The housing code advisory and appeals board will now come to order.

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

The board is an impartial decision maker.

The board is appointed by the mayor with approval of the city council.

Your board members are myself, Brandon Fisher, the chair.

We also have Mr. Boyd, vice chair, and Ms. Taylor.

We also have Leah Billings, secretary to the board,

Peter Lemos, Code and Housing Enforcement Chief, and Arvind Akar, Counselor to the Board.

The Secretary will now call the roll.

Fisher?

Yes.

Boyd?

Here.

Taylor?

Here.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

to the original people of this land

the Nisanan people, the southern Maydew

Valley and Plains Myowoc

Papua and Wintom 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 act of

practice of acknowledgement and appreciation

for Sacramento's indigenous people's history

contributions and

lives. Thank you. Let us now have the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. May be seated.

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

For item 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 preponderance of the evidence

that an owner has violated the dangerous building 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 the 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 3 through 5, we are here to consider the expenses incurred by the city in the notice and order

and the repair, demolition, or securing of any building or structure done in the housing and dangerous buildings cases before us,

together with any protests or objections.

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

This board may revise, correct, or modify the proposed charges as we deem just.

Once this board is satisfied with the correctness of the charges, we shall then make a decision confirming or rejecting the charges.

Any written protests and related information received have been forwarded to us for consideration in our decision.

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

Our decision will be forwarded to the City Council for determination whether this hearing was conducted in accordance with City Code.

All right.

We're now moving to the consent calendar.

a number one approval of minutes from October 8, 2025.

So moved.

Excuse me.

So moved.

Second.

Fisher?

Yes.

Boyd?

Yes.

Taylor?

Aye.

Aye.

We will now call item number two,

Notice and Order of Appeals for Daniel Lothar.

No.

All right.

Thank you.

Address 219020th Avenue.

We have the appellant Anna Peake.

Please come so that the...

Right here.

So the secretary can swear you in.

Second of all parties for item number two for the property located at 2190 20th Avenue,

please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

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

at this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

the city start and then the appellate.

Oh, yes.

This is agenda item number two,

case number 25-031165,

property owner Robert H. Schultz and Hannity Peake,

property address 2190 20th Avenue,

parcel number 018,

0082-013-0000.

Doug Pearson presenting on behalf of Dan Lothar.

This is a notice and order appeal.

The case was open August 14, 2025.

The case is currently open on September 8, 2025.

Dan Lothar, due to the complaint of work without permits, sorry, building inspector

Dan Lothar arrived due to a complaint of work without permits and confirmed there was an

addition to the east elevation with exposed lumber and the existing roof line was cut

into.

You could see new mini split was added in the new addition and the exterior door and

some new windows added.

Some old windows were relocated, exposed wires on the new addition.

Construction materials in the front of the garage, along with taping knife and window,

plastic coverings over the front window.

Placed a stop work order on the front door.

At 10.30 a.m., he received an email from the co-owner, Anna Peek, asking him to call her.

She said that this was harassment, and her lawyer advised her not to let anyone into the home.

She then went on, saying there's only painting, installing baseboards, changing out cabinets,

vanities along with dry rot repair.

I informed her

per the description that

paint and baseboards and everything else

except for paint

and baseboards, everything else requires

a permit which includes the addition

the mini split, some new

windows, relocated windows, new

electrical, new exterior door.

Plans will be required due to

the addition

and cutting into the existing

roof line. He is requesting a buster

preliminary and a notice and order be sent out which is being appealed here tonight and

requesting a cloud and a tile report be pulled.

As of update, as of October 30, 2025, there's been no contact from Anna and there are no

permits issued and submitted for.

Notice of Liz Pendant's cloud was properly recorded at the Sacramento County Assessorys

Office but has not received the document back.

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

The preliminary letter was sent on September 9, 2025.

The notice and order was sent to the property owner address listed on the county assessor's records.

It was effectively served October 11, 2025 by signed green card and certified mail.

The appellant has received the information being presented this evening.

Staff recommends that the board adopts a decision finding the property owner has violated the provisions of Chapter 896 and or 8100 of the city code.

ordering the property owner to obtain a permit, correct the dangerous conditions,

and demolish the structure within 30 days of the dated decision.

