

I I have a couple of questions.

Or you were done, you were saying right, yeah.

So on May 2nd, it opened.

As of May 20th, so a year later.

No corrective permits had been issued at that time.

So were you when did you you were notified May 2nd?

When did you start working with the city, not the inspector to start pulling the permits?

Um I was working on an event for work in July, so I probably I think August 19th is the first time I started applying.

Of 2024?

Correct.

Okay.

When are these two four?

And while you look that up, you started, did when was the first time you submitted something to the city?

I think it was the 19th.

August of I have a time.

It says monitoring fee while the applications were pending in the city filled to respond or act email, show repeated inquiries on the 19th, 27th, September 9th, September 16th, and all lack city responses.

Um, August 8th, 19th, I think is the first.

Of 2024, right?

Okay, so I guess Inspector Proc.

My question is as long as he's going back and forth with the city building inspector.

I thought for the most part the monitoring fees are put on hold.

No, no, until not until we have at least an acceptable submittal on file.

Anybody can submit an email or a phone call that does not constitute an acceptable submittal.

Oh, there's a lot of work that goes into play in order to be able to produce acceptable submittals for for the scope.

What was the first date something was submitted to the city?

Um I have to search it up.

I don't have it off hand here.

Um August 19th, I have an email where I submitted him plans.

Not an email, you submitted the actual document.

In my mind, that's how I first started.

Now, if I did that incorrectly, I should have been told that this is not how you apply for the permits or how you submit it.

Mr.

Cosley?

Yes.

So just help me out here.

You asked the question when was the first time?

August 20th is about right.

Okay.

So I guess.

Kicked back.

So when did it can you help me with the timeline then?

Do you have it up?

As when he submitted the first time.

Yeah, get that.

So then when did they kick it back to him?

August 20th was the time that it was.

I mean, that's I don't, yeah, that's fine.

And then they reviewed it for several months or several weeks.

Well, I mean, if you don't have it in order.

Oh, so they just gave it right back to him.

Oh, not really.

The corrections as to what you need to present for them to consider and accept in an application.

You have to have all the parameters in place.

Otherwise they don't they don't accept it.

I see.

So it was never actually accepted.

It's planning, which is a different uh different the planning is he's asking to do this, do this and do that.

They give him direction, but then when he goes to submit something as an application, everything has to be in order.

He's never achieved that.

Okay, so he hasn't.

I see.

I'm even still confused because wouldn't that be the planning where I'm applying for permits?

Because I think we're talking about the entitlement application process.

Which is which is what he's saying he submitted.

The entitlements, you have to have an entitlement in order to move forward with the project.

And the entitlement application was the August, August 20th.

I believe that's the big you're saying you first submitted.

I mean, I think that I had like three, it was back and forth, so it's like I I submitted plans and then something it went through uh a couple different people in the city, and then it what they wanted me to make changes.

So then I had to make those changes.

Then I submitted it back to them.

So it was back and forth multiple times.

I think until I don't want to give an incorrect date, I have a list of dates right here.

So where are we now?

Between still not permits, my hand.

I have gone through my first cycle round cycle one of reviews with my first correctional notices.

So this says I guess in my mind, and correct me if I'm wrong, would be the first time I've actually applied for permits officially.

When?

Uh I think that was in it was just recent.

Um within the last month, I think.

Okay.

I got the review back from cycle one, which then included the correctional things, the things that I need to change, modify, or edit in order to then continue.

I don't know if it's I get proved through cycle one, okay, or I get the permits.

It was June of this year, maybe you spent that.

How many monitoring fees have been issued since May of last year?

Uh just to clarify the point on the um latest submittal.

So it was accepted uh June 17th.

Cycle one corrections were issued um begin of July, and we're waiting on the response from Mr.

Schauber to respond to those corrections pertaining to the last question he asked.

How many monitoring fees were issued since then?

Uh one quick second.

How many administrative penalties?

That's what I asked.

That's the same thing.

