This is the 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, Brendan Fisher, Chair.

We also have Mr.

Antably and Miss Taylor.

Mr.

Boyd is not here tonight.

We also have Leah Billings, Secretary to the Board, Peter Lemos, Code and Housing Enforcement Chief, and David Kim, Counsel to the Board.

I will now ask the Secretary to call the roll.

Fisher.

Yes.

And Tablion.

Here.

Taylor.

Present.

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

Disney has me every time.

To the original people of this land, the Nissanam people, the Southern Maydu, Valley, and Plains, My Walk, Patwin Wintam 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.

May we now direct our attention to the flag for the Pledge of Allegiance?

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

One nation under God.

Indivisible.

Thank you, maybe seated.

I will now read our purpose tonight.

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

For items three through ten.

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 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.

Please keep your appeal concise.

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

The secretary will swell appellants and city staff in prior to each case.

Second.

Yes.

And Tablion?

Yes.

Taylor.

Yes.

Now going to Housing Dangerous Buildings Case Cost Recovery Contested Item Number Three, Case Slash Inspector Paul Lovato for address 3923 39th Street.

And the speaker, Jaden Reese, as you come, please prepare to be sworn in by the Secretary.

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.

Lovado.

Good afternoon.

This is agenda item number three, case numbers 25-027104.

Property owner shows Prasad Davies R.

Nassim.

Property address is 3923 39th Street, Sacramento, California, 95820.

Parcel number 0200 720 230.

Today's March 11th, 2026.

My name's Paul Lovato.

I'm a building inspector with housing in dangerous buildings.

This case opened on July 16, 2025, and the current case status is open.

On July 29th, 2025, I arrived on site, and as I drove up, it shows there is a fence at the property line not allowing access to the dwelling.

I took pictures of the front of the house and a gentleman agreed, greeted me.

I explained the complaint made, and he stated he was not the owner, but he would get the owner who resides in the dwelling.

The owner then came out and I explained to her the complaint made.

She stated her husband had built the structure in the backyard, but he had passed away.

The gentleman then asked me if I wanted to see the structure.

As I went to the backyard, I could see there is a structure built in the backyard with a bathroom in it.

The structure is used as storage and no one's living in it.

I explained to the gentleman helping me that the structure needs to be permitted or removed.

He stated the owner has no money to get it permitted, and since no one lives lives in it, they would just remove it.

He then asked about the items stored in it.

Could he just use it as storage?

I let him know of the codes for a storage shed, as in it could only exceed 120 square feet and have no utilities.

He then stated he would remove the structure and provide a shed for the owner.

I then explained to him about the penalties that could occur.

He stated he would have it removed prior to the 30 days given.

Pictures were taken of the structure for the case documents.

On August 24th, 2025, I received an email from the property owner's caretaker stating this is regarding the address 39239 Street.

Nassim Prasad has decided to remove the building from the property.

We will start demolition and contact you to update the case.

On September 30th, 2025 at 1231 p.m.

I arrived at the single family residence.

I took photos and updated the case files.

Due to lack of contact from the owner, a failure to obtain a housing and dangerous buildings permit.

I issued the notice and order.

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

On November 6, 2025, after receiving a call from the tenants that they are removing the unit in the backyard, I visited the site and I see that three-quarters of the unit had been removed.

The itemized total for the cost is notice and order was 1,360.

Termination fees 190, and the title cost is 47.50 cents with a total of 1,917.

The notice of the Les Pendants Cloud was properly recorded at the Sacramento County Assessors Office on November 20th, 2025.

Property owner was contacted prior to issuing the notice and order.

The preliminary letter was sent July 29th, 2025.

The notice and order was sent to the property owner's address listed on the current title report, 3923 39th Street, Sacramento, California, 95820.

It was effectively served on October 3rd, 2025 by Substitute Service.

The notice and order was not appealed.

The appellant has received the information being presented this evening.

Staff recommend recommends that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of 1,917.50 cents for the notice and order on the property known as 3923 39th Street, Sacramento, California, 95820, parcel number 0200 720 230.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Appellant Reese, please state your appeal.

Oh, yeah.

Mine's not on either.

Can we confirm that your green dot is on?

Oh, yeah, maybe just move it just a little closer.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Sorry.

No.

It's okay.

Um, yeah, my name is Jaden Reese.

I am the caretaker for Nasim Prasad.

Nasim Prasad is not here today due to being in a mental health facility.

Um now fully aware of the current situation with the housing.

Um what he said is true.

Um we are basically just trying to get a better understanding because as of this month, the family had contacted me who lives out of the country, and they had asked me if I could help take care of their mother again.

And with her being in the mental health facility, we're trying to figure out everything and see what we could do to help her.

So we're just trying to see what the costs are, if it is any ground since she was in and out of the hospital and out of care facilities.

I do have documentation of that.

Um, and then if a payment plan or what her options are.

Thank you.

So I'll open it up to the board for any questions or comments.

I guess I would just start with um Inspector Lovato.

The last thing I'm seeing on this is November 6th.

Um is this property still incurring?

And I always get it wrong, the monthly monitoring fee.

So I think the question, the bigger question is gonna be here.

Sorry, that was bright.

The bigger question is gonna be every month that this goes by, you're gonna get that monitoring fee of it's three hundred and eighty dollars for the monitoring fee, and it's a thousand dollars for the administrative penalty.

So it adds up.

So I think the bigger issue is let's first talk about what is the what is the long-term goal.

Um, well, the structure has been completely broken down when we saw the site and everything.

Um, I believe that we could get the case closed where there is still a load of the debris, I guess is how you would say it that needs to be taken off the property.

Um right now, I still don't know what the long-term goal is.

Um, my long-term goal right now is just how can I assist her?

Um, also since I am now gonna be living on the property again.

That is a situation that okay, I would like to see if there's a possibility to start making payments or how like you know, figure out the cost of it.

Um, but also I I'm not sure because I don't know her long-term situation.

Okay.

I uh do you think realistically you'd be able to finish it?

Because my concern is you're going to keep getting 380, 300 and some dollar fee every month this isn't taken care of, and I'd like to see if we can fix that before just finishing this case.

I mean, we could rule one way or another, but it doesn't matter on this because your fees are gonna keep going.

Yeah, so we're gonna keep seeing you here uh if you keep appealing.

So I just want to make sure that for your benefit that we address this.

So the reason I ask is part of whatever we suggest could be part of the recommendation.

So do you think you could take care of this within 30 days?

Yes, I think have it completely taken care of.

Yeah, we we could get um it completely taken care of within 30 days.

Yes.

When uh Inspector Lovato, when was the last time a uh monitoring fee was issued on this property?

The last time one was issued was February 26th so the next one would be around the ending of this month.

Okay.

So what I would say is yes, there are payment options available, but um before I make my suggestion um and we vote.

I would say, just so you're aware, the reason why these fees are on there is this did open July 16th, and so it has been close to eight months now, and so the city does expend costs for uh Inspector Lovato to go out.

They did give you more time than I will say, not jealous, but more time than I got when I was cited from the city a couple months ago.

Um so I will say yes, I understand the fees, but there are payment plans that can be done.

But when I make my recommendation here, I'm going to make a motion.

Umfirming the total or actually, I'm sorry, before I make a motion, are there any other yeah, I just is the reason why of Mr.

Lovato, the amount is 1,917 instead of the 1,59750 because the appeal was sent in after December 4th.

That's why the amount increased to the 1097.

This one here is for the fees of the notice and order.

So none of the and the title cost.

Right.

I'm looking at let me just pull it up.

There's now additional fees, uh technology fee on something else that gets added.

I okay, because I'm looking at the invoice dated November 4th, 2025, and it says those are the new technology fees that they added.

That was eight percent.

Oh, I got you.

Oh I I'm clear now.

Okay.

So there's a late fee because it was not received after 124.

It went from 15 yes seven to nineteen seventeen based on the invoice.

Right.

See, if you're looking at the bottom of it's on number 21, the appeal was sent in after December 4th.

I just had to verify that.

Thank you.

And that's why it's 1917 and not 1597 fee.

And then she gave us this prior in case we have questions, because this just came out for the uh the additional fees if we have questions.

Or did you give him what is it?

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

So that's the new amount.

So this one is the 1970s.

Because we can't.

So then we couldn't.

So I need to write that down then.

So instead of the 1917 fifty, it can only be what is it?

159750.

I see, right here.

Ah, okay.

So the motion will change.

Thank you.

All right, before I make a motion, then are there any questions?

All right.

So while I understand the fees and the issues that are going on, I'm gonna meet what I consider to be halfway.

Um so I'll explain uh after I do it.

But um, I'm gonna make a motion confirming the total charge of 1,597 50 for the notice and order on the property known as 3923 39th Street, Sacramento, California, 95820 APN number 020 00720 230.

In addition, I'm asking that the city give.

I'm sorry, what was your name?

Jaden Reese.

Jaden Reese.

Miss Reese, a 45 day from the last monitoring fee.

Is that from the 26th?

So we give her at least another 30 days from today's date to get this addressed.

About 30 days from today's date.

That'll work.

Okay.

And that's it.

I second.

Oh, sorry.

I'm sorry, there's no third.

My apologies.

Randy, you seconds?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Fisher?

Yes.

And tablion?

Yes.

Taylor.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

So by meeting at least, we're going to uphold the total.

We did uphold the total of the 1,597.50.

Now you can contact Miss Billings, right?

Uh tomorrow to set up a payment plan for that, but you at least now, because you would be getting the additional charges at the end of this month in just a few weeks, you won't be getting those charges now.

So you do have the 30 days from today's date.

Please make sure to work with Inspector DeLovato to make sure it gets taken care of, though.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you guys very much.

Jaden, if you stop and talk to Frances, um, she may have a uh payment plan um paper for you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Call us tomorrow.

We're just the next that I was like oh your fingers.

Yep.

Uh item number four.

Okay, inspector Jason Martinoni for 7920 Deer Lake Drive.

Speaker Summer Rose, please direct your attention to the secretary to be sworn in.

If I could have all parties for item number four for the property located at 7920 Deer Lake 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.

Thank you, Mr.

Martinoni, please begin.

Housing and dangerous building program appeal hearing report to the housing code and advisory board.

This is item agenda number four.

Case number two five-zero two nine six eight three.

Property owner Summer Deanna Rose Living Trust.

The property address is 7920 Deer Lake Drive, Sacramento, California, 95823.

Parcel number 119029600-3000.

The hearing date is Wednesday, March 11, 2026, and city staff presenting is Jason Martinoni.

This case was opened on August 5th, 2025.

On August 25th, 2025, an initial inspection at 930 a.m.

I arrived at the single family residence for a scheduled inspection due to the complaint.

Added a room to the house.

There is also leaks coming from the ceiling.

The plugs are sparking, and the owner does not want to make repairs.

The living room and bedroom fan lights are not operating properly.

The kitchen lighting is not properly installed.

It needs three-inch minimum clearance from the insulation and cannot be in contact with the light fixture.

The rear enclosed patio has been constructed without the benefit of a permit or inspection.

There are exposed conductors not properly installed in raceways, feeding the outdoor lights.

On the back porch, in the rear bedroom, there are outlets that are burnt and damaged.