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

or demolish the structure within the time set forth that the decision of the Sacramento County,

or City of Sacramento, may repair, demolish, or secure the structure or institute action

to compel compliance with the order.

for the property known as 2190 20th Avenue, Sacramento, California, 95822, parcel number

018-0082-013-0000.

Thank you, Mr. Pearson.

You may begin.

I wanted to note that this, to my knowledge, that this addition that's being claimed is

there.

Oh, please make sure the green light is on your microphone.

Can you hear me?

Here we go.

I'd like to note that, to my knowledge, acknowledgement, that this so-called said addition has been there to every moment of remembering this house.

My dad built this house now by now himself.

He was a lifelong contractor by trade.

He's built many, many things in Sacramento throughout his life.

Unfortunately, last fall, around November,

he started to tear off some siding on the side of this house,

stating that there was dry rot.

In January, that was about November.

In January, he started to seem confused.

We took him to the doctor.

he was misdiagnosed with what was dementia, early signs of dementia.

He continued to upkeep his home and do repairs.

I have no clue what he was doing, but that's what my father's always had,

a home ownership pride.

Unfortunately, two months later, when he wasn't getting better and is progressing,

we were given three weeks that my dad had stage 4 cancer,

and he died two weeks after,

oh, he spent his final two weeks in the hospital.

So since April 4th, this home I inherited from him.

I have to go in and fix what he had done.

And because I inherited this home,

siblings are the ones who made a complaint

because of financial.

I was receiving his home.

I was in control of distributing his finances, and I have now become basically an orphan.

And so their way to get at me is to make complaints.

I'd like to note this was a Google image of over five years ago.

I can pass this if needed.

This shows that addition that is being claimed that is a new structure.

It says five years prior.

This has always been on there.

Today, I just printed up what is a Google image of this home that is five years old.

You can still see the same footprint of what is claimed to be a new addition.

What I have had to go in there is try to fix whatever he was doing.

I used material that he already had from over 33 years ago when he built this home to try

to repair.

I've done the best that I could with the help of contractor friends to fix this issue.

Now whether the property was permitted to do this or not, I don't know.

My dad followed things to code.

I am just trying to put the boards back on the outside and seal up the home.

The home has been repaired.

There is a roof back on where these images did show that there was a roof line off.

So I'm at the mercy to fix and repair, and the home is secure.

The home is properly done.

it has been put back to the way he had it

I don't know what else I can do

I don't want to tear down the legacy of my father's home

which is now my home

I'm doing everything I can to make the house better

I could have easily sold this house

but instead I put my house

my house is currently in escrow in Elk Grove

I'm making his home my home

I can't afford any fines that are being put on me

for something that was built years and years prior.

I tried to work with this inspector, Mr. Daniel.

I can't remember his last name.

Lothro.

Excuse me, ma'am.

I'm Peter Lee, Moscow Housing Enforcement Chief.

Can you please state your name for the record?

My name is Anna Peake.

Thank you.

So I'm at the point where I try to ask the inspector what I can do.

I even asked him, is this based on a complaint?

Because it got around that they're going to harass me.

They've harassed me.

They've harassed me with city code for everything and anything.

And I asked what I can do.

He became intimidating to me, telling me that I couldn't even replace a bathroom vanity

or wall plugs.

He demanded entrance into my home.

There were no grounds.

And once I asked him to pull the plans and show me,

he cut his communication off with me.

We did set up an appointment for him to come into the home,

and then he canceled out, said he had something else to do that day,

and he left me a voice message, which I believe I still have.

So I've tried to be compliant, trying to fix what wasn't my fault.

And at this point, you know, I ask that this either be withdrawn,

any fines that are financially trying to be put on me to be excused

or give me the option to, you know, proactive, retroactive whatever I need to work and fix whatever problem is.

Financially, I don't have much to do this.

And I'm not going to demolition my father's home.

And it's a beautiful home.

and what inheritance I did get,

I did to restore and make the home nice inside.

But at this point, I don't feel like I should be deemed

whatever's being put on me.

Like, it's not, this happened before.

Understand that I'm responsible, but I didn't build this.

It's always been this way.

