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.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Taylor.

Yes.

And tablion?

Yes.

Bunting.

Thank you.

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

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

Please be concise.

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

As we begin to call these, the secretary will swear in appealants and city staff prior to each case.

Item number two.

I hope I said that correctly.

Attorney for the property owner, thank you.

And also Elizabeth Tinborg and Oscar Vasquez.

Please come forward.

I can have all parties for item number two for the property located at 4124 T Street.

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

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

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Lovato.

Okay, this is agenda item number two.

The case numbers 25-041-319.

Property owner shows Oscar Vasquez and Elizabeth Tenboard.

Property address is 4124 T Street, Sacramento, California, 95819.

Parcel number 011-011-30-11-000.

Today's May 13th, 2026.

My name is Paul Lovato, Building Inspector with the Housing and Dangerous Buildings.

This is a notice and order appeal.

The case opened on October 27th, 2025.

Current case status is open.

Protest to summary action andor fees will not be heard today.

This appeal is limited to the notice and order to pay cost and penalties only.

An initial inspection was performed on October 30th, 2025 by building inspector Paul of Auto.230, overcrowding of room.430, room and space dimensions.570 for floor supports.190 for permits are required.

The background on this is on October 30th, 2025.

The tenant stated the owner of the property is renting him a room that is that used to be an attic.

I asked if I could see his room, and he led me to the center of the property.

A preliminary letter was requested.

On December 1st, 2025 at 9:31 a.m., I arrived at the single family residence to take photos, update the case files, and due to lack of contact from the owner and failure to obtain the housing and dangerous buildings permit, I issued the notice and order.

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

The notice of the Les Pendants Cloud was properly recorded at the Sacramento County Assessor's Office on February 5th, 2026.

The property owner was the property owner was not, it was actually was not contacted prior to issuing the notice and order.

The preliminary letter was sent on October 30th, 2025.

The notice and order was sent to the property owner's address listed on the county accessor's records, Vasquez Oscar, Elizabeth Tenborg at 4124 T Street, Sacramento, California, 95819.

It was effectively served on December 4th, 2025 by process service.

The appellant has received the information being presented this evening.

Staff recommend recommends that the board adopts a decision finding the property owner has violated the provisions of Chapter 8.96 and or 8100 of the Sacramento City Code, ordering the property owner to obtain a permit to correct the dangerous conditions or demolish the structure within 30 days of the date of this decision, and ordering that it if the property owner fails, refuses or neglect neglects to correct the dangerous conditions or demolit and demolish the structure within the time set forth in this decision that the city of Sacramento may repair, demolish, or secure the structure, or institute an action to compel compliance with this order for the property known as 4124 T Street, Sacramento, California 95819 with a parcel number of 011011 301100.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your appeal.

Good evening, members of the Sacramento Appeals Board.

Thank you for the important work that you do and for the opportunity to present the information to you this evening regarding 4124 T Street.

My name is Amy Chaffin Kassooney and I represent owners Elizabeth Tenborg and Oscar Vazquez.

In the interest of time, this will confirm that the letter and exhibits previously submitted April 22nd on their behalf is part of the record tonight.

Unfortunately, I call this my no good deed goes unpunished case because my clients have really been wronged here.

My clients have served our community through active wartime military service, frontline health care service, and are currently working on the cure for cancer as a UCD trained physician and veterinarian.

When they learned that Dr.

Vasquez's sister and mother both had contracted cancer, they purchased 4124 T Street in January 2025.

They've done no improvements to the home other than flooring replacement.

The plan was that the property would be a home base for cancer treatment at the nearby UC Davis Medical Center, a home away from home as their sister and mother would be arriving from Puerto Rico for treatment.

As the owners waited for the move to transpire, they became aware that Dr.

Vasquez's four other family members needed a place to live during a search for employment.

My clients offered their entire property to all four family members as a place of respite during the job search.

The initial lease was executed in February 2025 at Exhibit B.

Shortly after lease execution, the four family members experienced financial distress.

A proposed rent reduction was offered to the tenants, but instead of executing the new lease, one of the family members reported the home to the city of Sacramento.

The same alleged and we contend incorrect code violations set forth in the inspector's report were used as the basis for a small claims action against my clients.

For the following reasons, all corrections and financial penalties and cloud on title cannot be justified and must be lifted from the property at 4124 T Street.

First, lack of proper notice.

Service of a notice and order must comply with Sacramento City Code 1.04100.

The code permits service only by one personal service, two posting plus simultaneous certified mail and first class mail, or by publication if neither of those can be.

None of those requirements were satisfied here.

The inspector's report asserts that the owners were personally served December 4th, 2025.

That assertion is unsupported.

The owners were not personally served, as confirmed by sworn affidavit in exhibit F.

And they're here to confirm that tonight as well.

Nor did the city produce any proof of personal service in response to public records act requests, see exhibits G.

Nor was service by mail properly effectuated.

Although a notice was eventually posted on the property, the code requires that posting be accompanied by simultaneous service by both certified and first-class mail.

The record establishes that mailed notices were not successfully delivered.

City records reflect multiple mailings on October 31st, December 2nd, January 6th, and February 6th, yet eight letters were returned as not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward, see exhibits G and H.

Certified mail was likewise ineffective, marked as signature unknown, also C GNH.

Because the certified mailings were returned with unknown signatures and the first class mailings were returned undeliverable, service was never completed under the plain terms of Sacramento Code.

Importantly, the owners, for the very first time, became aware of any code enforcement issues when a neighbor informed them of the posting of the notice and order at 4124 T Street on January 1st, 2026, well after the purported December service date.

The taking of private property rights without notice violates due process under the Constitution and it also violates Sacramento Municipal Code.

Another issue is the lack of the 30-day period to correct.

Sacramento City Code 15.04.060 mandates a 30-day period to cure correct violations after service of notice.

The owners were also never afforded this 30-day opportunity.

By the time my clients were aware of any code enforcement issues, the only option they had was to appeal the notice and order that same day.

More specifically, because they had not received any preliminary notices prior to the notice and order, their only responsive option was an appeal.

Accordingly, the administrative penalties and cloud on title are invalid and must be vacated.