In the front living room, there is an extension cord being used in lieu of permanent wiring.

The tenants stated that this is an HR SRH SHRA house and provided me with the SHRA housing authority owner service number to try to get in contact with the property owner due to the address for the property owner being the location at 7920 Deer Lake Drive.

A buster preliminary letter was sent and photos downloaded into the electronic case file.

On August 25th, 2025 at 910 a.m.

I contacted SHRA Housing Authority Owner Services and spoke to Judy.

I informed her that I needed to get a message to the property owner in regards to the violations that are present at the property.

I provided her with my contact information so she could pass it on to the property owner.

This is the only contact info for the property owner that was provided.

On September 26, 2025, I performed a reinspection at 215 p.m.

I arrived at the single family residence to follow up on the present violations that required a permit to correct.

There has been no contact from the property owner after sending the preliminary letter.

The structure does look vacant.

Tenant has possibly moved out.

Photos were downloaded into the electronic case file, and a notice and order was issued.

This is the penalty being appealed today.

On October 6, 2025, I talked to the property owner, Summer Rose, and she is submitting plans for the rear patio.

She will contact me once the other violations are corrected.

They do not require a permit to correct.

I arrived at the single family residence for a scheduled meeting with the property owner summer rose.

All violations have been corrected in the structure except for the enclosed patio, and she has decided that she will remove the enclosed patio.

I will follow up.

On November 24th, 2025, I performed a re-inspection.

The rear patio has been removed.

All violations corrected, closing case.

The notice and order cost is 1,360.

Termination fee, 190 title cost, 47.50 for the total cost of 1,597.50.

The notice of Les Penance Cloud was properly recorded at the Sacramento County Assessor's Office on November 20th, 2025.

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

The preliminary letter was sent August 26, 2025.

The notice and order was sent to the property owner address listed on the current title report 7920, Tierra Glenway, Sacramento, California, 95828.

It was effectively served on December 22nd, 2025.

Staff recommends that the board adopt the decision confirming the total charges of 1,59750 for the notice and order on the property known as 7920 Deer Lake Drive, Sacramento, California, 95823.

APN number 11902960 300.

Termination cost 190.

The notice and order 1360.

For the total of 1597.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appellate Rose, please speak in.

So initially I did want to make payment arrangements, so I went to Richards Boulevard to do that to make payment arrangements, but they sent me over to uh i Street to do the uh to department of recovery too.

Uh but when I went there, they couldn't find my invoice.

I wasn't in the system.

So they said just wait for it and you know you'll get it.

But I I didn't get it.

I didn't get it, I waited like maybe another month.

So I went in early October to try to do these payments, and they said just keep waiting.

And then I my first invoice I received was 121025, which was um in the amount of 1917.

So the uh late fees were already added to that.

So um I was and then I did get a call from Alex 12 1225, which was 10 days after I received my invoice and said, Yeah, I'm still not in the system.

My invoice is still not in the system.

And so he gave me a number to call, and I actually reached out um to Jason.

I I sent him an email and said, What do I do at this point?

And um, I didn't get anything from him, but I did get um they just said to uh go ahead and go back to Richards to appeal, and that's where I'm at now.

That's where the last time I went to Richards Boulevard was to uh just said go ahead and just appeal because after after the 400 was added, I was kind of you know stuck to why I mean I never got to even make arrangements, which is what I wanted to do in the beginning.

Thank you.

I'll open up for the board for any questions or comments.

Yeah, I have a question for um uh Peter Limos.

Any information we can get from you that if she had the invoice that they said that wasn't in the system because she has the invoice.

And I had the invoice there at the window also, right?

So she has the invoice that's in the system.

And they went back and looked for it and everything and came back and um just said, you know, keep waiting.

And I first I thought maybe the tenant was getting the mail, and that I wasn't receiving it, but I did finally, I mean, maybe that initial one, because I did get a copy from you, I think in the beginning, and I thought that's the one I had.

And then um, that's the one I went down there with.

But um, and I was thinking maybe she was keeping mail, but I finally did get one uh 1210, and that's the first invoice that I I got, and that's when I called and was trying to make payment arrangements at that time, and and then Alex called me two days later and and said, Yeah, we can't find you, and then I that's when I I was like, Well, maybe it's because everything was closed.

I didn't I didn't really know why.

Okay, can I ask either um David Kim or Peter?

Uh the board has the ability to waive the late fees.

The late fees aren't listed on here, but is there a way that in the ruling that we can waive late fees and that as long as she contacts the city and pays this that those late fees can be waived?

We don't address the late fees anymore here.

But if you are to um if you do waive any of the total total of the uh the fee, then the late fee will be adjusted to whatever that is 20% of that.

But we cannot my concern with that is that the city of Sacramento did their job, and if we're lowering the fees for them, the fees they're issued by revenue.

Okay, so they they're not addressing the late fees.

How much are the late fees right now?

Four almost 400.

It's uh it went from 1597 50 to one 1917.

Looks like about 320 dollars.

So the math for me.

What was my question in the prior case?

So when we ruled in the prior case, because the recommendation was the 1917, and we we ruled for the 1597 in the prior case.

Uh-huh.

Was that in effect waiving the late fee?

Because they didn't address the late fee.

So the 1597 is just the notice and order and everything that you know the title, the title on the termination that goes along with that.

And then the difference between that and the 1917 is the late fee.

So we don't do in here, we don't do anything with the late fee.

That's something that's through revenue.

We don't do that anymore.

Okay.

But again, if you adjust the totality under an elicit order, we would adjust the lately the 20%.

Because we have to I'd like to bring that up for board comments at the end.

So I'm gonna add that to my just reminder.

Okay.

Um and so I don't know how this works because actually I think this will be a discussion for Peter, but I also don't want to keep the rest of the team here.

So are there any questions before I make a motion?

So the reason that the looks like the there's the delay in them getting the invoice is it's a rental and it shows as the primary address.

So it's being mailed to that address.

All mail goes to that address.

Okay, and that they I did change address, but they said because I'll always get because of the living trust, or is that you have to change it with this with the county?

Okay, with the county, and it my um primary.

I have to give them my primary.

Right.

The county, so your taxes, everything are go through the county recorder.

Right.

That's where we pull our information.

So this property shows us your primary residence.

So you need to change the recorded address with the county.

Supervising building inspector Doug Pearson.

Just so you the board's aware, nobody can pay for the fees on any penalties or notice and orders until it's invoiced.

So we can't accept any cash until it has an invoice number attached to it.

So until finance actually invoices, we can't accept any money from it for it.

But she had an invoice.

I I'm just letting you know that that the policy has changed recently.

They have to have an invoice number before any funds get can be accepted.

So if she walks in there with the notice of the notice and order and the fees, people walk in all the time and try and pay, and they can't pay until they have actually this invoice comes out.

I'll hold comment on that.

I just that's a recent change.

I okay.

Okay.

Well, maybe all right.

I any other questions from the board.

Yeah, I hear that.

Uh any from you in before.

Okay.

I will.

So first of all, let me just say I'm glad to see um this case in itself, while um the issues were definitely substantiated here by the pictures and everything.

I would like to at least commend you in the August 25th opening of this case and the November 24th closing of this case.

And because you did move quickly to have this, I'm definitely uh more apt to make sure that you don't pay any of those late fees.

So with that, I'm going to make a motion confirming the total charge of, and I'm changing it to 127 for the notice and order on the property known as 7920 Deer Lake Drive, Sacramento, California, 95823 APN number 1190296003000.

I'll second.

Thank you so much.

Hold on, it's not approved yet.

Oh, it's not approved, sorry.

Yes.

And tablion?

Yes.

Taylor.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

So appreciate it.

We did find in favor of the city, however, we could decrease the costs to 127.

All right, and you'll receive all of this information in the mail.

Um, can I give you my primary address?

Not us, not us.

We don't work for the city.

So we need to speak with them outside yes, county recorder.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

No problem, thank you.

Item number five, case inspector Al Jensing 2204 San Castle Way.

Speaker Ray Derby, please come forward, and the secretary will swear you in.

If I could have all parties for item number five for the property located at 2204 San Castle Way, 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.

Mr.

Jensen, please begin.

My name is Alan Jensen.

This is Inspector Alan Jensen.

Work for Housing and Dangerous Buildings.

This is in the matter of agenda item five, case number 25-041497.

Property owner Derby Ray A.

Property address 2204 San Castle Way.

Parcel number 2740.

Today is March 11th, 2026.

I'm Alan Jensen.

Um I prepared this report.

This report is a counting of expenses, special assessment.

The case opened on 10, 29, 2025.

The current status of the case is closed.

From I have to hold it down.

From February 2025 through October 2025, the rental housing inspection team attempted to have the listed building violations addressed and repaired through their inspection process.

The rental housing team failed inspections on the property on February 18, 2025, May 12th, 2025, August 12th, 2025, and October 10th, 2025.

Due to existing building violations on the exterior of the property that have not been addressed or repaired.

On October 29th, 2025, after several attempts by rental housing to get the violations corrected, the case was referred to housing in dangerous buildings and assigned to case manager and building inspector Alan Jensen.

On November 10th, 2025, after several failed attempts to contact the property owner by phone, IBI Jensen went to the property known as 2204 San Castle Way to contact the property owner and to see the visible violations.

Upon arrival, I found the front gate opened and knocked on the front door, but nobody responded.

So I left my business card at the front of the property requesting a callback.

I could see the violations reported at the front of the property and took some photographs.

On November 18th, 2025, I posted a notice and order at the front of the property.

On December 12th, 2025, I returned to the property to see if I could contact somebody at the property.

Upon arrival, I knocked on the front door again, but nobody responded.

On January 7, 2026, property owner Ray Derby Derby called me and left a message requesting information on the case and updating me on his plans to obtain the required permit and have the repairs done.

On January 8th, 2026, I spoke to the property owner Ray Derby, who informed me that he would obtain the required permits and have the repairs done by the end of the month.

On January 20th, 2026, a permit was issued for a new roof, skylight, and minor dry rot repairs.

On February 2nd, 2026, a final inspection was approved on permit number RES-260-1082 for the new roof, skylight, and dry rot repairs.

On February 3, 2026, the case was closed.

The total cost, uh notice and order cost was 1,360.

Administrative fees are 12780.

The termination feed for the cloud is 190.

Uh title cost was 4750 for a total of 1,725 and 30 cents.

The cloud was properly recorded at the Sacramento County's Assessor's Office on November 14th, 2025.

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

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

Posted notice and order at the front of the property on November 18th, 2025.

The notice and order was not appealed.

The appellant has received the information being presented this evening.

Staff recommends that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of 1,725.30 cents for the notice and order and fees on the property known as 2204 San Castle Way.

Uh assessors parcel number 2740-3720-210.

Submitted by Alan Jensen.

I've attached a violation list to case photographs, the title uh when it was recorded, the cloud, and the invoice.

Thank you, Mr.

Jensen.

Appealant Derby, please begin.

Okay.

Um this is my second time everyone's uh customers since 2014.

Uh customer since 2014.

So before you get started, the people in the back are gonna say that they can't hear you.

Uh I don't mean in the room because they're reporting.

Yeah, just maybe your microphone has to be.

There we go.