I can bring witnesses that have,

neighbors that have lived there for years

and say this has been there for 32, 33 years,

however long it's been since he built this house,

in like 93, 94.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Sorry, speaking in that green light wasn't on and I wasn't sure which mic to go to.

Good evening and my condolences to the passing of your father.

Here's the hard end of things.

Issues are married to the house and not the owner.

Whether you were the 10th owner, the first owner, the issues stay with the house.

is the responsibility of the current owner

to address those issues.

That's just how it is.

That's the code.

To your statement,

okay, well, the pictures I'm looking at,

are there additional pictures other than this?

Well, Mr. Lothar has never done an interior inspection,

So these are the only pictures we got from the public right-of-way or the curtilage.

So other than satellite photos that we have from the county records, this is all we got.

Gotcha.

I was just trying to see how current is the picture showing the roof line cut in?

He took these pictures on September 8, 2025.

Oh, these are his?

Yeah, these are his pictures.

I misheard what you said.

I thought you said you pulled these online from...

Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha.

The satellite picture from 2022 on the counting parcel viewer shows the roof line intact in 2022, not cut into.

Gotcha. Thank you, Doug. Sorry about that.

So just I'll speed this up. We're not in a hurry. I'm just speeding up my side of it.

As was just stated, so in 2022 is where the difference, the new construction happened.

And from code compliance, there is no record of any permit to conduct any work on said property addition.

I have that right, Doug?

Correct.

That is the issue.

Again, the enforcement is married to the property, not the individual who owns the property.

It doesn't go away.

it's inherited.

I understand what you're saying,

but I'm asking that there be some type of forgiveness

and option to figure out a way

to make it a legal record.

I don't know where to start to even

to go from here.

I'm permitting, I'm limited funds to even do this.

So I have to, you know, I'm asking for a forgiveness of the fines and to give the option to make the correct means to correct the issue and to make it a legal, you know, to make it a legal space that my dad added on, if that's what it may be.

I have looked at the original plans

and at least the ones I could find

and I don't know what to do

we were able to find the original plans

they're in the package so if you look where the kitchen is

in the lower right hand corner it doesn't show any pop out

so that's where the addition has been done outside the kitchen

So, like I said, we attached the original plans that we could find, which we can't always have those, but in this situation, we have the approved plans.

The approved plans for the addition.

The approved plans for the house, which does not show an addition.

Oh, for the house.

Dang, man, I think my hearing is going.

And these are plans that my dad drew himself.

I'm not arguing with his plans.

I have a copy of the original plans myself.

and I'm kind of looking through them still.

I just found them and I'm not sure if there's,

I'm unaware if there's additional set anywhere else.

That's where it comes to because my dad would do things to code and to standard.

So that's what's baffling to me.

I mean, he has worked on everything from the Capitol, the Sutter's Club,

built freeways, I mean, everywhere in Sacramento.

So for him to do this way, it's just, I don't know.

I mean, I've known this house to be this way my entire life that it's been built.

I understand that.

And then going back to what supervisor Doug had stated, in 2022 is when changes occur to the property.

Oh, that's untrue.

That is untrue.

Absolutely untrue.

So you look at these pictures in this Google map, you can pull it up yourself.

And this was five years ago.

That's 2020.

This pop-out was there, as he claims, on the house.

This was there 10 years ago.

This was there 20 years ago.

Can you hold on one second?

So the satellite does show a pop-out, almost like a bay window,

of smaller size based on the satellite photos that I have with County Parcel Viewer.

I tried to bring up Google.

Right now it's blocked, so somebody blocked the view to her house,

so I can't bring up the street view via Google.

But in 2022, the roof line was intact and not cut,

whereas the addition shows the roof line being cut.

This edge and the other end.

Satellite photos from the county, it's still intact.

What he's showing in his pictures is the repair area that I'm trying to fix from the dry rot that he said he had.

I mean, my dad wasn't in his right mind.

I mean, obviously he had this brain cancer for several months.

So whatever was going on with him, he thought he had to fix it because nothing would ever be damaged on his house as that's how it was.

So I was left in April to try to put this house back together, not knowing what the heck he did.

So the roof line is being repaired.

The image that you show is the roof line being repaired.

I can show you what it looks like today.

If you'd hold on a second, let me finish.

Sorry.