Failure to do so is a constitutional violation and also a violation of Sacramento Municipal Code.

But just for sake of the argument, ignoring the effective ineffective notice and ineffective 30-day period subsequent to learning of the code concerns, the owners were never afforded even any reasonable opportunity to discuss the inspector's concerns.

I phoned the inspector on April 8th to discuss his concerns.

He was informed that there had been some misunderstandings.

The information provided him was given by a former tenant with an ulterior motive, namely free rent and court awarded money damages.

Unfortunately, the inspector appears to have believed the former tenants' incorrect assertions.

On the April 8th call, the inspector indicated that the second floor joists are only two by fours.

They're not C exhibit T, they're two by eights.

He was only willing to explunge the cloud on title if the owners were only willing to demolish their entire their home's entire second floor.

This was unreasonable and based on incorrect data.

Given this misunderstandings, my clients were never afforded a 30-day period with meaningful opportunity to address the inspector's concern given the ultimatum.

Another final but important point is that 4124 T Street is a home over 100 years old.

The basis of the inspector's claims are that the second floor of the home was constructed without a permit, citing numerous modern housing code violations.

Codes enacted long after the home's construction.

The report issued fails to make the requisite finding that the second floor of the home was constructed at a time when the codes cited were in effect.

We've checked as far back as possible with prior owners who've sworn by affidavit that they did not construct the home's second story, see exhibit U.

We contend every code cited by Inspector Lovato is inapplicable and the house is in its entirety really should just be grandfathered.

The issue is significant because the city is effectively requiring the owners to prove a negative here.

If the second floor was constructed before the adoption of housing codes, how could the owners realistically prove that no permit was required at the time?

Records from decades ago may not exist, and many historic properties predate the adoption of housing code in Sacramento altogether.

The implications extend far beyond this property.

Under the city's theory, owners of historic homes throughout Sacramento would be placed in an impossible position, forced to prove that permits were not required for construction completed generations earlier.

That standard would place virtually every historic home at risk of citation based solely on the absence of record, the city itself may not possess.

Taken to its logical conclusion, inspectors could issue citations across entire historic neighborhoods while property owners would have little meaningful ability to defend themselves.

Due process cannot depend on requiring citizens to disprove speculative violations tied to construction occurring decades before modern code requirements or record keeping practices.

Rather, the burden must remain on the city to establish with substantial evidence, that's the standard, that the structure was unlawful at the time it was constructed or altered, and that a permit was in fact required under the ordinance.

Ordinances then in effect.

Or for purposes of time, you can refer to the letter provided, which addresses why each code alleged code violation is incorrect based on non-existent code or lack sufficient finding to understand or justify the alleged violation.

The letter also provides the possible legal claims my clients now have as they've exhausted their administrative remedies before you this evening.

Because of this and because of the facts set forth in the letter provided to you this evening, I'd urge this board to lift all penalties and the cloud on title from my clients' property.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll now take any questions or comments from the board.

I have, yeah.

Okay.

So that was a lot.

Um so I have three questions I'm gonna start with here.

First, I'm gonna actually aim it over to our attorney, according to Sacramento Code's section 1.04100.

The code says that personal service, as she says, has to be done or posting plus simultaneous certified and first class mail.

So accordingly, the posting was done, I see as the picture that was uploaded by Inspector Lovato.

It says simultaneously certified and first class mail, which was done to the address that was posted or by the owners of the property and the mailing address they put for the recording of the title.

Nothing in the government code section says it has to be received.

So is it just the attempt that has to be made?

Or do they have to actually have signed the green card?

Are you referring to uh so you just proper notice?

Yeah, right.

So you're referring to one point zero four point one zero zero, correct?

Yeah, okay.

And so again, it provides several methods by which service can be effectuated.

One would be personal service, another would be as you stated, posting the notice and order conspicuously on or in front of the property and simultaneously mailing the notice and order by both certified mail return receipt requested in first-class mail, correct?

And so again, there is no reference to the fact that it needs to be received, it's simply that the action has to be effectuated for service to be effectuated.

Okay, so I just wanted to be sure that I'm interpreting the law correctly is that the attempt was made to the address that was provided by your clients, right?

Your clients.

The address was the house itself, correct.

Correct.

Was returned undeliverable.

Okay, so it sounds like according to our legal counsel that that part was met, that they did post it.

So I just wanted to be clear.

So in that part at least, I I get the address.

Now I'm gonna shift this direction.

And would it be possible to add to the attorney's um analysis here?

Under the US Constitution Supremacy Clause, under due process, notice has to be reasonably calculated to get to the individual.

But they technically wouldn't that be done because they posted it at the property that they bought and own and then attempted to mail it.

Short of that, I don't know what else they could have done.

Well, they they could have most attorneys when they can't locate the individual, they have a process server, uh, investigate where that individual is.

Um I would add that there were extenuating circumstances here.

And I get that, and so and I do I I completely understand the extenuating circumstances, but we have to go off the law here specifically.

So I just wanted to make sure if that is one of your arguments that if he would have said it had to have been signed, you're right.

That would have that would have met it, and I could have stopped there.

So I'm gonna continue on to the other two just to see if the other two will be away for you.

Also, you're mentioning that you're trying to get the fees waived on this one.

This is just the notice and order appeal.

This is not a fee waiver.

So just so you're aware, we can't we can't rule on any fees.

This is just notice and order if it was served properly.

Jeez, this new title.

What's your title?

I'd like to say it properly.

Principal building inspector Lother.

As the RHIP, this is technically they're saying the family members, so would this fall under an exemption, or do the family members, if they're paying, does that count?

Or it could be Mr.

Limo, sorry.

Uh, I don't know, but I know you know either one of you if it's exempt, they would have to file for an exemption for uh because the there is an exemption for immediate family members who are residing in a property.

If they're doing a contract with uh outside family members, they would have to define that and still apply through the rental housing inspection program, but under an exemption if that's what it fell under.

We don't know the entire Did this property have an exemption on file?

No, there was no record on file.

Okay.

And then my third question is the I definitely understand because I also have um a property that's built quite old, but I also understand the the definition of something older.

So I just want to know as well, because obviously, if there was a room in a house that was two foot by two foot, just because it was there in 1920 doesn't mean a person can rent that room.