This isn't about administrative penalties, I think.

So since May of last year, right?

The house the hold on one second.

Go ahead.

Did you say in May of last year or this year?

May of last year.

Since uh May of last year, um, there were a couple of administrative penalties that were uh appealed to the LHO DLHO process and they were reduced or waived, uh monitoring fees.

Uh there was one and five August.

I'm sorry, uh June of last year that was waived.

Uh then one in September.

Five there.

Yeah, three of which were either reduced or waived.

Okay.

So we'll have to remain.

So where are we right now?

So in the nightmare.

So I'm assuming he's still they're waiting for him to submit back.

Correct.

How long does he normally have to submit back before you would issue another monitoring fee?

Um so the monitoring fees are I know that.

Every 30 days until we have an issue permit.

And another thing I'd like to mention is this.

So if we don't have a response to those corrections for 60 days from the date of issue of those corrections, that whole application process could be completely stopped and uh closed due to inactivity, which would further generate administrative penalties and fees, I know we would like to avoid that.

I would too, and some I mean, I can respond in the email if that's justifiable response, but I'm waiting on a structural engineer.

I've had to go through calling and batching several of them until I can get one that's ready to work and can sign up for it.

They have to then go to the designer and design the floor plan blueprint.

So sometimes I think some of these reviews are easy to navigate to quickly change them and move through them.

Some of them are very cumbersome things that are being requested or asked.

So uh especially when you're on a limited budget resources, it's it's like the whole world's against you.

So I'm almost ready to resubmit my submittal with all the corrections that they wanted me to do.

Okay.

From July.

Yeah.

No, September 9th, if it's 60.

The last correctional issue July 30th, cycle one correction.

All right.

Um, yeah, this one's a little trickier for me, I'll be honest.

I and is is it I it's my understanding, sorry.

Sorry to interrupt.

Um, the administrative penalty is what's not I think I see on this paper for me to be able to contest.

It just looks like there's two housing monitoring fees.

That's the only thing that we're allowed to hear today.

Right, right.

Okay, yeah, because I was just hearing administrative penalties, those are completely different, and that to me is if you're being non-compliant, which is not on the docket today.

Well, I think in their eyes, when it goes past the 60 days, that's considered non-compliant.

Oh, yeah.

So that's where you could then get the.

I've never gone that long without responding.

So I think in other words, I think what he's saying is come September 30th, October 1st.

If you don't have plans in, you could get another one of these fees.

So okay.

Or they could kick me out of the program or the cycle or I don't.

There's no rule book.

I only understood half the words you said in the first two minutes of your thing because I that's I'm not a building inspector and I don't understand that I'm not either, and I'm just trying to navigate through the city's program that they've designed.

And I will say though, they are they do have set deadlines, and the whole point is it's there so that we don't have homes, as you've seen some some of these cases that have been open since 2021.

Which my my house they there's nothing dangerous with it.

Well, okay.

I let's let's there's it's called dangerous in how how buildings and I I get that because I understand the same thing.

That's what they're calling making it dangerous, but the structural engineer has already told me that we've done this perfectly fine.

So but we're talking about that.

So I'm I'm in the middle, so just all because I can't I have to have open mate.

Um I will say I understand that there's been a lot of back and forth.

I will say you come back to this board again if you decide to appeal any other fees that you have not appealed so far.

So I will say obviously I remember this case now, um, but I'm leaning toward leaving one administrative fee and doing the other, but I will say those deadlines now are coming up, and I understand you're working and you are aware that you have 60 days from when you submit, so that if you come very well aware, and I've never gotten towards that length of time without responding.

However, some of my emails have still gone on response.

So I wish that the city would be at that same kind of level of they will get back to me on certain things as well.

I will be submitting plans with new blueprints within before the end of the month.

That's not a problem.

Hold on one second, Mr.

Cosley.

I was just curious.

You were saying administration.

Am I saying the wrong word?

The three the monitoring fee.

Sorry.