I believe we understand that's the repair, but the pop out is where the different roof line is what we're speaking of.

if I have that correct.

So where the earlier picture Doug was able to find

where it looked like a bay window,

the pop-out is where, let's just say,

the back of the house was flush.

So there was no pop-out.

So that had your intact roof line.

And then now there is a pop-out as of 2022

to which the roof line changed

because it is now extended out to a pop-out.

Well, there's been a pop-out for many, many years,

but the original plans do not show one.

So there's never been a permit for a pop-up.

And now, since 2022, the roof line's been cut into with, whether it be a repair or whatever,

it's still, and there's no permits to allow for that type of work.

Got you.

More clarity, if I can finish.

So in a nutshell, bottom line, unless I'm missing it, right now there isn't a fine.

are no financial penalties.

What the clock is ticking and is ticking louder for you to get the permits.

In order to get the permits, as Doug stated, the information, you'll have to make this

easier.

You'll speak to our investigator, call him tomorrow, switch, give her your email, however

which way you can contact them.

In fact, someone will be at the desk, and then you can get that contact information, make that phone call tomorrow,

and whatever questions you have that aren't answered by the paperwork in front of you will walk you through in addition to what's there.

In regards to this is the bottom line, what you're going to need is a permit, that there's just no way around it.

For all work that has been done, and Doug said there's plans for the original.

house, but not the pop-out, so plans will be needed.

Again, they will walk you through what is needed.

As of today, there's no financial issue.

I'm not telling you what to do.

I'm just offering.

If you wait, it will become a financial matter, and it will continue to grow worse.

So with that, start the motion on taking care of what is being asked of you.

I understand what you're saying, but records, there are no records of the current structure of the property that we're speaking of on file.

Yes, what I'm concerned about is that when I tried to, with the inspector that has written this up, Mr. Daniel, it was issues when I tried to discuss with him and what I could do.

And what bothers me is that you look on here and it's fees for this, fees to come look at your house, fees for everything.

And this is money I don't have.

and that's the intimidating part is so it's X amount of dollars to write you up

and then he wants to gain interest into my home and then that's another $500

and then to come back another $500.

This is money I don't have.

I have no problem pulling some type of permit, however that may be.

it's just that I'm trying to be penalized for things that I don't, that we're just trying to fix.

I'm just trying to like for like fix a problem.

And I would like to deal with the inspector or the permit company to get this where everybody's happy.

I just don't want to deal with the same inspector.

Just he was intimidating, and I don't think that would be a good fit for him and I.

There's too much animosity between us now at this point.

I understand that.

And sitting to your left is the chief of code compliance, and he heard your statement,

and I'm almost 100% certain he won't be the same individual to contend with this.

Do I have that right?

Supervisor, can a different...

We don't change inspectors normally.

Normally, but being that what was just stated and addressed in this instance,

what would need to be done

so a different inspector

could

now take over.

I'm not going to commit to that right now.

Thank you.

You can give direction

you would like a different inspector.

Our policy is we don't change the inspector.

It historically

causes more challenges.

As you get a new inspector, new sets of eyes,

new violations, every inspector

is going to see different things.

We will normally, if there's a complaint that somebody doesn't get along with the inspector,

we'll have a supervisor or a senior inspector assist them or go along with them.

And we'll handle everything through email instead of phone conversations and such.

But it's never a good idea for us to actually change the inspector in the field.

It almost always causes additional issues.

I appreciate that, Chief, what that said.

So as you heard, the same inspector will maintain the case, but his supervisor will be there in addition.

Correct. I will be there.

We have, I don't understand why we just can't have somebody else so it's kind of clean versus, I mean, we have someone representing the inspector today who doesn't even have firsthand knowledge of what he witnessed.

It's all statement-wise, so that's hearsay.

Well, actually, let me stop you because we're looking at pictures.

That's not hearsay.

That's visual evidence to the matter.

And again, no permit on record for the addition.

That's not hearsay.

We're trying to work with you.

And so with that said, I had one last comment for you.

And I forgot what it was because of the interruption.

But I'll tell you what, I'll let you finish your sentence and then I'm ready to make a motion.

I would really like to work with the city to make this too compliant.

That is my goal.