I mean, obviously there's got to be the house was rented to all four tenants that that was there.

There were a lot of in um incorrect assumptions that the unfortunately the inspector was led to believe based on ulterior motives from the former tenant.

I think he would, yeah.

Yeah, no, I get that.

So trust me, we see a lot of cases where the tenants are unhappy and they use that as a mechanism to get back, and unfortunately, that works if they can if the inspector can find something that is illegal.

And so I I understand, like I said, the mailing thing, I was curious about the rental housing and pri and inspection.

Are there rules specifically?

Sorry, back to both you.

I don't know which one to aim it, so I'm gonna just look in both your direction.

Are there rules about so let's say there's a house built in the 1800s, but for rental purposes, are there rules about what can be considered a dwelling or an occupied space?

We would fall into the area of what would be grandfathered in, something that was built at or at the time of construction, it was permitted and approved in that state, it was maintained in that and wasn't modified or changed, or led to be deteriorated.

In this case, you know, we don't take for granted or we don't take what the tenant or occupant is telling us the violation, we have to confirm the violations.

So the inspector goes and sees something that's never been allowed by code by ceiling heights at that level and then sees modifications to the building that would have made it come up to current code, such as the electrical outlets or duplex receptacles in the bathrooms.

So these are grounded duplex receptacles would have needed a permit to upgrade them in turn the bathroom height, the ceiling would have been corrected so because it's changing the grandfather's use.

So that's what the inspector is using to build the case on.

Yes, they have a tenant pointing things out, things like that, but unless the inspector can verify and find the violations that he's seeing as correct, then you know we can't know that we get complaints about all kinds of things, but we have to find that there is a violation of the building code, and that is what the inspector found.

He found these ceiling heights that would not be allowed, the dimensions of the room that would not be allowed, and then work that was done without a permit because if it would have had a permit, other modifications would have had to been done.

Okay.

So technically that makes sense.

So meaning that that was an original space intended to be an attic, it was converted at a later time.

But if that was an intended space at the time it was built to be a room that was habitable, you would grandfather it in.

If it was unmodified, unchanged, and met codes and approvals at the time it was constructed.

Okay.

So looking at the structure, it could have been a loft.

Yes.

It wouldn't be occupiable space, it wouldn't have a bathroom.

Or in this case they said an attic.

Correct.

Yeah.

Um, finished or unfinished.

We can't tell that unless we went in and tested the she-rock or got to the backside and looked at the manufacturing and type of sheet rock.

Is it containing asbestos led things like that that were prior?

Um, but that wasn't the goal of having to determine the age of this, it was can it be occupied or not?

And if not, then certain amount of work has to be done to make it turn it back into a loft, non-inhabitable space.

Okay.

Trying to find reasons here for you.

I'm we have to go off or the Sacramento City Code.

I actually thought you might have got it on the first one.

Um I thought we were gonna stop there, but um I and I only caught three things.

So I will say it sounds like they intended to rent this place or to buy this place for their own habitability.

Can I ask Inspector Lovato if they were, I mean, I get that you've inspected it.

Obviously, you were invited into the house from tenants that you guys approved to put in there, and so that's where this complaint came from.

Sucks when, especially it's family members, but I understand, but he also did his job.

If they were to is it or I don't know, sorry, I'll go to you first.

Are is the place still rented, all four rooms?

No, it's entirely vacant right now.

There we go.

So if the place is entirely, oh, sorry.

I may though, just to circle back on the issue of notice.

So uh Sacramento Municipal Code does require delivery.

Uh uh they they do not require delivery, it's certified plus USPS regular mail.

However, the US.

Constitution supersedes Sacramento Municipal code.

This US constitution under Mulane requires that notice must be reasonably calculated to reach the the people to provide notice.

I mean, I would argument that the address that your clients provided to the city of Sacramento was reasonable.

I mean, if I wanted to evade, I would put a fake address too.

I'm not saying they put a fake address, I'm saying they put the real address that they bought, so I would say the argument is the city did make a all effort attempt to reach by posting and mailing.

And to your point, there is case law around uh notice and due process.

Um, under the constitutional mandate, um, notice can be delivered to the specific residents, but it has to be delivered to someone who would be competent and capable of delivering notice to the affected party.

Here we have notice being delivered either to a vacant address or to a party that has an ulterior motive to keep things from the landlord.

I understand, but this board can only really do Sacramento City Code.

I can't, I mean, and we're also not attorneys, so I mean, well, we're not.

If you would like to address it, I can briefly.

So to the board's point, um, I understand the conflict of laws uh issue that you're bringing, you're bringing up a preemption issue, and I I completely understand that.

This unfortunately, though, this board can only decide based on the Sacramento City Code.

I understand that the Constitution would take precedence.

Hypothetically, you can show that in a court of law, but this is again, this is a city board.

Um if that's an argument you would want to bring up via and uh a subsequent appeal, whether it's via writ, that's the that is your prerogative, but that's not for this board to decide.

We're not that powerful.

I'm sorry.

Well, I I understand, but still the U.S.

Constitution still applies here.

So Sacramento Municipal Code does not supersede the Constitution.

And I just want to be clear, uh, you know, the liability, the legal liability that this that the city I love Sacramento.

So I just want to, you know, be clear with you and forthcoming of the legal liability that Sacramento is taking on when it does not provide notice that is reasonably calculated to get to the owners of the property.

And it's important to note we're not city of Sacramento employees, we don't represent the city at all.

We're an independent board.

So I I understand, but I would definitely take that up with city uh the crosses across the way, but we can't.

We have to enforce what the city says.

If the city was to enforce something that was illegal, this board is still required to uphold what it says, and then you would have to take that next step, unfortunately.

So let me just quickly ask him because I'm trying to get to a yes here is what I'm trying to get you to.

Sorry.

So uh question real quick.

If they it's they their house is no longer being rented, so it's no longer technically in violation of the rental housing inspection program that I'm aware of.

If they were just to not rent it and return the status to just a livable dwelling for themselves, what's the next steps?

The easiest thing to make this go away for them.