That's required.

That's just, no, no, I'm just saying I'm my proposal.

It's been it's a long day, sorry.

That's my that's not the word.

My motion, thank you, is going to be to just remove one.

I've already forgot the name.

You monitoring fees, yes.

Sorry.

I'm gonna just, does anybody else have any questions?

And then we'll move forward.

I don't know if this is the only time.

Maybe it's not, I'll be right back.

Okay.

Um I'm going to adopt staff recommendation confirming the total charge though of make my own recommendation of $380 for the work performed by the city on the property known as 400 nineteenth Street Sacramento, California, 95811, APN number 003012102800.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Void.

All right.

And tablion.

Yes.

Taylor.

I.

So I let me just add real quick.

The reason why, again, you you aren't contesting the notice and order.

You're contesting the fees, and so we have to assess whether or not the city, and I get the city, trust me, I get it, building inspection and the city inspectors are two different areas.

And one, they have done some of their jobs as well.

They have done their jobs, but I understand the situation you're in, or we understand because we both all agreed to cut it in half on this one.

So I want you to be at least aware that I'm in this.

I'm not saying the city is in correct in doing what they're doing, but I will highly encourage that you stay within your 60-day deadlines because you will continue to get those monitoring fees of $380.

I'm sorry, Chair, go ahead.

I mean, you can say you'll get the thing in the mail, whatever you say.

Oh, yes.

We gotta do both.

I do appreciate that though.

I thought we vote.

What?

So we gotta do this.

We have to pass the vote.

You broke it up into two.

I said 380.

Oh, so I have to say the other one.

For 12, we're waving then, right?

Because we did 380.

So I confirming nothing.

I would like to make the motion waiv the next one.

I think it good.

Oh, you gotta read all of that.

Why do you hate me?

Sorry.

I will, but there where's the in.

So we did 380 dollars for invoice.

Okay, the first invoice.

I didn't read the first.

Okay.

Do you need clarification?

That's fine.

So the 380 dollars was for CDDCHC 21699.

I'm making a recommendation for invoice CDDCHC 2039 to be zero for the property known as 400 19th Street, Sacramento, California, 95.11, APN number 003012, 102800.

Second.

Fisher.

Yes.

Void.

Aye.

And tablion?

Yes.

Taylor.

Aye.

So Mr.

Schauber, we did file in favor of the city for item number eleven in the cost of 380.

But wait, item 12.

In the cost of 380, you'll receive formal notification of our decision in the mail and any next steps that you may take.

Thank you.

Thank you guys.

No problem.

All right.

Yes.

Item number 13.

Inspector Matthew Sartane for address 1850 Club Center Drive.

Appellant is Garen Calvin.

All right.

The secretary will swear you in, and then we will start with Mr.

Sartane.

Okay, if I could have all parties for item number 13, property 1850 Club Center Drive, please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs.

Darcy.

Agenda item 13, case 25-006205.

Property owner Natomas Park Owner LP.

Property address 1850 Club Center Drive.

Parcel number 225-1730 1000.

I am city staff Matthew Sartane.

Uh this case opened on 220 2025.

Um, on 3 4 2025, I arrived at unit 614.

I was allowed entrance by the tenant.

Once inside, the tenant showed me several areas of concern, including the kitchen, bedrooms, and bathrooms.

I found several violations and documented them.

I sent for a preliminary notice.

On 3 4 2025, later in that day, I received a secondary complaint from unit 518.

On 310 2025, I received an email from management saying that they received the preliminary notice and wanted to know which units the notice was regarding.

I responded that same day.

On 4-8, 2025.

I sent another email to Sophia and Garin from management asking for an update for apartments 614 and 518.

On five or 415 2025, I arrived at unit 518 and was allowed entrance by the tenant.

I inspected all areas that were of concern by the tenant, including the master closet, master bathroom, and front door.

The tenant explained that they had just replaced the drywall in the closet again, and that every time it rains, the closet gets wet and ruins her items.