I couldn't hear a thing, and I was sitting in the front row.

So I'm speaking much louder than probably anyone in this room, I think.

Okay.

So uh the first time I ever heard first of all, I'd like to say uh when was the city of Sacramento established as a city?

Uh like 1849, 1850.

I mean, I'm I believe that's accurate.

I decided to look up when did the rental housing inspection program start?

Because uh how did we survive?

How did how did people rent homes without the rental housing inspection program?

That started in 2008.

So right away I want to say this is just a big scam.

People have been renting homes in Sacramento for 150 years before the rental housing inspection program.

Absolutely correct, okay?

So I just just soak that in for a second.

Take that in.

Okay.

My second uh point is uh the first time I've ever learned about the rental housing inspection program was in 2014.

Uh it started in 2008.

I learned about it in 2014.

I got a nasty letter from the uh C Sacramento, basically saying, hey, I gotta comply, I gotta, I gotta you know, give information to you uh, you know, on whether you're renting your house or not.

Well, I was not renting my house, I bought the house from my mother-in-law who lost her home in uh Rio Linda, and so I bought this house and I put her in.

Um try and make a long story short, she was a hoarder, got got her out and uh put her in a mobile home.

Anyway, so I started renting the home in 2013.

So I followed the process.

I filled out the um the uh appeal, and in 2014 it cost $50.

I've got the receipt.

You know what the peel cost if I would have done this uh in October or November?

$700.

And I don't get that money back.

And and this man right here told me you will lose.

You will pay $700 and you will lose.

You will lose.

Don't do it.

Okay.

So, anyways, um, I explained in 2014 how just what I explained right now that uh I'm renting the home, uh, I understand the process, I've got it taken care of.

And since then I've been a customer of the rental housing inspection tax since 2014 on 2204, also on 220 San Castle Way, and on 2179 San Castle Way.

Okay.

Um I read about the rental housing inspection program, they talk about the city council.

And so when I tried to do research about the city council and the rental housing inspection program, I do I looked up the Sacramento website today, and it's basically a history of housing, and it talks about COVID.

And I'm gonna try and make this real quick, but in the paragraph after COVID, it word for word, it's it's crazy.

You'd have to check it out.

But it basically uh explains how um white people white people have had the privilege uh of situation uh where is that?

I want to read it because it's it's so ridiculous.

But see, I I hold on, hold on.

I'm sorry.

I'm gonna save you the embarrassment of whatever this is.

Um let's get to the relevant points of this.

All right.

Let's get to the so the relevance is um the first the relevance is we'll get to a Milton here, uh, back in uh May of 2025.

I passed everything in the rental housing inspection program.

Everything except for here's the words.

Repair, replace, and repaint all dry rut, damage around the exterior of the house, including but not limited to base shit trim and side ease.

Okay, so I passed everything except for dry rod.

Drive around this neighborhood in Sacramento.

You can every other house has dry rod on the outside.

Am I aware of this before Milton got a hold of me?

Because remember, my stance is this is a this is a scam.

We don't need Milton.

I've done this before Milton was around.

So here's here's my proof.

I hired Two Rivers Roofing Company in 2023 to fix 2179 San Castle Way, which I then sold.

I do not own that home.

Friendly reminder, we're talking about 2204 San Castle Way in this case.

So let's tone in for the relevance of this case, please.

Sir, we are trying to help you, and we do not work for the city of Sacramento.

All right.

I would friend I would love to remind you that we are not your enemy.

Okay.

I understand.

You can check your emotions at the door.

So people can hear me.

Check your emotions at the door.

Okay, sir.

All right.

Thank you.

This is how I have to speak to children when I'm working with them.

Calm down and speak about 2204 Sandcastle Way.

Thank you.

Okay.

2204 San Casa Way needed work.

And I was aware of it way before Milton told me that it needed work.

I have an email with this company back in 2023 saying after I did the 2179, I said, hey, I've got a property on the same street, meaning 2204, that I want you to do.

And I was going to show you proof.

It's just an email saying I want you to do the work.

Okay, it my point.

Oh, I'm sorry, am I am I is this too difficult for you to listen to?

Because I did a lot of work, and you're just sitting there.

But here's the point is I fixed up 2204, and it's immaculate today, and it has nothing to do with Milton, and it has nothing to do with this gentleman right here.

I was aware that it needed work, it was going to be handled, it got handled, and it did get handled.

Why on earth would the Sacramento want to try and build me?

Just it's it's ridiculous.

If if it's it's ridiculous.

That's all, you know.

There's I can go more into it, but you don't want to hear it.

You don't want to hear how ridiculous it is.

All right, sir.

We were you can stay, you can we're going to talk about fees at the end of this meeting.

We're happy to talk about fees, but we are here to talk about 2204 San Castle Way.

And I want to remind you what this meeting is for.

We're not here to talk about all of these other fantastical things.

We're here to talk about whether you were in accordance with city code billed for 2204 San Castle Way.

All right.

We can have our feelings about land.

However, when you are a landowner, when you own a property, you have a bundle of rights and responsibilities.

I'm listening to the case.

Okay.

And part of that is, yeah, you gotta abide by this program.

And part of that is when you are not abiding by that program.

We might have a city inspector called, all right.

And you did it on meet code, which you admitted to to us.

Right here, all right?

And I understand we're frustrated about things.

Do you want you?

Do you want to understand why I'm frustrated?

Just I'm just giving me a couple minutes.

The city, the city council in 2020 during COVID, basically told tenants, don't pay your rent.

And all of these tenants were going, I lost my job.

How am I gonna pay rent?

Understand this for a second.

That was my job.

So if I'm not getting income through rent, but you still want me to work.

You want me to pay the taxes on the property, you want me to maintain the property, and that's why that house went to crap.

Because that tenant in that house during COVID, we're not talking about this because you want to be relevant, but do you want to know how hard it is to try and collect money from someone that chose not to pay in 2020 when all the courts are closed?

This man knows he's he told me in person he wouldn't, he does he chooses not to own property in Sacramento County, but does in Placer County because it's two completely different worlds.

And I know I live in Placer County, yeah.

But the point is this rental housing inspection program is simply a new tax.

It's a new way for Sacramento to collect revenue starting in 2008 that they didn't collect in 2007, 2006, 2005.

Yet homes were still maintained, people were still renting homes, and and landlords were taking care of stuff.

So this city has survived for 165 years without the rental housing inspection program.

But the city thinks that they are due almost 2,000.

Get this.

Why do they want the money?

Because they just gave me a uh a time frame where they want to write.

That would be my like me saying, I've first of all lived in Nintendo since 1996, and I watched Mathomas go to craft.

There's homeless people zombies everywhere, and yet I'm in here trying to not get fined $2,000 while there's zombies walking around when I'm trying to go grocery shopping at the corner of Wellstoff Camino and Trucksville.

That's why I'm a little heated.

That's why I'm talking a little loud.

And when I read the website that basically talks, there's three pages on the website about Sacramento history.

Go home and read it.

It specifically calls out white families about how we we we are the I man, I want to read.

I printed it out, I can't find it right now.

But it's absolutely ridiculous.

I'm gonna just got me hot.

I'm gonna just believe it.

I'll just interrupt real quick and say I understand the city of Sacramento's rental housing inspection program.

The problem is we don't work for the city, as she mentioned.

We don't control the board here, you can read it, but it has no bearing on this case.

You gotta hear it.

It will take one minute.

Listen, it talks about it's it's bizarre.

Even though race covenants and race-based lending are no longer in practice, the effects of past practice allowed white families to more easily build intergenerational wealth while restricting communities of color from accessing opportunities and meaningful housing choice.

Here's why I wanted to bring this up.

This this is exactly why I want to bring this up.

I bought 2204 in 2012.

Look it up, it's on Zilla.

I paid $65,000 for that house.

No one wanted to buy it.

There was no governments, no restrictions from races of people to buy it.

No one wanted this crappy property.

I bought it.

Not only did I buy that, but I bought the 2179 that I no longer own.

Because I don't want to, I don't want to own rental property in Sacramento.

I own two two zero zero San Castle that I stone.

Why?

Because I have hobos breaking into my property in 2018 that I have to get a trespassing order in between tenants.

So I sold that house in 2021.

How does the city win?

Remember when I said I pay 65,000?

Those homes all sold for over 300,000 at a 2179.

So we're we're at the conclusion now.

So I feel like that's what you guys are doing.

You're just harassing a guy.

So first of all, sell it.

Okay.

So the city's harassing you into maintaining your property and getting to over 200,000 of income.

So and by the way, I'm gonna leave you with one piece of advice before we make our ruling.

Do not, hey, sir.

Do not yell at him.

Do not yell at people who are trying to make a ruling in your favor or against your favor in the future.

So the board.

It's called tone and it's called word usage.

You should look it up.

So the board.

What would we like to do, board?

That's all.

I'm open to what we need to refocus.

The reason we're here is the property was not being maintained.

That's the reason we have a rental inspection program to identify property that's not maintained.

He was given five notices by the rental property um inspector, which were courtesies before it went to a notice and order.

The cost of the notice and order is the time of service and time of work of city staff that is then turned back to the property owners' responsibility.

That is the sole base we're here today.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you for the control motion setting.

I find it just uh uh Mr.

Derby, Mr.

Derby, please Mr.

Derby, Mr.

Derby, just give us a moment.

Mr.

Derby, please just give us a moment.

All right, because the board has not yet had an opportunity to formally ask questions or give comments after your appeal.

So I want to give them an opportunity.

Yes, right.

In the case that they do have questions or comments.

I'll just add a comment that I also pay the rental housing inspection program.

I also have been cited by the city.

These are rules that I don't even get to.

I sitting on the housing board, I still pay them.

I still have to uphold them.

I still have to do all of them.

So I understand your frustration.

I have never had an issue with paying.

I have always paid the fees.

My my my issue without being upset is the time, right?

I and I and there's a lot to cover here.

And that's no, it's okay.

Listen, and you say five, you're talking about five uh emails.

I was aware that this house has needed work, but the type of work that it needed needed about $30,000 worth of work, which I did, and I also am smart enough to understand it didn't need to be handled in a month or two.

But I understand that explanation is that you guys keep on saying it's gotta be done by this date.

It's gotta be done by this date.

And I'm just trying to explain that I fixed up many properties in the past without any of any of this, any of them from city workers telling me what to do.

Okay.

That's what I'm trying to say.

You have a motion.

This would have been fixed without all of these letters.

And I've got a picture of the property.

This is the roof of the property right before.

It's ugly, but it's not, you don't tear this house down because it's got a roof this old.

You would you remodel it.

Correct.

You know, I drive driving here, driving here, you know, from Plaster County.

Just driving here.

You see all the hobbies on the street.

Yeah, but we're not going to talk about that.

It doesn't matter.

That's my point is why I talk about sharing out my house.

It's absurd.

That's why I say this whole process.

Because it says if you don't do it, that's what they'll do.

That's what it says in the process.

And it says that's what they can do.

Doesn't say that's what they will do.

Anyways, two people could have stopped this.

I told Milton in May of 2025.

Dude, I noticed this house is a really good side.

It needs all this stuff.

Like, yeah, well, I would come back out here and 30 days or 60 days.

It's hard to even get a contractor to come out here.