So the easiest thing, when they were talking about the second floor and grandfathering it and everything like that, when people do work on their house and they pull a building permit, once that building permit is finalized, it goes to the county and the county records it on the property.

If you do an addition onto your house, if you put a second story on the house, whatever you do to the house, whether it was 1930 or now, any time a permit is finalized, the county records it on the property.

So first off, on the county, well, the city and the county, um, it shows, and I've got it in the packet there, it shows the property as being 1107 square feet of the ground floor area, zero floor area for the upper level, zero floor level for a finished basement.

So it doesn't show anything about upper level loft, second story, it doesn't, there's nothing on that.

So that was on the permits.

If there ever was a permit for that work, it would have been recorded with the county on that property.

And I know what you're gonna say.

And the other thing too is on the service, everything that we have and the county has shows the owners live at the property.

That's the only address we have.

So everything shows that property.

Even though I go over there ending of last year, and it was tenants that were living there in our records, it shows the owners live there.

Okay.

So are you saying then even with the tenants gone, they can't make it go away without pulling permits to fix what's currently showing?

Yeah, either pull the permits for the addition that would be upstairs or to remove it.

That's all we need is a permit.

And then the county records it on the on their property.

Okay.

I mean, technically it could be, I mean, the work's already done, and by adding square footage to the property, the increased value could be quite drastic, but that's not for this board.

Um go ahead.

I think you were gonna say something.

Oh, well, um, you know, the assumption there is that there was a uh addition made at a time when the housing code was adopted by the city, and when um if it is an addition or if it's original, I don't know.

Well, they already said it, but Mr.

Limos over there said judging by the electrical outlets and everything, it's more modern, so it shows that work has been done.

Well, I would counter that with electrical outlets can be replaced modernly.

My my house is old and I have modern outlets in it, so um I there there really was no finding under the substantial evidence standard, there was no finding in the report that found that this house or the second floor was constructed at a time when the Sacramento city had adopted the housing code here, and so for that reason, I I believe that this entire house should be grandfathered in.

Okay, it seems the fair thing to do, especially under the circumstances.

My clients were going through a very difficult time.

We had to fly back to Puerto Rico, they had a funeral to go to, they had two funerals to go to, so it was a very difficult time for them, and then in on top of that, they were dealing with the small claims, um, issue that was leveraged against them, basically, using the city of Sacramento as a means.

Oh, yeah.

And I get it.

Listen, I'm I was trying to find a way to yes for them.

I was, I mean, I obviously I get it.

Like it sounded I was trying to find a way to yes, but we have to at least show how the city of Sacramento violated it, and in just my opinion, like I I just don't see it right now, and I get it's just me.

There's other board members, so I'm gonna go ahead and turn it back over to the board for any other questions.

Sorry.

If I may, one last point here.

We don't check the U.S.

Constitution at the door, it still applies here, and we didn't say that, we just said we can't rule on that.

This board is only able to rule on that, and I highly encourage you if you think that that's a stronger case to take it to the next step for sure.

What?

No, no, I was done.

That's fine.

The problem is is that my clients have to incur substantial attorney's fees to take it to the next level.

They've already been so wronged in this situation.

The notice really was not proper under the US constitution.

Um it does certified meal, it doesn't have so okay.

Certified meal does have to reach the occupant.

It's okay.

Let me just let me just stop you there.

Yeah, I'm gonna try I'm still trying to get you to yes.

What is the ultimate situation that your clients would like?

I mean, obviously, the city is saying that the rental housing inspection part's probably gonna be done, it sounds like because there's no tenants left, but they're gonna make you pull permits to just legalize what's there.

Are they saying that they don't want to legalize and make it?

And they I mean, what's the the ultimate outcome here?

I really feel that my tenants, I'm sorry, my clients have been wronged by their tenants.

Um, I agree, but there's not much we can do, and they invited them in and they actually brought an inspector to see that there were code violations.

So we're past that.

Just like if a tenant was to grow pot in a house, it's the owner's problem.

That's it illegal.

The person goes to jail, but it becomes the violation, and all the fines go to the owner of the house, which I also don't agree with, but that's the city code, and it sucks.

As an owner, I don't like it, but we have to uphold the city code.

So I'm trying to get to a yes on the best outcome for your clients.

What is it that they ultimately want?

Because I'm just letting you know, in my opinion only, there's four board members.

They haven't met their three things that you wanted to make the contestment go away.

But we can try and help you at least get to this conclusion.

Are they willing to pull a permit and legalize the rest of the property?

Make sure your green buttons on, though.

Just to be totally honest, this has been an unmitigated nightmare.

Absolute nightmare.

The people that we tried to even buy this house for to begin with, because the tenants were being so hostile.

My husband's sister couldn't even get here in time.

And she ended up dying of her cancer.

That's the exact same time.

That his cousin knew we were going through this, and instead of just being a reasonable person and saying I'm having trouble with money.

Is there something you can do?

He went completely behind our backs to try to get us in trouble with the city.

When he wasn't even living in a place where he was supposed to have been living.

That was always a loft, and it's so clear in the least agreement that we gave to him that this is a two-bedroom, two bathroom house with a loft.

It's like he decided that that was the worst thing that he could find to bring somebody in to try to punish us because we couldn't find him a job that made him happy.

And we tried so hard to try to find them a better job when they got here, and we only found out after they left the reason why they weren't applying for any of the jobs that we were trying to find for them is because they didn't want to go through drug testing.

And so it's like not only are we trying to help you and you're not wanting our help, but now you're going behind us to try to get us in trouble, and now we're stuck with this house that we can't get anybody to live in because we tried to get into the rental inspection program, like back in October, and then we got denied, and I under didn't understand why we got denied, and now I get it, because he had these processes going on that we had no idea about.

Listen, I don't want you to have to relive this.

It does suck.

I agree.

And this is why I said I wrote all these notes to see how we can get around this for you, but we have to uphold city code, and that's why I'm saying instead of just saying I'm gonna vote no for this, I'm trying to find how to conclude this for you.

I I want to find a way that at least obviously, in my personal opinion, we haven't found a way around it.

So, what is the ultimate conclusion that you want so we can try and at least meet somewhere in the middle, in my opinion, as one board member.

I just, I'm sorry, let me interrupt for one moment.