I just prefer, if possible, that we have some other person either handle the case or, as you suggested, or he stated that, we have at least a supervisor.

because I feel very uncomfortable with the inspector that I had

based on our conversations on the phone and what was said to me.

Right.

I will repeat, a supervisor will be there for inspections going forward,

and the conversation can be handled through emails versus phone conversations.

I appreciate it much.

One last question.

Doug, you can answer.

When code compliance comes to one's house,

does the resident have to let code compliance in?

No.

Just...

But now that we have documented violations,

ultimately, if they don't let us in,

we could get an inspection warrant.

Because we...

I'm sorry, get an inspection?

Warrant.

because we now have documented violations.

And before we can move forward to getting a permit,

we have to do a full and complete inspection

because we have the full scope of work of the permit.

So we have to inspect the property fully

to determine the full scope of the work of the permit

so that everything gets documented.

And in this particular case,

a design professional is going to have to be hired

in order to draw up the plans for this addition.

unless it was removed totally.

It can be removed totally under a permit,

as long as we document everything that's done

and all the structural requirements removed and put back

to the 1993 plan that was attached to this.

So there it is in a nutshell.

So should I get a salzal and just start hacking away now?

Should I just get a salzal and start hacking away this mission?

You would need a permit.

Before you do that.

That's what we're walking you through.

Have a conversation tomorrow.

Take a night.

I'm not offering advice.

But have a conversation with the department tomorrow.

Have them walk you through ABC each step of the way.

Again, for clarity of what's being required of you.

And then go forward from there.

And with that, I'm sorry.

Are you working with a licensed contractor or are you doing the work yourself?

This is an owner build, repair, whatever you call it.

I'm not working.

I don't have the financials to do anything right now.

I'm just doing with what money was left to me to repair what he tore apart.

It's not been fun because I don't know what he was doing and his mindset.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Chair, I'd like to recommend that the board adopt staff's decision in finding the property

owner has violated the provisions of Chapter 8.96 and or 8.100 of the Sacramento City Code

and 2.

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

the structure within 30 days of the date of the decision, and three, 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 2190 20th Avenue,

Sacramento, California, 95822,

APN number 0180082013000.

Second.

Fisher.

Yes.

Boyd? Aye. Taylor? Yes.

So the board did find in favor of the city that there are violations on the property.

Again, that's been suggested, just the suggestion that you get Mr. Pearson's information and call them to start the steps forward to alleviate these problems.

30 days isn't enough time to do anything at this point, especially with the holidays.

So I ask the board to extend this period to 120 days.

The motion is carried.

Let me ask the council, can we amend a motion or does it stand as is?

Give me one second.

The board can make a motion to reconsider,

vote on that motion, and then make a new motion.

Is there a motion to reconsider?

I'll make a motion to reconsider.

I'll say thank you all right motion to reconsider the staff recommend so motion

reconsider part two ordering the property owner to obtain a permit to

correct the dangerous conditions or demolish the structure within 90 days of

the date of the decision the board must first make a motion deciding to

reconsider vote on that motion and then make a new motion on the decision.

All right so I move to decide to reconsider our motion.

I'll second.

Fisher? Yes.

Boyd? Aye.

Taylor? Yes.

We're now in reconsideration.

All right, for consideration, I put forward that we take the staff recommendation with the amendment that instead of 30 days, we put that at 90 days, which will put us into March.

So here is my motion.

Staff recommend it.

So I move that the board finds the property.

Do I need to read it all?

go for it yes all right so i move that the board finds the property owner has violated the

provisions of chapter 8.96 and or 8.100 of the sacramento city code to order the property owner

to obtain a permit to correct the dangerous conditions or demolish the structure within 90

days of the date of the decision and ordering that if the property owner fails refuses or neglects

correct that it dangerous decisions or demolish the structure within the time

frame 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 2190 20th Avenue Sacramento

California nine five eight two two APN zero one eight zero zero eight two zero

one three zero zero zero zero second

Fisher yes Boyd all right Taylor yes right so we did find in favor of the city

that there are violations on the property however we have now given 90

days and can reconsideration to obtain a permit. Again we suggest that you reach

out to Mr. Pearson tomorrow to figure out the next steps forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Please reach out via email. That's the best way. I will. Thank

you. Am I dismissed? All right. Have a good night.

item number three 6125 riverside boulevard the appellant is not present but they did ask us to

read it into record you want me to read in all 158 pages or can i just read the front two

just as little as possible

do i need to be re-sworn in leah yes

All parties for the item number three for the property located at 6125 Riverside Boulevard,

please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

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

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

I do.