It takes longer than that.

So my point is from May.

It's now March of 2046.

It's been handled in 10 months.

That's a pretty reasonable timeline.

That's why I'm here explaining to you today.

This house is one of the best looking houses on the street today.

10 months ago, it was probably one of the worst ones, but there was others that are similar.

I didn't need all of the paperwork from the city telling me that I needed this work.

That's when I I want to just make that very clear.

No, I get that.

That's honestly I will say, and it's for the time that it took from February at 2025 through now.

And that's why at this time I'm gonna go ahead and uh recommend confirming the total charge of 1,725 30 for the notice and order and fees on the property is 2204.

Sand cancel way APN 274037 20210.

Second.

Fisher.

Yes.

And Tablion?

Yes.

Taylor.

Yes.

Thank you.

So Mr.

Derby, we did find in favor of the city confirming a total charge of 1,725.30 cents.

You will receive all of this information in the mail with any next steps that you can take.

The city owes me money.

And it's it's funny.

They they charged me too much taxes in 2023 on this property.

You can look it up.

They did it to many other people.

And that's a nice scam that they got going because there's a list on the website that the city shows all these people that they have money, and they owe me money.

Rather than just mail me a check, they they choose to keep it.

You guys, I'm not paying this money.

I'm trust me, I'm not paying this money.

I just something's gonna happen, but I'm not getting scammed by you guys anymore.

Thank you, Mr.

Derby.

Item number six.

Oh Iwan Wallace.

I hope I'm saying that correctly.

Yes.

Yes, thank you.

Uh the secretary will swear you in.

I could have all parties for item number six for the property located at 133 Red Redwood 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 should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Thank you, Mrs.

Sartre.

Please begin.

Uh yes, uh agenda item six, case number 25-029621.

Property owner uh Wallace.

Um I don't want to do any disservice to your name, I'm sorry.

Property address uh 133 Redwood Avenue, uh parcel number 27501402000.

Uh hearing date 311 2026.

Uh city staff is me, Matthew Saratane.

This case opened on 84 of 2025.

Current case status is open.

Uh 9-3 2025.

I arrived at the property and was allowed entrance to unit B by the tenant.

I verified that the heater and stove were gas operated units.

There were no meter or there was no meter at her unit, only the front structure.

I requested a preliminary letter.

Uh 115, 2025.

I arrived at the property.

The tenant at unit B said she still does not have gas at her unit.

There had been no response from the owner.

Uh send it.

I sent a notice and order cloud and title on 1-8, 2026.

I returned a call to the owner.

He said that the tenant is moving out soon and that he will resolve the issues after the tenant is out.

I let him know that a permit will be required either to obtain a gas meter or convert it to electrical.

Permit RES 242892 to relocate existing gas house line to a new meter location was finaled 1210 2024.

So this predated the case.

Please state your appeal.

Yes.

I'll try to make this quick since we had to go through what we just uh went through.

So I'll try to make it quick.

How are you doing today?

Well I'm right.

Um open a statement.

Good evening.

My name is Iwan Wallace, owner of property 133 Redwood Avenue, Sacramento.

I'm here regarding the administrative cost recovery related to the gas shutoff and heater issue at the property.

The timeline and events was September 24th, 2024.

Tetrotech Pipelines contacted me requesting permission to perform gas construction work on Rarewood Avenue.

Late December of 2024, gas service was shut off by PGE after excavation work occurred on the street.

PGE locked the gas service off for safety and issued a hazard notice.

Within a week and a half, I attempted temporary electric hot water solutions for the tenant.

January 18, 2025, I installed uh electric hot water heater and converted the unit to electric service.

The issue with hot water was fully resolved.

Um these are just some key points that I have.

Um the notice and order states that the heater was not working due to no gas supply.

The gas service has been shut off by PGE following pipeline work occurring on the street.

I was not provided written document identifying a pre-existing leak or owner neglectance.

I acted to occur I acted to correct the issue and resolve hot water by installing a hot water electric hot water heater.

The documents I have with me today is notice and order packet from the city.

The next one is PGE hazard notice red tag.

The next one is text messages from Tetra Tech regarding pipeline work.

The next one is receipt showing purchase of hot electric hot water heater and work being done.

Also, the next one will be any photos and uh confirmation that the heater was installed as of today.

And right after took about two two months to get it uh fixed, installed.

Closing statement because of violation listed and the notice and order was related to the loss of gas supply, and I acted to correct the issue by installing an electric hot water heater.

I respectfully request that the board is reconsider or reduced administrative fees.

Thank you, Mr.

Wallace.

Any questions or comments from the board?

Yes.

I think I'm confused and I'm not sure who to look at to answer this question, so I'm just going to let's start with the city.

Inspector Sartane.

Uh is this a PGE shutoff, or was this due to issues at the house?

I believe the original was that they shut it's probably the whole street they worked on.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So yeah, they usually do that where um if they're replacing full lines in neighborhoods, they'll shut it down.

Uh they'll obtain their own permit to replace one.

Um the ones I've dealt with in the past when I was on the regular building inspector side.

I I didn't deal with too many where it had an ADU in the back.

So in this case, this is technically what it is.

Is that the front house still had its gas meter, but the ADU in the back did not?

They did plumb to it.

Um, you could see, I believe I have a picture in here where it shows where a meter would be.

Uh, I'm not sure why there isn't a meter there now, but because that there's no service to that unit.

But that was in 2024 also.

Okay.

But I mean, technically, does that unit it got the back unit gets feed from the front unit?

So whether or not there's a separate meter, are they two separate livable units that are being rented out separately?

Correct.

So basically you're saying that any gas used in the back unit before it was turned off was being billed to the person in the front unit.

I'm not sure what was there before, but the way it looks now is it it does have um a spot where a uh meter would be.

So usually um the ones I inspected before, they would only pipe to what had been there before.

So I would assume that there was a separate meter there before, and and it it was two separate lines going to the same parcel.

So, Mr.

Wallace, can you explain maybe shed a little bit more light on the history of this?

What basically happened is that um I have text messages and stuff from Tetra Tech and um from um DW plumbing along with PJ and E they were trying to get a hold of me.

I live in a Bay Area and I'm a single time father, full-time father.

So I'll the mail sometimes.

Long story short, basically they reached out to me and said they wanted to do some work.

So when they did that, um they confirmed and they said if they would mess up anything, they would pay for it.

I should have got that in writing and everything like that.

Everything was perfectly fine.

Both the both the units have different tenants.

Well, they had different tenants, and I'm going through a court case with the tenant in the back, and I'm so basically um everything was working properly, the gas is working, everything was working properly.

And um basically when they came to do work, they shut off the gas, they had no alert before they shut off the gas, they shut off the gas to do the work.

When they shut back on the gas, the dig inductor did, they I guess they hit a pipe, or that's my my opinion.

Is that they hit a pipe and they they said that the pipe was rusted, and now they got an alert and they have to shut down the back unit and shut off the gas.

But before they came, everything was working properly fine, perfectly fine.

So they just kind of like just left me hanging.

So oh, go ahead.

A quick question.

Did was there a meter at the back in this location?

Same uh yes, it was to that.

Okay, so there was two meters.

Okay.

Yes.

And it who removed the meter, the second meter?

TetraTech.

And TetraTech.

You know, through uh contract to PG.

When did they do this?

They did it um December, around December 24th, around that time.

December 24th of 2025.

So 2024.

Oh, 2024.

Okay.

So then it had been so that unit had been without gas for about nine months then.

No, because I got it fixed in January next year.

So they they shut it off in um they shut it off 12, 11, 2024, and January of 2025, I got it reverted to a 220 plug, and I got a new hot water heater.

So you put a new hot water heater, but it was electric.

So you basically ceased all gas operations to the back unit.

Because I didn't have the money to dig up that hole and do they were basically telling me if I can't prove what they did, then it was just that, and now I have to big dig up like a football field.

Okay, so now I'm even more confused.

And maybe it's just me.

So what's the issue then?

If they the rear unit was based off of a gas unit, so the stove, the heater, and the water heater at the time were all and and they still are other than the water heater off of gas.

So the tenant the the tenant that was staying there had no hot water, no stove, and no uh heater.

Okay.

That's why I got called in.

Mr.

Wallace, I hate to say this.

But I'm pretty sure the tenant call.

And that's fine, they're allowed to, which which is fine and dandy.

Yeah.

And I'm going I mean, that's why we have these programs.

If the tenants living without hot water able to cook or heat, that there's that's why she was I would have loved to tell the last person the same thing.

That's why we created these programs, or we didn't create them, but the city and the county did.

I totally agree.

But it seems like when she she when she alerted him, there was two bike addiction.

So it was like, you know, and I have a court case for her on the 24th of the trial.

But both units were off.

It I don't know, it kind of threw me for a loop because it was like my brother was telling me to let them do it, and they were telling me um that they were gonna do it no matter what, it was mandatory for them to switch the meters.

They were basically switching the meters from the alleyway to the front of the house to the main street.

And they just put like pipes all over the side of the house when they switched it.

So um when they had did that, he had called me and told me that both units was out of gas at first.

Because then I as I talked to him on the phone, he's like, okay, we got the gas back on in the front unit, but we can't get it back on and back.

And I'm like, huh?

Like he's like, oh, I'm trying to help you, and you don't sound pretty happy, and this, that, this.

And I'm like, huh, you guys came here and just damage things, and then like you're leaving.

And that was PG and E.

So the tenant in unit B filed a complaint after PG and E completed this work that cut the gas.

Yes.

Because when they did the work, she was like, like this will mean she's like, I'm I'm not going anywhere, I want to stay here.

This, that, this.

So I just this was my first time.

I'd you know, I'm first time on a house, I was like, let me just basically try to get the work done and try to just get it done.

So I ordered some stuff like off of Amazon for her to have a hot shower, and I order like some two gas stove, like tablets for her to cook on.

And she's like, I'm not leaving for nothing, I'm gonna stay here, I'm gonna write it out with you.

And then I ended up just getting the work done like within like three months.

So she had hot water.

The problem is, and if I'm reading this correctly, the work is still open, the permit, right?

This case is still open.

The case is still open.

Uh there's been no permits pulled.

So a permit will be required to um change anything over to electric.

So if even if it's just a full replacement of the water heater, um that alters the system and it requires a permit for that.

Um if you were to not have gas at this unit at all, uh, you would have to more than likely upgrade your panel.

Um, but all that, everything with that would require a permit.

So do you understand at least now I have a better idea of why, and I get that you converted it because I'm I'm seeing that the reason is that you didn't pull the permits to get this done.

So you in the city's eyes, and if I'm saying this right, you illegally added 220 or electrical, which again, I get why you did it, but they opened this case eight months ago, and so the case is still open.

I mean, it looks like they started this case around September of 2025.

Okay.

So six, six, seven months ago.

Um, so what is the long-term plan here?

Because like we mentioned on the first case, you're going to continue receiving those 300 and something dollar 380 dollar monitoring fees.

So my question is like how do I go about the situation?

Because the work is done, but I didn't get a permit.

So you have to pull a permit, but you have to work with him because first of all, I don't we don't work for the city.

And even I'm not smart to know that stuff.

I have to pay, like, I'm not good at that.