She said that they recently did a moisture test which showed 30% moisture in the drywall.

I sent for a notice and order for units 518 and 614.

Staff recommends that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of 1,597.50 cents for the notice and order on the property known as 1850 Club Center Drive, APN 225 173 000 1000.

Thank you, Mrs.

Artane.

Mr.

Calvin, please begin.

Well, I'm start by saying thank you guys.

Thank you for your time.

Um I really appreciate this.

It's been real informative, and it gives me like a good feeling to know that you guys are competent and diligent.

So thank you.

And Matthew's Matthew, he's been a whole bunch of help.

So for us, one thing that I did notice about this hearing, this is about the only the charges and not about the um the notice.

We weren't informed or and I personally didn't know the process of appealing the notice only because he did reach out and we the entire time we've been in communication and um he gave me the guidance on what we needed to do.

Um we repaired um everything that was necessary, gave him the backup and everything.

So my first point is we were in communication.

I'm not sure if that notice and order was necessary.

Um I'm not sure how you guys do that, how that procedure is, but as far as the charges, um, we're contesting the notice and order costs.

Um, primarily because it's our understanding that it's supposed to be like recouping fees or any costs incurred for enforcement or um any kind of actions necessary.

Um, and in this particular case, no actions were necessary.

You guys didn't have to monitor anything, he didn't need to do anything but come out, see the issue, communicate us with us through email, we got it fixed.

Um, offered him, you know, gave him all the documentation he needed to.

Um it's it's been pretty good.

I just um we're basically here.

Um I'm saying like the notice was not necessary, and um we repaired everything and uh provided all the documentation, and there were no actual costs on the city's side that were incurred from this.

Um, and then that's pretty much it.

Thank you, Mr.

Gabin.

All right, I'll open up the board.

Any comments or questions?

Yeah, I have a question.

So you're saying everything's done, your listing list is still open.

So do you think it's done?

Well, I it is it is all the work has been completed, and I provided the documentation to Matthew.

Um, and what still needs to be done?

Just to clarify, uh, on 422 2025, I inspected unit 614.

All work was complete for that unit.

Um the continuation of the permit or the case is based on unit 518.

Um, what happened was that drywall had been sealed up.

So according to us, we were okay.

The tenant had the drywall reopened up to prove to me that inside was an issue.

Okay, so from what I'm hearing correctly, is you looped two cases into one, which basically saved him $1,500 instead of opening a second case.

Um, because it's the same parcel, technically it's one case.

Oh, okay.

So different units can be okay.

That's good to know.

Right.

Yeah, and as far as that goes, um, she did open it up and show that there was um I guess some kind of dry rot in there.

Um we have repaired that and everything is good now.

I've been in communication with uh Matthew.

Um the only issue is the resident um did this complaint actually was in retaliation um the the tenant is in eviction so when she got into the eviction process she filed the um the complaint and we've done the work but she's like um basically difficult she doesn't want us to um access the unit to be able to document anything to send to him so we've done everything and it's all complete but we cannot get access to the unit she's currently in eviction um and we're going through that I've communicated that with Matthew as well okay work itself has been completed to answer your question the costs associated is opening the case and all of the work that the inspectors do so it's all the communication coming out I know you're you may think of it as like work that they may have to do that's like they don't do work on the property.

So it's all the communication with you having to drive out and do the inspections having to write up the reports that's the costs associated with this $1500 just just so you're aware.

For a little bit more clarification like um the 1360 for the um notice aside aside from uh our opinion that it wasn't necessarily necessary because we were in communication with Matthew would what would that entail like just the emails or go ahead.

Thank you.

Mr Sartin would you answer that question please um when does a notice of order get initiated.

