Sacramento Housing Code Appeals Board Meeting – May 13, 2026
Sacramento Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board Meeting – May 13, 2026
The Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board met on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 5:30 PM in the Historic City Hall Hearing Room. The board considered one consent item and ten public hearing items, including a Notice & Order appeal and multiple contested and uncontested cost recovery cases. The meeting adjourned at 8:22 PM.
Consent Calendar
- Item 1 – Approval of Minutes (March 11, 2026): Approved unanimously (4-0).
Public Hearings
- Item 2 – Notice & Order Appeal (4124 T St, Case 25-041319): Appellant attorney Amy Kassouni argued improper notice and that the second floor should be grandfathered. Board upheld the Notice & Order but extended compliance from 30 to 60 days. Vote: 4-0 (Fisher, Taylor, Antablian, Bunting; Boyd arrived later).
- Item 3 – Cost Recovery Contested (4455 71st St, Invoice $635.40): Appellant Larry Odbert disputed the fence rental fee timing. Board reduced the invoice to $445.40 (5-0).
- Item 4 – Cost Recovery Contested (6975 Mesa Grande Ct, Invoice $1,468.80): Appellant Howard Giang argued the underlying violation was unjust. Board upheld the full amount (4-0).
- Items 5 & 6 – Cost Recovery Contested (4561 10th Ave, Two Invoices: $410.40 and $1,597.50): Appellant Jose C. Francisco cited notice failures. Board upheld the $410.40 invoice (4-0) and reduced the $1,597.50 invoice to $1,097.50 (4-0).
- Items 7 & 8 – Cost Recovery Contested (3439 23rd St, Invoices $410.40 and $1,597.50): Appellant Vincent Lera was not present. Board upheld both amounts (4-0 each).
- Item 9 – Cost Recovery Contested (3841 Lily St): Pulled by City Staff.
- Item 10 – Cost Recovery Contested (4301 Marysville Blvd, Invoice $1,725.30): Appellant not present. Board upheld the invoice (5-0).
- Item 11 – Uncontested Cost Recovery (Lines 1-2, 4-145, 147-188): Board approved all listed charges (4-0). Lines 3 and 146 were excluded as late appeals.
Board Comments – Ideas and Questions
- The Board formally welcomed Daniel Lowther as the new Principal Building Inspector, replacing the previous role.
- Chair Brandon Fisher noted the microphone issue on the appellant’s podium and requested it be addressed for future meetings.
Public Comments – Matters Not on the Agenda
- None.
Key Outcomes
- The Board upheld the Notice & Order for 4124 T St but granted a 60-day compliance extension (instead of the standard 30 days).
- Several contested cost recovery invoices were partially reduced based on circumstances: Item 3 reduced by $190; Items 5&6 reduced by $500 on the larger invoice.
- All uncontested cost recovery charges were approved as recommended.
- The Board encouraged appellants to update contact information with the Rental Housing Inspection Program to avoid future notice issues.
Meeting Transcript
And code advisory and appeals board will now come to order. The board consists of five members who are not employees of the city. The board is an impartial decision maker. The board is appointed by the mayor with approval of the city council. Your board members are myself, Brandon Fisher, Chair. We also have Ms. Taylor, Vice Chair, Mr. Antablian, Mr. Boyd, and Ms. Bunting. We also have Leah Billings, Secretary to the Board, Peter Lemos, Code and House Reinforcement Chief, Daniel Lothard, Principal Building Inspector, and David Kim, Counsel to the Board. I'll now ask the secretary to call the roll. Yes, sir. Yes. Taylor, present. And tablion? Here. Boyd. Bunting. Thank you. Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands. To the original people of this land, the Nissan people, the Southern Maydu Valley and Plains, My Walk, Patwin Winton peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe. May we acknowledge and honor the Native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people's history contributions and lives. Thank you. Let us now turn your attention for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Which it stands one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Thank you, maybe seated. All right. For item two, we are here to determine whether the owners of the buildings and structures in the cases before us this evening have violated the provisions of chapter 8.96 or chapter 8.100 of the Sacramento City Code. The question here is was the property in violation of the City Code at the time the notice and order was issued, and was the notice and order properly issued. If it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that an owner has violated the dangerous buildings code or the housing code, then this board will issue a written decision ordering the owner to correct the dangerous or substandard conditions or demolish the building within a reasonable time. The board's decision will direct the time within which the work must be started and when the work must be completed. If the owner decides to do the work required and the work is progressing in a reasonable manner, the city inspector may grant an extension of time not to exceed an additional 120 days to complete the project. However, if the owner fails to comply with the terms of the decision, then the city may repair, secure, or demolish the building or structure, and the cost incurred for this work may be made a personal obligation of the property owner and either a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment against the property. You will hear our decision today and receive formal notification of our decision in the mail. For items three through ten, we are here to consider the expenses incurred by the city in the notice and order and the repair, demolition or securing of any building or structure done in the housing and dangerous buildings cases before us, together with any protests or objections. The question here is are the fees, costs or other amounts claimed by the city reasonable and justified. This board may revise, correct, or modify the proposed charges as we deem just. Once this board is satisfied with the correctness of the charges, we shall then make a decision confirming or rejecting the charges. Any written protests and related information received have been forwarded to us for consideration in our decision. You will hear our decision today and receive formal notification of our decision in the mail. Our decision will be forwarded to the city council for determination whether this hearing was conducted in accordance with the city code. I think now we go to the agenda. There's a whole payment. There it is. Alright, let us now turn our attention to the agenda. Item number one, approval of the minutes for March 11th, 2026. I move to approve the minutes. I second.
openpublica.com