The standard here is substantial evidence.

The finding does have to be in the report.

There is no finding in the report that this is a modern alteration.

Nothing in the report says that.

I I don't I think you're arguing to a person.

Like, listen, I get what you're saying.

That's fine if you're saying it for the rest of the group, you can continue arguing if they have questions on that.

If they all agree, disagree with me, you've won, and that's fine.

We'll let them ask some questions.

I just want to know how we can help, but if you want, we can circle back and see what they all think.

How about we do that?

Because I just don't want to waste your time it's arguing this case if we all have the same opinion.

Alright, JR, do you want me to take over?

Yeah.

All right.

All right.

So thanks, y'all, for being here today.

I know this is a lot.

Okay.

Um, before I get going, Brandon, you got anything?

Okay.

You got anything?

Okay.

One note, I do see we have the rental property inspection program is current as of the December 1st, 2025.

Is that correct?

Thank you.

Okay.

Now, from my understanding, city staff was working in good faith when they did the notice in order to, well, not the notice in order when they sent certified mail to this address.

And I know that is a point of contention.

However, they did the best they could with the information they had present on that property.

Now, whether or not folks were living in that home, city staff can only do what they have with the information available on what they can pull from the county.

So if all they have is that address as a contact, that is all they have.

Now, if we want to elevate that to the courts, I'm not I'm not an attorney.

This is not a court of law, and we can deal with that later.

I am a mere citizen, and we can only look at city code right now.

So I just wanted to check.

You guys, once you were made aware, because it does seem you kind of got into this thing quick.

It doesn't seem like you live in the city of Sacramento.

You kind of got into this property quick because you bought it and then you rented it to the these folks within a month.

You got into this quick.

Kind of seems like life was happening.

So what is the outcome we're looking for today with the notice in order?

Because we cannot do anything with the fines at this hearing.

So what is it we're looking to get done with this four-person board right now at 618 at May 13th?

I I would also add, even assuming notice was proper, it wasn't under the constitution, but even assuming it was, there is no finding in the report that this is a modern alteration, subject to the modern housing codes of the city of Sacramento.

Ma'am, I can look at those photos and tell you that has been altered since 1922.

Let's be honest here, and that's what they're basing that off of.

So I can look at those photos and say that has been altered since 1922, and I don't know the full lean on that property.

However, when they got that inspected, we can all probably a reasonable person can say that has been somewhat altered by me even looking at the outlets, looking at the light fixtures, that space has been altered since 1922.

And Paul, is that what you were basing that off of?

Because you know a lot more about buildings than I do.

Yeah, I mean, the the bathroom did look um modern, more modern than like we say than 1922.

The other thing that caught my eye is in that room, there is no heater air, so with no air moving in that space.

I mean, even if it was legalized back then, there was still heat.

So there is nothing up there in that attic.

They had portables that they could plug in to use for heat or air, then the other thing is when I go back and look up the county to see the square footage.

That also backed up what I was saying.

What concerned me about that county report is the county report does say it's one story.

So when you're pulling the property report from the county, it clearly states it is one a one-story building.

And so I know it was not a it was not intended to be a habitable space, and so we can, you know, but really, what are we what is the outcome we're getting to today?

Well, how can we help you?

Because we're trying to help.

I understand the home was built in 1922.

Housing code was adopted sometime, I believe, around 1961.

I've I've seen this second floor.

I have a degree in in design, and it looks vintage to me.

It very well could have been original to the house, or it could have been constructed sometime between 1922 and the time that the city of Sacramento adopted housing code.

I think that it needs to be grandfathered in.

Certainly, light fixtures, um, electrical outlets, those are all things that do not require a permit and are often replaced by owners modernly.

Let's ask him.

Okay.

Anything that touches the utilities in a wall requires a permit.

A permit is required to put a toilet in.

I know, and I hate that.

I'm sorry, my own personal opinion, but I disagree as well with that, and I hate it, and I'll tell you, he's fined me already once.

And I I don't like it either, because a toilet takes all of 30 minutes to install, and you're right.

Well, um, it was my understanding that anything under $500 is doesn't require a contractor, still requires a permit.

Sadly, this is the city, yes.

Trust me, I don't like, I'm telling you right now, that's why I'm trying to find a yes for them, is because anything you said, modern outlets, any outlets up there.

It was not a habitable space.

Well, there are permits for for outlets for electrical work that were.

Not in the second floor.

He just said there's no permits that were pulled on this property.

Okay.

Oh, that's not true.

For the second floor.

I don't know.

They they they're very ancient looking documents.

Listen, we can argue this as back and forth.

Obviously, we're going to it sounds like at least half of us disagree with this work has been done since building codes have been in, and those outlets have a three-prong, which means those have been done at least within the last 40 years, I would assume.

There were electrical uh permits pulled in the late 70s.

For the up stairs, though.

It was it's unclear.

The problem with with this is that the record keeping of the city of Sacramento is not gonna sync with what the inspector is requiring here.

I'm just letting you know that right now, I'm willing to uphold the city of Sacramento.

I'm trying to find a way to get them to not like what is it that they want other than I'm obviously personally, and it sounds like at least two of us are going to not agree, we're going to side with the city.

With that, I'm happy for you to take this to the next step if you disagree with us and think you can prove that that is post-I'm sorry, pre-1960 building code, but I don't think you're gonna be successful, but I want them, they've been through quite a bit already.

I want them to at least have a good outcome instead of 20 minutes ago.

Normally we would have voted on something like this and said we agree with the city, but we obviously are trying to understand that there are extenuating circumstances, and I don't want to just rush this out and say too bad, let's just move on to the next case.

I'm trying to get to, I'm telling you it sounds like you're going to lose.

We would like to help you instead of just saying no.

If that's if you would just like to move on, that's fine.

I'm happy to do that, but I also want to at least make sure because we can give them more time if that's something that they want as part of our ruling as well.

Well, I think we would like more time, but I would also say that the city of Sacramento has a substantial evidence standard.

So there is a prima fascia case of the findings made in the report.

There is no finding that this is a new addition, subject to any co any Sacramento housing code, modern housing code.