So uh technically uh notice and order is when there is a or violations found and then not a progression towards um the fix of the the violations found so um going back let's see uh I was contacted with them uh 310 2025 by email and then on 4 8 I sent another email asking for an update and then in 415 is when I saw the other unit I had not received at that point yet another confirmation email from them sent the notice in order because of that but then they did respond shortly after the notice and order came can I also um just Matt you've been a whole bunch of help initially the um the complaint was about 614 and it was about 518 518 they had a um a complaint about in their closet um all of that was completed and when he came back out it was completed but they had another issue with the door frame and um the um the shower pan right uh yeah she kept finding um things to add yeah exactly but but when he came out like the initial things we got the complaints for all of this it it was done and by the time the um the notice and order was issued the original complaints were already completed so when he came back out it was new complaints that needed to be fixed that we hadn't been informed about and he hadn't been informed about so like we were in communication he let us know what needed to be done we completed everything and when he came back out then that's when a new issue was was brought up and we handled that immediately but then we got the notice uh an order after that so but at every time as soon as we got the communication from either the tenant or from him we immediately handled it like um I believe I emailed you guys the records like the work we're we have on-site staff so our maintenance staff literally went immediately there so there was never a time where we didn't react to anything or it wasn't actually repaired because by the time he came out to check it all it was another issue that wasn't reported um okay about the question go ahead I defer thank you so help us all to understand that the appellance statement there.

Yeah, the um let me see.

I can read uh an email I had from Sophia on the 15th.

Uh hi, Matthew.

I apologize for not getting back to you sooner.

Violation uh this she just put the um code case for unit six fourteen was completed.

Please let me know if I'm able to send pictures uh or have you come back out to inspect.

Um so she sent that on 4 15.

Uh and the email I had sent to her was on 4.8.

The notice in order, I believe, was sent 415.

So it was sent before getting this email.

Uh that email to be specific was at 602 p.m.

on 415.

Turn my mic back on.

Thank you for that.

So the notice of order happens.

Um let me rephrase the question.

How many days after your contact or your uh request for information goes out?

Does the person get before the notice of order happens?

Um it varies from case to case depending on the case.

In this case, it was that um I had sent out an email or we had a communication on 310, and then the next one was me sending an email on 4.8, um to which it was not responded to until 4 15, which ended up being later in the day uh at the 6 02 p.m.

when the notice and order at that point had been sent at probably like three o'clock.

Well, I got you.

So let me back up to um 3 10.

So on 3 10 was uh hold on a second, I received secondary received email from the management saying that they received the primary notice, no.

Okay, no.

Well.

I'm straightening out my own road here.

I'm with you.

You know, they missed it by let's say a couple hours or whatever.

But backing that up to what the appellant had stated was the work was already done in uh apartment 614.

So there was completion regardless.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Uh hold on a second.

Yeah, the email from uh at on 415 at 602 is the one that stated that the unit 614 had been completed.

So until then I had no knowledge of it.

Gotcha.

They lay in a dollar short.

But it does sound like they overlapped exactly on the same day.

A couple hours, we would issue a notice in order during regular business hours, and then he receives the email after hours.

So, you know, there it was.

But we did wait over 30 days prior to issuing the notice and order after the preliminary letter, but of course, as you can see, they overlap.

Yeah, and and my point, uh I apologize for that.

In our company, the work was completed, but I communicate with my boss and then she communicates with you.

So there was a delay, um, but the work was completed, and um I I apologize for that.

I it's there's nothing else I can say.

There was several people in communication, so I could see there being confusion there.

I I understand that.

Gotcha.

Go ahead, go ahead.

I mean, I get it.

There's reason for notice and order.

I'm fine with um like a thousand dollar notice and order knocking 360 dollars off the notice of order cost.

You guys have any concerns with that?

I'm not yeah, I was gonna ask if you have any more questions.

I do.

Um, Ms.

Cosley.

As you said, uh 30 days, the notice of order can happen or gets generated from the first uh inspection, right?

If there's work to be done, if there's no communication, or even if there is communication, the work is being progressed, a notice of order can still be initiated after 30 days from the uh initial inspection.

I mean, you know, I'm just gonna be specific.