I just know I have to pull permits and then I have the work done.

But that's what this entire open case is about, is that they just want you to permit the work that's done.

Okay.

I I believe I have your email.

Um, and I'll just email you again the the options because you still have the option if you've if you got a contractor and they said it's cheaper to just switch back to gas and get the meter back in, you could switch back to gas if you wanted to convert to electric.

Um, that's another option as well.

So you got a couple of different options.

Um, but I'll I'll walk you through that process via email.

Inspector Sartain, when is his next monitoring fee due?

Or when do you plan?

Uh it was it was due uh about a month ago, right?

When I got the notice.

Have you issued it right now?

I mean, the la when was the last one you issued, I should say.

December, okay.

So it's been almost three months.

All right, before I make mine, I will open it back up to any other questions.

Actually, uh, it was just the notice and order on this property.

I've not sent anything else because uh he started talking to me and I was working with him because he was saying that the tenant was moving out and that he was gonna work towards completion of the project.

So you haven't issued any monitoring fees, just the notice and order in November.

So, sir, just so you're aware, I want to make sure you understand what he's basically said is the city once they open this case, they are allowed to issue a $380 fee every month that you don't address this issue, and he hasn't issued any of those fees so far.

Additionally, uh you usually we do um admin penalties at a thousand dollars plus I know that one I'm very aware of.

Yeah, it's not I would just say you're you're kind of making it from bad to worse because you start out with no gas service, which is more health and sanitation, make it substandard, and you've moved it to a dangerous building because now there's electrical work and such done without permits that we don't know is if it's safe or not.

And when time you if you do upgrade all of it to electrical, now you're talking about the subpanel or main panel, all the wiring.

Um, so it's kind of now you're taking it to a dangerous building case instead of substandard case.

So basically I have to get the work done for the you need to get one or the contract.

Once you start the work and you show that you're working with the inspector, they usually will stop the the monitoring fees.

So if you pull a permit and start doing the work and just give him updates and actually just email him and let him know where you are in the process, they usually will work with you.

Well, it's more that I need the um issued permit to for the monitoring fees.

The admin penalties can be uh subsided to some degree or it entirely if uh we're working together.

So that's why I've been giving you the uh benefit.

How do I um oh go ahead before I just want to get clarity?

You installed the electric heater in response to what PG and E had done in the front of the house, right?

In the back.

So they cut off the gas to the back unit.

You in a fixture to that, put in an electric water heater, which is at issue today.

Because it wasn't one of the because it was not permitted.

One of the issues that in a in the gas, I'm guessing it's something with the gas line is also at issue.

The gas is still not on, so there's no at least the last time I was there, there was no heater or uh cooking.

But the the the gas has been off since PG and E came and did the construction.

Yes, I was basically a PJ me.

So basically I just I know I didn't have the money, and they I've put in claims, not putting everything out of text messages and chasing down many of people.

So I just went electric and I found somebody just installed a hot wide with the 220 plug.

So my question is basically what can what other work do I need to do to where it's will the permits to just you'll have to work with them out of here because we're not on the court.

So right now we're only gonna talk about the the case at hand.

Yeah, yeah, I think this is unfortunate.

I do.

Okay.

Because if PGE had not screwed it up, then he would not have needed repairs.

That's that's I that's my did you want to make a motion?

All right, so let me just say, just since I'm gonna say it out loud so the other two can hear at least my thought.

Whatever is happening or whatever motion is done, I am going to ask that whatever they do, they add 30 days to Inspector Sartan's um giving giving him an additional 30 days before any other monitoring fee is added.

Um so I just want to make that clear that whatever 30 days from today, thank you.

Um she helped me.

I would ask um the inspector, have you looked at this water heater wiring and what's there now?

Uh yeah, I had a picture of it in here.

I think is there an immediate hazard?

No.

Okay.

There wasn't uh any any open lines and the um service line to it was of uh proper type.

So yeah, go ahead.

Oh, what's it?

Okay, just one question, and it's not is the unit currently occupied?

Yeah.

I'm trying to get around right now, got a court data on 24.

Okay, so and you're currently in like eviction proceedings with her?

Yeah, I got a trial coming up.

Thank you.

I have the floor for the last several of them.

You were the two that last said you had some opinions.

I am leaving it to not run the the mics on.

Yeah, I get it it's on.

It's required to be on any time I'm speaking.

We learned that also.

Um I had one more thing while you guys are thinking about it.

I have one more thing.

Um the notice packet also included a three-day um receivership warning, which seemed kind of unusual.

So it would be given that listed violation was simply the heater not working due to lack of gas supply.

Does somebody want to tell us what that means?

Either Peter or Sartane.

Oh, I think they've already done the lien on the property.

That's what all of this is.

Is that what you're asking?

Yeah, that's that's what the that's why you're paying the lien costs here.

They put the termination fee is to remove the lien, but they put a notice in order on your property because you haven't.

So when you pay those, they'll remove the lien.

Okay.

So yeah, they have.

Okay.

So with the other notice in order, there's a uh notice of receivership.

So it what's basically the city saying basically is if you do not comply and the city um escalates this and sues you, that they would ask the courts to take control of the property to correct the violations.

So it's read that's that's a measure of last resort, and we're nowhere near that.

Is permit did we see we had the permit for PGD so the work was not?

It's not like he's making this up.

Yeah.

I think we should talk to Mike.

Go ahead.

I'm I'm listening.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Y'all can vote this up right now.

Um I'm going to adopt double.

Let me get this on the record.

Prior to PG and E performing repairs to the lines, the gas in the unit was working fine.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Everything was working fine.

PG and A came and missed it up.

Thank you for that information.

Go ahead.

I'm going to recommend that the board adopts the decision confirming the total charge of $1,000 for the notice and order on the property known as 133 Redwood Avenue APN number 275-001-402-2000.

Plus the 30 days.

Plus an additional 30-day window from today before any additional fines are accrued.

Second.

Clarify monitoring fee and admin penalty.

30 days.

No fees or no fees.

Yeah, he said it, but my intent was no fees 30 days to give him time to get a permit.

Yes.

Thank you.

Ask it differently in the middle.

Okay, Fisher?

Yes.

And Tablion?

Yes.

Taylor.

Yes.

Thank you.

So Mr.

Wallace, we did file in favor of the city.

However, considering the circumstances, we decreased it from 1,597.50 to $1,000.

You receive this information in the mail with any next steps you can take.

Please work with Mr.

Sartane to correct this issue.

And thank you for uh your time today.

And I will just add, after 30 days, he can start issuing those 380 fees.

So pulling the permit the way he says, I only know, yeah, I don't know any of the building stuff, so I just know I have to sign the permit.

So he's gonna be your expert.

Thank you so much, and thank you for your time.

I think for understanding.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So just check my put in my name.

Items seven, eight, and nine will be heard together but decided separately.

Case inspector Marthew Matthew Sartane, 3624 Willow Street.

Speaker Raj.

Please give me your last name.

Lock the wall.

Lacto Lochtawala.

Lock the Walla.

All right.

Please raise your uh please make your attention to the secretary for swearing in.

Can I have all parties for items number seven, eight, and nine for the property located at 3624 Willow Street.

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

Do you solemnly swear under penalty or perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing show maybe the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Thank you.

Inspector Sartane, please begin.

Agenda item 789.

Uh case number 25-03696.

Property owner Sangha Manjidir.

Uh Kuar.

Kaur.

Um, sorry.

Um property address 3624 Willow Street, parcel number 252016 10240.

Hearing date is 311 2026.

City staff, Matthew Sartain, that's me.

Case opened on 922 2025.

The current case status is closed.

Um see summary abatement on 1114 2025 was to remove sewage and tarp underneath structures.

So that is to remove the sewage and then put a TARP down for servicing.

Um 21 2025, 2 2 25 2025 and 12 5 2025 were to stop the DWV system from leaking and to drain properly.

918 2025, I received an email about sewage flowing out from the building onto the sidewalk and gutter.

When I arrived, I verified that the leakage was coming from 3624 Willow Street.

I spoke with a few sewer district employees who said they spoke with the owner and that he had a plumber coming out as soon as possible.

I called the owner, Raj, and the property manager Baldeep, leaving messages for both, saying to call me back, and I let them know about the severity of the issue and the importance of a quick response.

I then emailed them again explaining the issue and letting them know that if the matter is not resolved timely, the city will correct the issue with the cost being sent to the property.

919, 2025, I arrived at the property and met with the plumber hired by the owner to repair the leak.

He explained that someone used a snake to clear the line and broke the drain lines under the structure.

He discussed his plan to build a new main drain line, then tie into the existing line, which would allow the residents to continue using their units.

He said it would take several days to complete.

He then at that moment called the owner, put his phone on speaker.

The owner explained that he had received several calls from different people in the city and didn't realize that he did not call me back.

He explained that he understood the severity of the issue and that he will keep me updated.

922, 2025, I called the owner and left a message asking for an update, verifying his email and reminding him that a permit will be required for the emergency change out of the drain line.

929, I called the plumber who said that he'll be working with uh on the system for the next couple of days, and then will contact me when the work is complete.

929 2025, I returned a call to Baldeep who asked how to apply for the permit.

I asked him to verify his email.

I then emailed directions and scope of work for a permit.

Uh 10-9, 2025, I called and left messages for the plumber and property manager.

I then arrived at the property and verified there is still standing liquid under the structure.

There was no sewage running onto the sidewalk or gutter.

There had been no response since I called at 8 a.m.

Uh so I sent for a notice and order of cloud and title.

Uh 1013, 2025, I posted the notice and order at the front of the property.

1017, 2025, I arrived at the property to verify the work was completed.

There were items, ladders, and boards covering the crawl space, but I could still hear running water.

Uh there were no signs of liquid running onto the sidewalk or gutter.

Um as a quick note, there was a sump installed.

So the broken drain line was being filled by the the sump.

So there that was the running water sound.

Um I called a plumber and left a message letting him know what I had found.

1031 2025, I arrived at the property.

I verified that there is still standing liquid under the fourplex.

I contacted City Sewer and let them know that the issue has not been resolved.

115 2025, I called uh Andre from Gray Construction.

I let Andre know that the issue with the property uh and asked for a timeline for repair.

He said he would have a plumber meet him at the property and give me a call back.

117 2025, I returned a call to Gray Construction, who said their plumber noticed several issues with the waste system under the property, but will need to drain the liquid from under the property before being able to fully evaluate what needs to be done.

I explained to building inspector supervisor Pearson the situation and got approval for Gray to move forward with the project.

1117, I sent an email to Andre from Gray Construction giving approval to start the plumbing repair as soon as possible.

I sent an email to Baldeep letting him know that the city has hired a company to resolve the violations and that the cost will be sent to the property.

1125 2025, I received an email from Andre.

He explained the work had been completed from the original assessment, but he had found other issues such as a clogged sewer line.

1126, I responded giving approval for the clogged sewer line per supervisor Pearson.

12-2 2025, I received an email from Andre saying the plumbing under the Unit 3 had been recently cut off and was dumping sewage under the structure.

He then gave a bid to correct the issue.

12-4-2025, I received approval from uh building inspector supervising building inspector Liker and sent an email to Andre to confirm.