Thank you.

Okay.

This is agenda item 3 case number two four dash zero three six seven five six

property owner G and

SL LLC

Property address six one two five Riverside Boulevard Sacramento, California nine five eight three one parcel number zero two nine

dash zero zero one zero dash zero one three

zero zero zero

Doug Pearson presenting again on behalf of Building Inspector Elijah Prock.

Case was open September 18, 2024.

Current case is open.

On September 18, 2024, an inspection of the property was conducted

and newly unpermitted construction was identified.

Observed violations of a carport cover, enclosure of the rear patio,

and unpermitted mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work.

These conditions constituted violations of Sacramento City Code Titles 896 and 8100.

The property owner was advised at the time to obtain building permits for all the recently unpermitted work.

September 2024 through February 2025, the STAC conducted follow-up and monitoring of the property

to determine whether the building permits were obtained to achieve compliance.

During this period, no building permits were obtained to legalize and identify the unpermitted work.

On February 5, 2025, a notice and order was issued pursuant to the Sacramento City Code for failure to address the recently unpermitted constructors.

That was identified. The notice and order was not appealed.

February 13, 2025, the property owner submitted building permit application in an effort to legalize the ongoing construction.

The application was found to be incomplete upon intake and cannot be processed by the building division.

During this time, the staff made additional attempts to provide direction to the property owner

to obtain the required building permits to bring the property into compliance.

On July 11, 2025, due to noncompliance with the notice and order dated February 5, 2025,

an administrative penalty and housing and dangerous building monitoring fee

was issued to the property owner of record for failure to comply.

On October 31, 2025, the property owner had filed the attached appeal

for the housing and dangerous building monitoring fee of $380.

So the monitoring fee of $380 is the total being appealed here today.

the notice of less penance

was properly recorded

at Sacramento County office

March 19, 2025

the property owner was contacted

prior to issuing the notice and order

notice and order was sent to the property

owner address listed on the county records

and was effectively served

by conspicuous posting of the notice

on the front of the property

and simultaneous filing

it by certified mail

and return receipt requested

and first class mail which was not returned

Notice and order was not appealed.

The appeal filed on June 2, 2025 was for the notice and order fees for $1,550.

The appeals board held a hearing August 13, 2025 and found that the notice and order fees were reasonable and justified.

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

but due to the pending litigation filed by the appellant after this action,

we request that the board stay the requirement for the payment of $380

pending the outcome of litigation for the work performed by the city on the property

known as 6125 Riverside Boulevard, Sacramento, California, 95831,

parcel number 029-0010-0013-0000.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board, if not a motion?

I move to adopt the staff recommendation,

which is confirming the total charge of $380,

but due to the pending litigation filed by the appellant after this action,

we will stay the requirement for payment of $380

pending the outcome of the litigation for the work performed by the city

on the property known as 6125 Riverside Boulevard,

Sacramento, California, 95831, APN 029-0010, 013-0000.

Actually, I did have a question.

Apologies.

In between, before a second happens, question for the attorney.

Because it is noted pending litigation,

So with the litigation, could this $380 actually go away as a part of that litigation or the

$380 is standing on its own?

If the decision to waive the fee should the litigation go in the direction of the appellant

is a part of the motion, then the fee would not need to be paid.

if...

Doesn't answer your question.

Repeat, please.

If the motion

states that

the fees are stayed

until the litigation is

concluded and

should the litigation

go against the city,

ultimately, then the fees

will not need to be paid.

Then the fee

would not, then the appellant would not

owe the fee. That's what I thought. Just making sure. So then right now, it's my opinion. It's

noncical for us to make a motion for a fee because it could go away pending litigation,

which is on record. So the actuality is, should we just had avoided having this read and or

Well, the city does have an obligation to schedule appeals in a timely manner.

So the board can choose to continue the item, but it would continue almost indefinitely for who knows how long if the board did not render a decision today.