A notice in order to be issued pretty easily, if there's a file.

That's what I was trying to get at the uh we do do send a preliminary letter because that's kind of like a courtesy.

You're there, you're telling them this is an issue, and you gotta see if they're gonna be compliant.

So let's keep in mind that the preliminary letter is a courtesy.

So 30 days from there is generally when we say we gave you a courtesy letter.

If it's not done within 30 days, then we can give you an actual notice in order to put it on the right.

And the prelims say to to respond within 10 days, but they did as a to be fair.

Yeah, we responded and we were on it.

Um it just seems like it's a timing type thing for the notice.

Uh it doesn't, I mean, you guys know that there's nothing other than that, but we were in communication the entire time as soon as we got the preliminary notice, we did do the repairs as soon as possible, and um we got into communication um with him and uh throughout the entire time.

Literally, we sent the email to him like three hours late.

Um, literally, yeah.

And you just hit the nail on the head, yeah.

Um to um what was spoken the 30 days again, it's a um the preliminary is um was the word I'm looking for courtesy, thank you.

It didn't, it could have it could have been made.

City doesn't have to do that, yeah.

So that's three four.

So you go to four-three, April 3rd.

So that was that 30-day leniency courtesy.

I'll say courtesy.

So again, is the office stagnation is what's costing you guys.

And with that, yeah.

So the city, in at least my opinion, when I go to make this recommendation was within their rights, they did do everything correct, but with lenience that you guys you all were on top of it.

I'm I'm gonna make a recommendation because I feel like you somewhat met them.

There are some fees that have to be they can't reduce anyway like the termination and the title costs.

So with the 360 dollar reduction, I'm going to make a um recommendation confirming the total charge of 1,237.50 for the notice and order on the property known as 1850 Club Center Drive APN number two two five one seven three zero zero zero one zero zero zero zero.

What would you tell one thousand two thirty seven fifty?

Second that helps Fisher.

Yes, Boyd.

Aye.

And tablion.

Yes, Taylor, aye.

So Mr.

Calvin, we did find in favor of the city, however, we reduced the total charge by 360 dollars.

You receive formal notification of our decision in the mail and any next steps that you can take.

Thank you.

Is it time to go home yet?

Ready for call.

You wouldn't think that.

I have a comment.

Hold on, we got item 14.

Hold on.

Item number 14, Secretary.

Yeah.

Okay.

The following lines shall be heard as blanket items.

The city.

Sorry.

City staff recommends that the board adopt a decision confirming the total charge noted by each agenda line for the expenses incurred by the city and enforcement of the provisions of the housing code and or dangerous buildings code with respect to the property known by the physical address or parcel number, APN, as noted within each agenda line for item number 14.

Lines 1 through 32, lines 34 through 60, and lines 62 through 140.

So move.

Second.

Is sure?

Yes.

Void.

Aye.

I and tablion?

Yes.

Ahmad.

I'm sorry, Taylor.

Aye.

I thank you.

We'll not have any board comments and then public comments.

I'll defer to Mr.

Cosley first.

I was just going to say well done for 13 items.

Okay.

Well, then in that case, I think the recommendation that we don't go past 10 again.

I thought that we had a rule.

So some of the items so what so I mean that nicely.

I'm just I'm tired.

I have an eight to five job.

Yes.

Right.

Thank God that we can don't have to go till nine or eight thirty.

Like I was trying to also help the other one go a little faster, but that wasn't working so well.

So can we stick a ten?

Well, you have to also keep in mind that some of them carried over and some of them are doubled over.

And then sometimes if with there's a a late appeal that we've received for last month, and then they're already they get another packet for this month, um, they would move them over so it rather than seeing the same people or the same items, you know, back to back to back, they're put together.

Yes.

I know.

Thank you.

Thank you, Peter.

I know, but you're not helping my case.

And George is only here for six.

Okay.

First of all, I missed one person in the pledge of allegiance.

All right.

Oh, we can work in the case.