12-8 2025, I received an email from Andre confirming the work was completed and that the system was functioning without leaks.

Staff recommendation that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of 17,377.50 cents for the notice and order on the property known as 3624 Willow Street, APN 252016-102-4000.

Thank you, Mrs.

Mr.

Lockdowala, please begin.

So myself is one of the partners of four for the property, just to let you guys know my position.

So the discussion went back and forth, and we uh had one of our plumbers there doing the work.

And on top of this assessment from the city, we also have the utility sending us a bill for 9,000 for sewage spillage or the cleanup of the sewage, um, which is another issue that I'm gonna have to look into.

Um just to give you some context.

So we were going back and forth uh with inspector or my my partner was um we had the plumber there on site, um he assessed it.

Uh we found out that again it was some uh PVC piping underneath the crawl space that had given away and corroded away, whatever the case is.

Uh to our knowledge, and we're in the Bay Area, so our plumber was updating us with pictures, and we were paying for you know new ABS piping and whatnot from Home Depot to make the changes.

And according to us, uh well, we were told that end of September the project was completed, and that's when inspector had told my partner that hey, you guys need to pull the permit.

So uh I believe an email was sent out to my partner in terms of the procedures of how to pull emergency permit.

He went ahead and attempted to do that.

There were some issues and some changes with the permitting office where some people were changing offices, so there was a delay in response going back and forth, and then uh I believe uh Buldeep received the email back.

I believe Matt was going back and forth with my partner as well.

And then on 1117 is when we were told, or when he was told that there's still a leak.

Uh, and that sort of contradict what I mean, the water was taken out or is removed, and the reports from the utilities department and their invoice indicates the same that the water was reduced substantially because of um whatever the plumber was doing.

Um at that point uh on the 17th, um, or on um yeah, the 17th, an email was sent out uh when Buldeep had reached out about the procedure or the status of the permit, and that's when Matt had informed him that nothing was done, and we're like, no, it should have been done.

And he's like, we're gonna be calling out uh we're gonna be calling out someone to fix the problem.

But from the end of September to November, uh we were never informed that they nothing was done, or that the next step would be that we're gonna call someone out to get it done, and you guys are gonna be forced to pay for this and whatnot.

Um, I mean, at this point, you know, it was like they did this stuff, they you know, and our guys apparently did it.

Um, and then going back and forth with that, they also did additional repairs as Matt had mentioned in November.

So we have uh a few invoices uh all the way up to December, and then I believe in January, one of the tenants who is now on a 60-day notice uh and we're waiting for her to leave, um, did also make another complaint saying that they have uh another plumbing issue where Matt got involved.

And at that point, it was the same situation that apparently this construction company already replaced out um the vent, which we apparently already paid for.

And when Matt had reached out, he had requested, and we had another plumbing company come out and build us another thousand dollars to sort of assess it, and they said, Well, we can't come in from the roof to drain it out because it's true brittle, uh, and you need to sort of change out the piping on the bottom.

So we're out of awe on who did what and what was actually done.

I still have piping and stuff like debris that are left behind on the property site, so it's kind of confusing on who actually completed repair if it was an actual con it seems more of my guy's kind of work just to sort of knock behind himself, then the construction company to come in and actually doing it.

And then I have multiple different invoices from the construction company apparently doing stuff that I mean, one after another, if they already mean the the trenching out, I understand the first cleanup of the trenching out was done after the fact.

Well, that was already supposed it should have been already billed out invoice out during the first time.

And then there was another visit.

I mean, all this stuff should have been it's only four units, so all this stuff should have been visible to any kind of contractor who goes down in the crawl space to see the the visibility of the piping out there.

So it's it's out of awe and why we're getting you know so many bills when we thought we were doing the work and they also said that, and also going over their invoices.

I noticed um the other day that they had mentioned gray water in multiple different descriptions there.

And we're also being told there was sewage water.

So uh for when I went there to the property with my with my partner, we had saw the water standing there and it's a crawl space, so it was definitely gray water because it didn't have any smells, if not my tenants would have been on my rear to sort of get us out there and sort of complained about it, but it was it was just gray water.

So I'm sort of trying to figure out if it was gray, if it was according to the contractors.

So I mean the work was done.

Um, you know, it's a who did it type of situation, but you know, we have invoices from their side.

I I just have someone telling me they did it and I have receipts from Home Depot with the piping concerns uh and purchases.

But what we're trying to do is we're trying to see if there's any kind of reduction on fees, because first there was no kind of heads up that if you guys don't get it done by X amount of date, we're gonna get it done ourselves and send you a nice little bill.

And and that's my concern.

Uh we're into it with this 17K along with the utilities 9K.

Uh top it all off, tenants not paying the rent and have eviction notices sent out, and we're just out.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments from the board?

Yeah.

Um so just looking at Inspector Sartane's first yeah.

Um on 918, when I arrived, I verified the leak was coming from the property.

I spoke with a few sewer district employees who said they spoke with the owner, and he had a plumber coming out.

I he then called the owner, Raj, and the property manager Bald Deep, leaving messages for both saying to call him back and to know about the severity of the issue of the importance.

I then emailed them, again explaining the issue, letting them know if the matter is not resolved timely, the city will correct the issue with the cost being sent to the property.

So they did notify you.

You're saying they didn't.

Well, they notified us at that time, and we already had our plumber out there.

So from that first week of we had a plumber out there changing out the piping and whatnot.

But then he attempted to call the owner or email the owner numerous times between September, October, November, and no responses.

So obviously they gave you the opportunity to do a severe job, which they said this is severe, this needs to get done.

We're going to send somebody out.

Why didn't you respond to any of their emails?

Well, my partner takes care of this particular property.

So I did get a couple of voicemails for Matt itself, and as soon as I came in, I had forwarded over to him, and I believe he was in touch with um my partner.

But he, my partner also was talking to utilities apparently and a supervisor on-site supervisor, which we're still trying to figure out the name.

And the other caveat is that when we get a call from Matt itself, it comes from a private number.

So a lot of the calls go straight into voice, which is unfortunate.

And you know, the voicemails that we do get, I operate hotels, so I get you know calls all day long, and then fortunately I don't get to an entire manner.

And if I do get the voice mail forward from our partner who I oversee another property, so we sort of divvy up the properties that we do own in the city.

But it sounds like he didn't actually follow up with him.

I mean, when was when was the communication?

It sounds like from communication was uh a little bit sporadic because there was time when he initially did respond.

Yeah, I see the initial, but then after that initial response, I'm not seeing that's why we went that route, and then later he started responding.

Um there was a second case that opened up same property unit three, just like he said, and he Baldeep was all over that one, and they took care of it, and I didn't have to do any penalties or anything.

Okay, so my bigger concern here is I mean, from day one, they told both your the owner and property manager that they are going to address this if you don't.

Right.

It sounds like he just maybe didn't follow up your partner.

Right, but we did have a plumber out there to start pumping the water out and to start making the changes on 926.

I have pictures from my plunder plumber with the new installation of the new ABA's piping.

So under our assumption it was done, and then we didn't hear back till a month or two months later from Matt saying, hey, it's still not done yet.

We're like, no, it was already done, but between that, there was nothing saying that, hey, it's still not done, is what I'm trying to say.

Yes.

The initial contact was made, and we were informed that you know, if we don't do it, it'll be done by us.

But at that point, that's what prompted our plumber for us to send out a plumber to sort of clean up the mess and do damage control and sort of assess the situation.

Okay.

Well, and to address the issue for the fees on this, I'm only looking at a 1360, 190, and 4750.

Those are the only fees that they're citing you.

The 15,500 is the work performed by the contractor.

Right.

So those aren't fees that I mean, that's a contract that they, the city have already paid since they couldn't get the plumber to do the emergency work.

You said you thought they did it, but obviously they documented through pictures here showing the work didn't get done.

So it sounds like you may have hired a plumber to do the work, but they didn't finish the job, but you thought they did, right?

Correct.

That's what it comes out to right now.

But then the second situation was that the unit number three was another, I believe, where grade construction bill just uh 2,000.

That was the December, the last invoice.

And that wait, hold on one second.

I just want to confirm.

We're not, are we dealing with unit three right now?

That is part of it.

So um part of it.

It's because there was three, I believe it was three separate.

There's three separate, but I can't, it looks like it's 1877, 1980, and then I'm assuming the 13520 is more or less for the gray construction.

It was one of the there was three invoices from Great Construction, just to clear up on one of the number three issue was apparently repaired by Great Construction as well, which is what is concerning because if it was already repaired by Great Construction, yeah, uh same problem again.

Well, for that one, what their statement was was that they had completed that work, but when they went back down there, um it had been altered.

So they said uh when they came back to the property to finish up, that line had been cut and and left open.

Um my assumption, especially after seeing what happened the following month with the tenant was that they might have been clogging the line and just figured out a way so that they can use their their plumbing.

That's my assumption.

Okay.

Go ahead.

I don't have any sartain, get just a question for me.

Was a permit needed when his plumber stated that he was doing the work?

I believe that was around September 19th, 2025.

Would they have needed a permit at that time to do the constru the plumbing work underneath the four plaques?

Yeah, so the the plumbing work uh this definitely requires a permit.

Um the difference is that if it's an emergency so that we can get people living and not sewage going into the streets, um, I allow them to get the work done without a permit to prevent that.

Umce the work is completed, they have 24 hours to obtain a permit.

So thank you.

Did that contracting company ever pull a permit?

No.

So it sounds like you hired a company that didn't.

We were pulling this permitts ourselves.

We did it.

But you didn't, so it's owner can pull their own permits as well.

We we were in my partner wasn't taught with Matt in regards to what the procedures are to get that permit.

And as I mentioned, there was some changes in the permit department, so that got a lag, we got some email addresses and just went back and forth.

And then finally, when my partner had followed up with Matt saying, hey, you know, what's what's going on with this?

And he's like, nothing's been done, we're sending someone out.

I mean, I'll be honest, it sounds like there was a ball dropped on your partner's side, because it looks like on here communication was attempted numerous times, and it happened 918, 919, 922, 929, 929, 109, 1013, and 1017.

Right.

So they attempted several communications to your partner, and it appears that they were letting them know that we're going to do this work.

This is emergency work, which was explained and documented in email on the very first day.

Correct.

But it sounds like you thought the the contractor you hired that did it without a permit, did it, but they also didn't pull a permit.

So none of the work actually got done.

So did you hire, did you hire like a licensed contractor to do this work?

It was a subcontractor of a licensed contractor, yeah.

Okay.

It's one of our handymans that does work for us, so it didn't work for us.

Um, but I'm not just I'm not uh saying that the contact wasn't there and we weren't notified of it, but my my issue is that we were notified at first and we sent someone to fix it.

But then the thing is that from the time of like end of September when we thought it was completed to November when we're still trying to take care of the permit process of it because the city wanted the permits to make sure everything was done.

There was no kind of communication saying, hey, if you this is not done yet, now we're gonna send someone in.

Or you're saying you literally said he did, it just was a private number, and he left voicemails that you just didn't return in time.

Nothing in terms of if you don't do this, there was voicemails for follow-up, so we were constantly my partner was constantly in contact with Matt in terms of updating him what's going on and where we are with it.