And so here's the thing this board will vote, and the issue is if we are wrong and we voted to say that that was fine and that house burned down because of an electrical outlet, I'm gonna error on the side that the city building inspector knows what he's doing, and I'm just letting you know.

I I highly encourage you if this board votes in the favor of the city to take it to the next step if you think that strongly.

But in the meantime, I really get where you're going.

I get how you feel, and I highly encourage the next step.

But in the meantime, how can we help them?

This is my last time I'm gonna ask.

I'm really trying to help.

I really am.

Do you intend to pull permits to at least legalize the area?

What would you like?

Because we can tell them that they have to give you more than 30 days.

Honestly, I just want this to be the house that we purchased.

Like we purchased this house, being on the face of it, a two-bedroom, two bathroom house, meaning that everything that they told us was permitted, because that was something that I asked when we were purchasing this house, because we even had to use a veteran's loan because of my husband's years of service, and we have every intention of having this be a house that is livable.

I would be perfectly fine with trying to make this come up to code to the house that we purchased.

But I can't do that without time to do so, and I also can't do that with it.

Well, right now, if we were to just vote, you would have I think 30 days, so that's why I'm trying to get you a time extension to maybe 60 days to get you double the amount of time so that you can start pulling it because all you have to do is pull a permit and then the clock stops, and then you just have to show that work is being done.

So I want to give you enough time, so because the other thing is every 30 days that work isn't done, they can do a monitoring fee.

Is that what I do?

Am I saying it right?

Monitoring fee, which you'll accrue another 300 and some dollars every month.

It's not done.

So again, while I can't even we can't rule on fees right now because this is just the notice and order, I don't want any of that to happen.

I'm trying to prevent all of that.

So if you're just looking for that, like I'm happy to at least I'm one board member, but I'm happy to make a recommendation that we give you double the amount of time, and then you work with you would still have to continue to work with Inspector Lovato to get the work done and pull the permits, and he'll work with you along the way.

I would I would request a different inspector given the circumstances.

I can't rule on that.

I would have a really hard time thinking that he's working in good faith when he wouldn't even meet with us to try to make any kind of reasonable argument to try to get him up to speed on the fact that he was given very deceiving information from a family member, and he basically told us, Well, that's too bad, you need to tear it down.

I mean, that's the city code.

I I get it.

I've had the same issue in the past, so that's why I understand and I empathize with you.

We can't make personnel decisions, so we can rule on the city stuff to give you more time and whatever, but you'll need to talk to the the okay.

Principal building inspector Lother.

Um we don't switch out building inspectors if you would like.

If Paul's gonna continue, Paul is going to continue to run the case um as accordingly, but if you would like, I can join him at the inspections as we go through and talk to you, tell you the processes and go over it.

But changing the inspectors is something that we do not do.

I would feel much more comfortable if you were there as okay.

So let's sorry, just because we're now at an hour for this one case, which usually lasts about 15 minutes.

So we'll have that taken on the side.

So for right now, are you happy with 60 days?

Well, if I may, I think there's also a narrowing as well, and that is is that there were no findings that this is a modern structure subject to housing code.

So if in fact um you're saying that the D Plex outlets are subject to modern housing codes, and those were changed out sometime after the 1978 permit.

Then I think we just need to limit what needs to be done here.

Um, rebuilding we can't do that.

My knowledge, that's out of the purview of this hearing.

We can we are only talking about the notice and order, and that's way out of the purview of what we can do as a board.

So well, yeah, it is because there has to be evidentiary there are evidentiary standards here at this hearing.

No, what she's saying is we we're not experts.

We can't tell you that you don't have to do one thing to another.

We have no expertise in building.

So we're not piecing apart the evidence of that claim here in this hearing right now.

It's only if the notice and order was properly served.

That's all we're voting on right now.

But on top of that, we can add, like I said, things to give them more time.

Again, this is very clear.

That's why I said we can't even rule on fees because this is not that type of hearing.

Right.

There are standards of evidence that have the findings have to be.

And you can you can bring that just not to this board.

We just can't.

I get that.

The evidence, in our opinion, so far, it seems that the city of Sacramento has made clear that this building is in violation.

Like I said, if you feel strong enough that you have enough evidence to take this to the next step, I think you would.

But I think we both agree that this is modern post-1960 upgrades.

Okay.

So that's what I'm saying, though.

The structure itself could be vintage where the outlets are modern.

And so the issue is there you go.

You have modern outlets that you don't have a permit for upstairs.

That's one violation which triggers the entire thing.

You don't have to have the whole thing.

Once he got one violation, he has the right to mark everything else he sees.

So all we can say is let's say he found one thing.

That's all we're saying is that that notice and order is now correct.

And the electrical outlets are one thing, there's no permit for that.

I would defer to uh Inspector Lovato.

Are the are the duplex outlets circa 1970?

No, I would not.

Well, I go ahead, but I would also ask is the electrical, are there any permits to add electrical to the building that didn't have them in the upstairs attic area as well.

Normally, when I'm working a case, I do sit down with the owners and I talk to them about what's required, what's not required, what permits are needed, you know.

How could we get to the end, you know?

I usually work with the owners.

I have since my preliminary letters, notice and orders, um, hearings.

Last month we were here for the hearings, but it got moved.

I have not heard from these owners at all.

I've never once heard from them.

So working uh how they could say that they don't want to work with me because of what a tenant said, we've never spoken.

I don't understand that.

To be clear, I was authorized by my clients on April 8th.

I spoke with Inspector Lovato, and he was only willing to sit down and expunge the cloud on title if my clients completely demolish the second floor of their home.

Or pull a building permit.

That's not what he said.

If that's not what you heard, I'll mention it now.

I think I already mentioned it before.

It's either gonna be legalize that or remove it.

Both of them require a permit.

You know, one permit could be over the counter, one permit's gonna take engineers and architects to figure out everything.

I mean, the engineers and architects when they go to do the permit the permitting, they're gonna see what has to be done, you know.

Just we need to know which way they're gonna go.

Yeah.

At this point, if there's no oh, I'm ready to make a motion unless there's any other questions, but I I haven't heard a date, so I'm gonna go ahead and just grind I can't personally, but I'm gonna make a motion giving them 60 days at least, so that we can at least try and get more time.