And no matter what happens based on the litigation, if we're told to remove it, we'll remove it.

So, so the litigation, the, the, you're deciding on whether it was valid today and we're just holding off the fee.

And if the courts order us to remove it, we'll remove it at a later date as we will remove anything else.

So you're just deciding on whether what we did was justified.

I'm with you on that.

I'm sorry.

Did you?

I agree.

I think that the matter of whether the fee is paid down the line after the board has

rendered its decision today is beyond the scope of review of the board.

Appreciate that.

B to my A question, would the $380, would there be additional monies from the 380, not

an additional fine or violation,

but would that $380 increase?

I wouldn't call it.

Are you talking about late fees?

Late, there we go.

Thank you.

Okay, so I believe us staying it right now

would not accrue late fees.

Correct.

If it's not stayed, then it would accrue late fees.

If you stay the requirement of payment,

it won't require any late fees.

It'll just be held in May.

Just making sure.

Yeah.

I'm sorry.

No.

So this only has a one-time late fee and it's already on there.

Okay.

That's all the information.

I second.

Okay, so that was Taylor.

Motion.

All right.

Fisher?

Yes.

Boyd?

Aye.

Taylor?

Aye.

Did that motion have a second, Leah?

Carry.

Yes.

We now have item number five.

So did that motion pass, Chair?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, we file in favor of the city.

Stay in the 380 pending litigation.

Thank you.

For the record.

There's no appellant for item number 5, 1615 W Street.

We're going to ask that city read it into record, and then we will have a motion.

Oh, please spread them in.

Okay.

All parties for item number five for the property located at 1615 W 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 this hearing should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Thank you.

Thank you. Please begin.

This is agenda item number 5, case number 25-016975.

Property owner, Galeo Solorzano.

Property address is 1615 W Street, Sacramento, California, 95818.

Parcel number 00902130180000.

Today is December 10, 2025.

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

Case opened on May 3, 2025, and the current case status is closed.

on may 3rd 2025 i received a call from the 3-1-1 operator at 6 30 p.m stating a securement is

required at 1615 w street unit number five of a standard size entry door and the sacramento police

department are on site i contacted the officer on site who stated there was no one on site to

secure the property so I contacted Gray Construction and had them dispatched to the site where

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

On May 5th, 2025, I arrived on site at 10 o'clock a.m. and from the front of the building I could

see this is an apartment complex with five units and there's no access to the apartments due to

a fence is surrounding the building and a code is needed to open the gate. There

shows to be no manager on site. I took pictures of the front of the building

for the case documents. The securement cost was $340. The administration fee is

$380. Total cost $720. Staff recommends

Confirming the total charge of $720 for the work performed by the city on the property known as 1615 W Street, Sacramento, California, 95818, parcel number 00902130180000.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

No.

All right.

Well, I move that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of $720 for the work performed by the city on the property known as 1615 W Street, Sacramento, California, 95818, APN number 0090213018000.

Second.

Fisher?

Yes.

Boyd?

Aye.

Taylor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Somebody did find a favor of the city.

Total charge 720.

Item number six is going to ask the secretary to read that.

The following lines will be heard as blanket items.

City staff recommends that the board adopt a decision confirming the total charge noted

by each agenda line for the expenses incurred by the city

in the enforcement of the provisions of the housing code and or

dangerous buildings code with respect to the property known by the

physical address and or parcel number APN as noted

within each agenda line for item number 6, numbers

1 through 282.

So move. Second.

Yes.

Boyd?

Aye.

Thank you.

Item number seven.

We are reviewing the

2026 HC

AAB meeting calendar.

I sent it in the

one drive link. Did you guys get it?

I did bring a copy.

So do I need to read them?

No.

Just a review.

Just a review?

No.

Okay.

No.

Just a review because we're not voting.

All right.

So there's no motion.

All right.

So there's our calendar for next year.

All right.

We now have any board comments, ideas, or questions?

Yes.

Go ahead.

Oh, yes.

Can we make sure the heater is working through the winter?

Yes.

It's freezing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We are freezing.

Public comments?

Any public comments?

No.

All right.

Meeting adjourned.

Right on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You too.

Happy holidays, everyone.