And my concern is not, you know, I know that it was obviously if we don't do the work, it's gonna be done first.

But my thing is that we thought it was done, and end of September we got pictures from our guys and it's done, but then all of a sudden in November, we just get saying, Hey, no, we're sending someone out.

So there was no like, hey, you have it's not done yet.

We're gonna and from that email for to Matt on the 17th of November, there was no response back saying because my partner had emailed it back saying that our guy had informed us that it's already completed, and then there was nothing back, and then we just get uh a bunch of you know invoices in the mail.

I get it.

Um I mean, however, are there other fees that um are outside of this?

Uh Inspector Sartane.

Uh on this case, I believe it was just the notice and order and um the uh invoices.

Okay.

And there was no communication after that, but the notice and order wasn't even issued until the middle of October.

Yeah.

No, I I I agree.

I I mean I obviously the onus is on the owner's side on this one.

Um, and it sounds like there was some miscommunication between their contractor that they had hired and the work getting done.

But to be honest, I mean, this started in September.

It was an emergency issue, and even then it took numerous call attempts over several months and finally got done in November, uh, end of November.

But by the city, we we had our plumber there the next day.

That didn't do the work though, like you can have them there, but if they're not gonna do the work, what's the point?

Like if they came back, he literally says that he came back and did an inspection, and there was what was it?

There were ladders and other material blocking the area where the leak was actively still happening.

But that was above the crawl space.

There was no one that actually went in the crawl space to see situation if it was complete or not.

So I have batch with pictures from timestamps on 926 that the ABS pipes were put in along with receipts from all people.

So what I'm trying to say is that it was done for my guy, but maybe there was another problem or whatnot.

But that I guess that's what I'm saying.

We did do the initial part of it, but then the secondary part of it because there was no one that went underneath the crawl space to actually assess to see if it was completed or not, because you there was some gray water that was still there.

Correct.

But the job can't be done partially.

So obviously, when they saw there was still a leak, they had to pay somebody to do the job if they couldn't get a hold of you to do the job.

So that I mean that's I I don't have any questions.

And I guess the other thing is if I if I may request the the board to sort of see if we can put a payment plan on something.

Yeah, and that I'll definitely yeah.

I mean, when it comes to but I have no questions for me.

No questions.

Okay.

I and I apologize, like I understand the severity, but I'll also as a property owner here in Sacramento.

Um, I'll definitely recommend that we get a payment plan set up with you tomorrow.

Um, but in the meantime, I it it does sound like the city did their due diligence in trying to contact numerous time, and Inspector Sartain documented that very well in the report here.

Um so I'm I will say I will start since this is broken into three.

Um I will do this all separately.

So I will for item number seven, confirm the total charge of 1877.

For the notice of order on the property known as 3624 Willow Street APN number 2520161024 000.

Second Fisher, yes, and tablion, yes, Taylor, yes, thank you.

And for number eight, confirming the total charge of one thousand nine hundred and eighty dollars for the property known as 3624 Willow Street APN number 25201610240.

Second Fisher?

Yes, and tablion?

Yes, Taylor, yes, on item number nine, confirming the total charge of 13,520 for the property known as 3624 Willow Street APN number 25201610240.

Second Fisher, yes, and tablion, yes, Taylor, yes.

Sorry, no, you couldn't.

So Mr.

Lotwala, we did find in favor of the city uh for all the uh expenses incurred.

You will receive uh formal documentation in the mail regarding our decision and any next steps that you can take, which I believe that paperwork also includes payment plan information.

If I'm not well, maybe not.

I can include it.

Okay, it'll be included in there.

Oh, yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No problem, thank you.

Thank you.

Item number 10, case inspector Nick Tryon 1416 22nd Street.

Appellant speaker is uh is Luiris?

Yes, all right, thank you.

Uh please direct your attention to the secretary to be sworn in.

I can have all parties for the property located at 1416 22nd street.

If I could have all parties for the property located at 1416, 22nd 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, Mr.

Tryon.

Please begin.

In the matter of 1416, 22nd Street, agenda number 10, case number 25-013984.

Property owner is Adam Loras.

Property address is 1416 22nd Street, Sacramento, California, 95816, parcel number 007 0251013 000.

City staff is Nick Tryon, myself.

On April 8th, 2025, I arrived at the property.

I arrived at a multi-family home to investigate the complaint.

Upon arrival, I walked the exterior of the structure and observed dry rot on the exterior fascia, trim and siding.

I issued a prelim letter, photos were added to the case.

On May 22nd, 2025, I arrived at the property for a 30-day reinspection.

Upon arrival, I observed no changes to the exterior of the property.

I spoke to the property owner by phone who asked for an extension.

I informed him I will provide a 30-day extension to obtain the permits needed.

Photos were added to the case.

June 16th, 2025, I received a call from the property owner informing me that she still hasn't obtained a building permit.

She stated that no contractor wants to do the work.

She also stated that she will be selling the property.

She said she would obtain the permit.

On July 2nd, 2025, I received a call from the property owner stating that she sent me an email on how to obtain a permit that I never replied to.

August 19th, 2025, I arrived at the property for a 30-day reinspection.

Upon arrival, I observed no changes to the exterior of the property.

She stated she sent the application via email the previous week.

A prelim letter was sent on April 21st, 2025.

The appellate has been given the information presented this evening.

Staff recommends that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charges of 1780 for the notice and order on the property known as 1416-22nd Street, Sacramento, California, 95816, APN 00702510130.

Thank you, Mr.

Tryon.

This is Luiris, please state your appeal.

Um, and we would just you know let them handle the repairs, take it off the top when we sold it.

Umce we finally saw that this was gonna take longer to sell it.

I went through the process of getting the permit.

But what uh the inspector didn't know is that I'm in the historic district, the preservation district, so I couldn't get the permit in a week.

It took us about three to four weeks.

There was a lot of back and forth, um, paperwork, pictures that they wanted.

Um during that time, uh I'm talking to people having them give me bids.

No one will do the dry rot, it's up on the eaves without redoing the entire roof.

So I had to get more than one bid.

I had to get about three or four, and then they went to pull the permit, but then we had to do the asbestos report.

That took another two weeks.

So I did a very good job of communicating with him.

And we finally did get the whole roof done, and we paid 45,000 to have everything done, the siding, the eaves, the roof.

So that's why we're requesting that we get out of paying the $1,700 fee.

Thank you, Mrs.

Luiras.

I'll open up the floor for the board though.

Yeah, I have a question.

So you said you you've done this already, it's done.

Yeah, it's done.

This is listed as still open.

Yes.

On the day I was filing the permit, the tenant came outside and showed me additional violations that I couldn't see during my previous inspections.

Okay.

So the roof and the sighting is all done.

But the case is still open.

Correct.

And when did you get the additional citations?

Within the past month.

Okay.

Are you aware of the additional citations?

I am, but when we spoke on the phone, he told me that he wasn't gonna make me get a permit because he had already closed my case out.

But I've been communicating with him.

We've already got half the work done that he saw some porch work that needs to be done, and I have until the beginning of April to get that all done.

And like I said, we've already got part of the work done.

I've sent him photos.

So I didn't realize the case was still open until I arrived here.

I thought he had told me that it was closed.

I think you said the permit was closed, but the case is still open, it sounds like.

So this case did open April 8th is when it started.

And when did you first submit your application for a building permit?

And if you don't know the date, I'm sure we can ask one of those two to look it in to what is it?

Arcare Arcata?

What?

Excella.

Excel, sorry.

Do you know probably in September?

It was probably end of September, beginning of October.

But I had reached out as he mentioned earlier.

I think it was June or July when I tried to do it, but I couldn't, I didn't understand how to do it in the email he had sent me, so I reached out again, and then I didn't get back to it again until he communicated with me for the time in September.

Yeah, so my only concern is at least on here, he gave you which out of all of the building inspectors we've talked to today, he gave you six months, April, May, June, July, August.

He gave you five almost six months.

We're talking about a week shy to pull the building, and it took six months to pull it.

So I would understand if you and that's why I ask if you attempted to pull the building permit back in June, July, and you just couldn't get it because you had to go through all those hurdles.

But he actually waited almost six months to file this notice and order.

Um, and that's when you attempted whether you got the permit, that's when you applied for it.

So that's my only concern is he did give you and the the tenant, because I understand if uh especially with the siding bugs, animals could possibly get into the property through that.

Um then that work has been done, and so okay.

I think that's the only question I have.

The first record I show of application is November 20th.

November 20th is the first time it was submitted.

Correct.

That one was submitted, and there was some work, and then it actually um the application actually went through in December.

Okay.

I have emails though that I'm working with the historic district as early as October 8th when they're going back and forth with me, telling me what I need to do, and I think it's a historical preservation.

Yeah, they so they told you, but you didn't submit the documents there until November.

But I had a lot of other documents.

They had told me that whatever I had sent them was no good, and they needed photos, and they needed some other paperwork because I am in the preservation historical district.

So what my original whatever I gave them originally was no good, and I even have an email I sent to them.

I said they're asking me for photos, and I don't have any, so he was gonna get those to me.

So that was like I said, that was a long holdup going back and forth with them, probably three to four weeks.

Are you scheduled to do with the new work?

Are you scheduled to do any monitoring fees?

Um I am.

I told her I would give her time because these violations were just brought to my attention.

Um, I believe I told her the end of April um that is when I would start enforcement.

Okay.

I mean that's so that gives about almost two months right now.

So that's not a concern for me to add to anything.

Okay, no other questions for me at this time.

Any other questions or comments?

All right.

So while she pulls that up, I I definitely understand the issue.

But again, we have to, as the board have to take into consideration the time that's put into the city's effort to work with and contact you.

And through the one to the six months, there's not a single monitoring fee on here that we can see.

So he could have added up to three additional monitoring fees, it looks like September.

Well, no, October, November, December, January, and February 5.

He could have added three, five $380 fees on here on top of that.

But it appears he did not enter.

Is that my correct, or are there other monitoring fees that are not here?

No, never issued.

Okay.

All right, go ahead.

All right.

Uh motion to accept the staff recommendation that we are confirming the total charge of 1780 for the notice and order on the property known as 1416 22nd Street, Sacramento, California, 95816, APN number 0070 2510 1300.

I second Fisher.

Yes.

And Tablion?

Yes.

Taylor.

Yes.

Thank you.

Ms.

Lewis, we did find in favor of the city confirming a total charge of 1,780.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Triell.

All right.

Item number 11, uncontested.

The following lines shall 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 our personal number, APN, as noted within each agenda line for item number 11, lines one through 17 and lines 19 through 28.

So move.

Second.

Fisher?

Yes.

And Tablion?

Yes.

Taylor.

Yes.

Now on to item 12, election of chair and vice chair for 2026.

So I did ask for the uh there was a question in January, and I think the staff attorney or the board attorney.

The attorney.

Whatever.

That's right.

So per the board commission and committee handbook.

Um a sitting member of the board can serve up to two calendar years as either the vice chair or the chair.

Um and again, that would be inclusive of both positions.

And so if you've already served for two calendar years, irrespective of whether or not it's your first, second, or third term, uh, you would not be eligible per the the handbook.

Great confirmation.

Thank you.

Of course.

Thank you.

So that's the question I was just gonna ask is who on this board?