You'll have to work with the city on uh having well it's like principal.

What's it?

I wanted to yeah.

Principal Inspector Lother to join.

We can't make those decisions, but I do.

Like I said, I I empathize, I understand, especially as a property owner, I want to make sure you guys have at least time to do it, but in my personal opinion, yeah.

So I'm gonna make a recommendation finding that the property owner has violated the provisions of chapter 8.96 or 8.100 of the Sacramento City Code, ordering the property owner to obtain a permit to correct the dangerous conditions or demolish the structure within 60 days of the date of the decision, and ordering if the property owner fails, refuses, or neglects the correct dangerous condition or demolish the structure within the time set forth in this decision that the city of Sacramento may repair, demolish, or secure the structure, or institute an action to compel compliance with the order for the property known as 4124 T Street, Sacramento, California, 95819, APN number 011011 301100.

Fisher.

Yes, Taylor.

And Tablion?

Yes.

Thank you.

So attorney, we did find in favor of the city.

However, we extended it from 30 days to 60 days, and you all receive formal notification of our decision in the mail.

I just want to confirm that they'll receive this information to the address here.

That's actually a good question.

We want to make sure you do get the credit.

Well, we have you though.

I want to make sure that they have so is there an updated.

You don't have to say it on the record out loud, but if you would like to step outside and talk to I believe I have Amy's address I can send it to my own.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

So we'll make sure to send it to your office.

Thank you.

Right.

Hold on if you want to wait, baby.

Oh, all right.

Before we started, yes.

All right, and then can I just say it's who's the nice guy in the back that always helps us?

The guy in the back that comes out and sets the stuff up.

Doug?

Doug, if you're listening back there, we moved the microphone to the attorney and his microphone is going in and out.

So I think on the next hearing, we need to just get rid of that microphone.

Yeah.

It was, he did test it and it did work, so it's not like we were like, hey, let's give it to him.

He moved it from one spot to another.

I perfectly take both feet, you know if I need to.

I just I felt bad, but I wanted Doug in the back to know the microphone probably should be replaced.

Yes.

All right.

Right?

We've now called in item number three, and Mr.

Boyd has joined us.

Uh, case inspector.

No, inspector Paul Lovato, address 44557 street.

Oh, and appellant Larry Odbick.

I hope I said it correctly.

Yeah, Odbert.

Thank you.

All right.

Secretary will swill you in.

I could have all part parties for item number three for the property located at 44557.

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.

Labato.

This is uh agenda item number three, case numbers two four-004168.

The property owner chose to be Michael and Sarah Sarah Gellenbeck.

Property address is 4455 71st Street, Sacramento, California, 95820.

Parcel number 021026-101-300.

Today's May 13, 2026.

My name's Paul Lovato, building inspector with housing and dangerous buildings.

This case opened on February 1st, 2024, and the current case status is closed.

On February 12th, 2024, I arrived on site for a complaint of a dilapidated vacant property.

Squatters have taken over the property, and the owner was in the care home for over two years.

I spoke with the person at the house whose name is Fred.

He stated he's living at the dwelling.

I asked about a rental agreement or something showing that he is to be there.

He stated he moved there about three years ago and was helping the owner of the property around the house.

After a year and a half of being there, the owner ended up going to a care home.

The tenant stated he will he is still working around the dwelling as and is involved in the code enforcement on the cleanup with the yards.

I still let him know we need something to show he's supposed to be there.

He then called the owner's sister and she stated they would like him to be there, so the property is not vacant.

I asked her if she could get something from the owner showing Fred is supposed to be on site.

She stated she would call him and then call me back.

On April 15, 2024 at 9 31 a.m.

I arrived at the single family residence.

I took photos and updated the case files due to lack of contact from the owner and failure to obtain the housing and dangerous permit.

I issued the notice and order.

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

On March 6, 2025, I received a call from the old caretaker of the property owner, Fred, that stated someone was breaking into the property and he was inside the dwelling.

I told him to call the police and I would head that way.

When I got there, there was a gentleman out in front who was in a wheelchair sitting out front with a lady.

I walked up to him and asked who he was.

He stated he was the owner of the property and the lady with him was his caretaker.

He stated his old caretaker was inside the house and would not let him in.

He stated the locks were changed out.

He then went to the house and spoke with Fred, or I then went to the house and spoke with Fred.

I let Fred know the gentleman was the owner and he was now home from the hospital.

Fred stated he was going through the adverse possession of the property and was not going to allow him inside the property.

The police then showed up and I explained to them what I knew.

They then went to the property owner and spoke with him, then went to talk with Fred.

I asked the police department if I was needed on site and they said I could go ahead and leave.

I gave them my business card and said if they needed anything else, they could call me.

On April 18th, 2025, as I woke up and I had the news on, there showed to be police at 4455 71st Street due to shots fired.

As I was watching the updates on the property, Sacramento Police Department's officer Carson called me to let me know what had happened at the property.

The streets were blocked off, and as I pulled up to the yellow tape, the officer stopping people from entering the street came to my vehicle.

I let her know who I was and why I was on site.

I let her know that I had been involved with the property and with the people in the house for the past year.

She then asked if I if I had a card and she would pass it on to the homicide detectives.

I let her know I would be the one to secure the property and to turn off the utilities.

I then left the property.

About an hour after I left, I received a call from the detectives and they wanted to get my statement of what I knew about the owner and the other people in the house.

I filled them in with this information I knew.

He then stated that he would contact me back after the investigation was completed to secure the property.

I received a call at 3 o'clock PM from the homicide detective stating they were finished with the investigated investigation and wanted the house boarded up.

I then arrived on site at 3 30 p.m.

with the on-call inspector, uh Building Inspector Martinoni to go over the securement required.

We walked the property, contacted Gray Construction and LM fencing.

I then left the site and building inspector Martinoni stayed for the secure.

On December 16th, 2025, I received a call from the new property owner stating he is ready to have the temporary fence removed.

I called LM fencing to have the fence removed.

On January 9, 2026, I met with LM fencing, temporary fencing to have the fence removed from the property to stop any additional fees charged to the new owners.

On March 4th, 2026, I arrived on site for a building final inspection on permit RES 26.