Obviously, I can't serve, so that means the only two people in this room or both of them are going to have to serve as one of the two.

He's currently the chair.

Did you serve as vice chair before?

Yes.

And Barry's eligible as well.

So can we vote for him without him even being here?

Can we just We're gonna have to?

I don't think we have a choice.

So we're both termed out then.

No, because you did vice chair for one year.

He's basically termed out for lack of a better term.

Your terms is two years cumulative, whether you're vice chair or chair.

No, it's each each total.

Oh, so four years total of like leadership within the oh, I did four years.

I didn't even know I'd been on the board, but for five.

Correct.

It's two years of each correct.

That's good.

So the way that the rule is written, and again, I don't know how it's been applied in the past.

I I couldn't I can't speak to that.

But the way the book the rule is written, I can read it verbatim.

There we go.

Correct.

Give me one moment.

How long have you served as chair right now?

One year.

Oh, so you can go again.

So you're not termed out then if he's gonna say two.

Well, let's see what he says.

But yeah.

Where's that?

Or placed in this clause.

Yeah.

So all right.

So uh reading it verbatim, officer election annually or as needed.

Commission's vote to elect to select a chair and vice chair to lead the proceedings.

In coordinate with staff, the important section is this.

Uh a member may serve as the chair person or vice chairperson for no more than two calendar years.

Now again, it's written in a way that's somewhat ambiguous.

The way I read it is that you could serve as either the chairperson or the vice chairperson, or no more than two years.

And I'm thinking of them collectively in that sense.

That's almost impossible if you serve two tenure, two five-year terms, and most of the board members stay, then you almost have nobody that can serve as chair and vice chair.

And I understand the concern.

I I will say I I did not draft these rules.

I can only do what the rules.

You have to interpret the rules, right?

Right.

And so uh am I correct to say that based on past practice that uh members have served as two years in vi as a vice chair, two years as a chair.

That that's been a past practice.

Okay.

And that's why you're maxed out.

Okay.

And then he did five, and he moved this year.

So how many years combined then?

Because it sounds like he could do four years in one, it's just a combination of the two.

Yes.

Okay.

So a basic rule of contract interpretation, it's like law school 101.

But if the terms of the contract are ambiguous, and we'll we'll say that it's going to be true for rules as well, but if it's ambiguous, then past practice would govern.

If in the past, that's the way we've interpreted it and exercise that rule.

I I would advise that we stick to that.

Yeah, the one um, because I was going back and forth with the clerk's office today, and uh the same we're trying to figure that out.

So the way that uh the clerk's office said was uh George is aneligible to serve as chair or vice chair because he has served in each of those capacities for two years.

Okay.

But how long has he served?

Like, can we keep him in the role?

I'm saying it's it depends on if if he's saying that we're gonna do two and two.

Is that what it is?

Well, based off that interpretation, you have served one year in each of those roles, so you would in theory have one more year in each role that you're eligible to serve.

Oh, you did two as vice chair?

That's what we're at.

Like that's what I'm curious.

Yeah, because what is your tenure thus far?

Yours.

Well, on the board.

Yeah.

But as in the leadership positions, vice chair and chair.

I know.

I thought you were vice chair for both for my Yeah.

So I think you're vice chair for two.

Okay.

I don't know how long you've been chair.

Do you guys not have the I do have to look up the day?

So are you fine if we like out of curiosity?

Are you fine being do you want to be vice chair?

I mean, it it it would appear that this is the coalition.

It's either you or Barry.

So I'll be here.

All right.

I will be here in my tenure.

I will be here serving through 2027.

So if you would like that for continuity as well, because isn't Barry's term up at the end of isn't Barry's term up soon?

He gets read copy.

He got reappointed, okay.

That's good to know.

So he has five more years, right?

It's a five-year term.

I was like, I thought this was a four-year gig.

It was four.

Yeah, I think it's a good one.

Oh, yeah.

Because mine was five.

I'm fine with four.

Did they also change that how many terms you can serve?

You can only serve two.

Still two.

So I'm out in four years.

Two years.

I think I started in 2019.

Oh, so no, three years.

So I'm out in 2029 then.

Yeah, I'm out in 2029.

Okay.

Okay.

So I think by um if that is committee?

We're not a committee.

Board.

Board.

We are a board, thank you.

Whatever this governing body is, that's fine.

So let's do we have to do them separately or do we do them together?

So let's start with if that's what you're fine with.

Let's or I will make a proposal.

No, I was like, keep him myself.

That's keep Brandon for another year or whatever we're supposed to say, another year, I'm assuming, or however many months will hit him at that two years as chair.

So let's do that one first.

Yes.

So that first, I first did.

I second that motion.

Fisher?

Yes.

And Tablion?

Yes.

Taylor.

Yes.

I guess I should have asked, are you okay staying?

Oh, good.

Okay.

I mean, I was like, so two, it's a two-one, so we would have had you anyway.

So I will just a question.

Do we know the tenure of boy vice?

Well, he just got another, so he has four years, but I don't.

Oh, he served vice chair, right?

Yeah, he's never been chair, right?

I don't know.

Oh, it doesn't matter because we're voting her.

Okay.

Or I'm going, yes.

Yeah.

All right.

So I will make a motion uh for Clancy to be vice chair.

I second.

You're thirding it, no?

Eventually I'll get you to do it.

Fisher?

Yes.

And tablion.

Yes.

Taylor.

Yes.

It comes with the pay race.

No, it doesn't.

Board comments, ideas and questions.

Yes.

Mr.

Limos.

Let me explain why I didn't want to say this.

No, this is for your benefit.

Like, so I understand we've talked about this probably five years ago.

When we make a change to something that's a thousand dollars, that money that you're billing comes back to your department because those are the costs for you, right?

It returns to the general fund.

So it doesn't impact your department at all.

I have a revenue budget expectation for my department.

Correct.

So here's my concern.

Anytime that we lower somebody's late fees because by lowering the cost of this, that impacts you.

So I would highly recommend that somebody make this board eligible to reduce late fees again.

Otherwise, if we reduce if or don't, the only way we have around that is to lower your costs to make up for those late fees.

I don't think that's fair necessarily.

I think waiving the late fees should come back to this board as an option.

And I will ask the attorney, and and again, Mr.

Lehman, this is for your benefit.

I want to make sure you get the credit.

Your people are doing the work.

So I want to make sure that we're giving your people the money that should be allocated to you.

And I will ask, Mr.

Kim.

Who removed the ability of this board?

How was that removed?

Was it officially removed?

I'm not currently aware of the history behind that decision.

Uh that's something I would be able to look into, but I do not know at the moment.

Okay, I guess what I'm asking is phone.

Okay, you have it.

Go ahead.

Uh so the late charges are assessed by Department of Revenue.

Uh so they assess 21st cents on all city invoices.

And previously they charged a 20 dollar fee.

I think better thing no one know.

And we're added on to our fees and RP green.

So it wasn't that it wasn't that big of a deal if all of these came here, and you guys included those in our fees, and they went through our process.

And 24 seconds when you're you know, these are coming to you guys or 1500 dollars, and we're gonna go back on that, and these now are going to lead and those are affecting a lot of people, and so we're not bringing those to the board anymore that are now going to be to the attorneys or view that and said those leads and not go to the wheel people from the way they're not coming to the board, and those are not our feet.

So we should not be presenting those to the board because they are not gonna value that.

But if they're not technically if the board is ruling that those fees aren't appropriate, we should then be able to give them another mechanism to go somewhere because I don't want to cut his.

Okay, that's just gonna piss people off even more.

We agree, and then it was already that way of revenue, and the after that we're not uh they're after the board, and there's a little way to add a little willing to let review that you review that fee, or whatever you're divided by that order.

Now we're gonna know what is uh we're gonna max the match that's correct.

So they're getting more than a $500 discount because the the $500 discount, I wasn't gonna sit and do the math for that, but I get it.

I do understand that they got a bigger reduction.

That's the only way we can make it work.

So Peter, do you have any suggestions on how can you fix this internally?

Because again, I'm trying to do this for your benefit.

So if there's a way the board could help you, I'm listening.

But if there's a way you can do this on the back end, I'm also happy to help you.

But again, I want you to know this stems from making sure that you are made more whole than the revenue department.

Yeah, it's something we have to look into to see if they if they can it it's kind of a tough situation that we hold off the late fee until the determination of the board.

But the late fees on theirs already before it even comes to the board.

So there needs to be maybe a way that we can reduce the late fee or bring it back to them or something, or maybe you have a talk internally that you can fix it, or I I don't know.

But I just I some of these people don't deserve the late fee.

Like obviously, she sounded like I I don't think she was lying.

She went down there to make an honest payment.

Whether she lied or not about it, it's possible.

But I I don't again, my biggest concern is not penalizing your department for something that they shouldn't be penalized for.

Right.

And you're only seeing it because you're seeing the invoice, our appeal is only the base amount, not the not the late fee because ultimately like just all of these costs you just confirmed to send them to assessment.

We're not assessing the late fees.

So even though like that it says $1,900, we're only assessing the $1,700 because that fee isn't assessable against the property taxes as a superior lien.

So that's why we're if we had a heartache also, it puts me in a bad predicament to say I'm going to take it to assessment at the city council, we're going to assess a late fee onto your property taxes when actually it's not a fee that can be um put on the taxes on those cases.

So what you're saying is if there's a thousand dollar fee and you assign a two hundred dollar late fee, if that person pays the thousand dollars, the lien will be removed, but a two hundred dollar late fee will be there that can't attach to anything.

Correct.

It goes to collection.

Yeah, that goes to collect.

So I was like, good to know, because if I'm ever late, I just don't pay the two hundred dollars, but never mind.

If it gets sent to collections, I'm still screwed.

So yeah, no, so it goes to collections because the the notice and order fee is a hard cost.

So by state law and by um the other codes, you can assess a tax lien against a property for and recover your hard costs.

All these abatement fees that were just confirmed, the notice and order fees, the monitoring fees.

Penalties are different.

Penalties are not a hard cost.

I get that the area of personal obligation.

Again, I just want you to know where this is coming from in my thought processes.

I don't want because I'm sure there's reports at the end of the year of how much your team assessed, collected, whatever you want to call it.

And if we're reducing those because finance is getting their money, it's not fair to you.

So if the in my opinion, as an individual board member, if there's a way the board could help you, otherwise, I highly recommend you try to fix this for your own right.

So the board has the right, give us direction to look into it.

Please we'll do and I would recommend if possible, um just observing and noting if there has been an increase of like the types of issues and the late notice issues since um the invoice changes and that invoice noticing changes through the department of revenue if that's like negatively impacted your department.

Um yeah, like it's not it's not in order, just a note curious if it is negatively impacting y'all because like y'all are a downstream user of Department of Revenue, and if it is a negative impact, then that's to be noted.

Right, yeah.

So, like the uh case we heard this evening at a mailing address where the property owners using that as their primary address, and in turn the there was an invoice months before, but it went to the property.

Um, and she didn't that person didn't have that in hand because they didn't have it, but they could have did a information request or asked for a copy of it.

Thank you.

Any other any other comments?

All right, public comments.

All right.

Adjourned.

Thank you.

It wasn't that bad.