R 2603 969, and I approved it.

That's when the case was closed.

So this is the itemized cost for this work is a securement cost, which is 225 dollars.

Administrative fees $380, other costs was $30.40.

The total cost comes to $635.40.

The notice of the Les Penance Cloud was properly recorded at the Sacramento County's accessories office on May 8, 2024.

The property owner was not contacted prior to issuing a notice and order.

A preliminary letter was sent on March 18, 2024.

The notice and order was sent to the property owner's address listed on the current title report of 4455-71st Street, Sacramento, California, 95820.

It was effectively served on April 29, 2024 by substitute service, and the notice and order was not appealed.

The appellant has received the information being presented this evening.

Staff recommends the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of $635.40 for the work performed by the city on the property known as 4455 71st Street, Sacramento, California, 95820, parcel number 021 026 101 3000.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh please state your appeal.

Now make sure your green light is on.

Yes.

The first thing I'd like to uh address is that when they mailed the notice, the owner of the property was dead, and I think they knew that.

But I'm really not here to question that.

We bought the property on the uh 12th of December, and uh what year?

Of uh 25.

I'm gonna read you the declaration of my agent or work was involved in the property because he he's the one who actually talked to Mr.

Lovato about removing the fence, and he signed this under a penalty perjury.

I'm the individual Daryl Johnson's is the name.

I I'm an individual and a resident of Sacramento County.

I've I have personal knowledge of the following.

I have knowledge surrounding the purchase of the property at 4451 71st Street by Global Capital in order about December 22nd, 2005.

On behalf of Global Capitol, I called Paul Lovato at code enforcement for the city of Sacramento, tell him that the city should remove the temporary fence that had been installed on the property as it was not needed any longer.

Mr.

Lovato stated to me that he would take care of it.

I made a follow-up call to Mr.

Lovato about 10 days 10 to 12 days later to inform him that the fence had not yet been removed.

Mr.

Lovado stated to me that he would check on it.

The fence was subsequently removed sometime after January, declaring the penalty of perjury forgoing is true and correct, and my personal knowledge, and that's his declaration made on May 13th, 2006, 2026.

And when Mr.

Lovato came out to the property, he told us we didn't want that fence to tell him that was that because the city bills or gets billed in six months' incre increments, and we had to get it done before I think before the first of the year.

So anyway, that's why we were persistent on calling him about getting getting the fence taken down.

And it's my understanding that this charge is for the fence being there after January 1st or after the first six months had expired.

So technically, it well, not technically, but maybe the way I see it is that he called when he did finally get a hold of them, it the either the time period lapsed for the new billing, or that uh they didn't it wasn't uh L and M didn't respond fast enough, and when they went out there, that's when they canceled the contract, which was after the time, because when we bought the property, all the fees were paid up until the second of December.

And I think Mr.

Lovato can testify to that.

So this wasn't a fee when we bought the proper property because we paid for the stuff before we bought the property, which would have been the first six months of the of the uh fence rental.

There's no indication what what this billing's about and what months it arrives to.

Thank you for your any questions or comments from the board.

Can you address that?

Yeah, so what happened was is when they bought the property during escrow, everything was paid up to date during escrow.

Through what date?

To the day that they bought the property.

So December 2nd.

But the fencing was out there, the fencing is a rental.

What happened was the invoice came for the fencing after escrow closed and they moved in.

So a bill came in after they purchased the property, which was this bill.

So technically, though, can I ask what dates that fence are for?

So the fence was called out there the day we were out there with the detectives, and that was on April 18th.

And then the fence was picked up the first part of January.

So there's also the invoice in here that shows L and M picked the fence up January 8th or whatever it was.

So for the rental of the fence, it was the 225.

Um from that April to January.

Okay.

So whoops.

Okay.

So you weren't able to get a partial summary from the fence rental company to cover for escrow at that point.

No.

No.

And to tell you the truth, on the sale of the house, the new owners.

I mean, I wasn't involved in that.

I mean, I didn't know with realtors what was going on.

You just got a request.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Um.

So Mr.

Lovato, there, there were fees associated with this property at the time that he purchased it from the city.

Oh, yes.

So when the case opened in 2024, I mean, they were receiving administrative penalties, monitoring fees, securement costs.

There was a lot that was on that property.

It did get paid during the escrow.

This is the invoice that came in after escrow.

Okay.

Because it was a rental.

Okay.

And and the only reason it because I'm seeing line one on the description, it says fence January 9th, 2026.

That's only because that's the time they issued the invoice, but that's previous fencing.

That's not for this period that he's disputing.

I think the January 9th is the date.

Um yes, January 9th is the date they picked it up.

So I met with the fencing company there to verify that they did get it.

So January 9th is the date they picked it up.

The date it was ordered was on April 18th.

Okay.

And the board.

To clarify a little bit.

So on December 15th, 2025, there was a payoff demand provided to the purchasers or to the um title company.

It stated that here are the fees up to this time, and but there is an ongoing open case, and there's two liens and clouds against the property.

It says there are additional fees and such that can be accumulated until the violations are corrected and the case is closed.

The fence was removed and built up until January 9th.

So the invoice that from the demand on the 15th was paid on the 22nd.

So anything between the 22nd and compliance would still be billed to the property owner.

So the fence up until January 9th was still billed.

So after, so they only have the payoff demand, but it states on there that there is an open case with ongoing violations and ongoing fees that can be accumulated.

I get that.

So you did you request that to be removed on the 16th from LMN fencing?

Yes, I did.

And so if you requested it, why did it take them so long to remove it on the ninth?

I don't know what took them so long.

I mean, I did call and request it, and I didn't go out to the site because I didn't know if they were picking it up right then and there or later on during the day.

So I didn't go out there and wait for them.

But like Larry had said, probably 10 days later, the owners called me and said, hey, no one's picked up the fence.

That's when I went out there and I told LM I will be here until you get here.

They did show right up when I told them that.

Okay.

My only concern is that is about three weeks and three days after the initial request for LM.

So hopefully on future cases for L and M L, the fencing company, they can be a little bit faster on their I mean I get that's not you, but yeah, they they usually are.

I don't know what took them so long.

The other thing I'd like to find out is that for the is it did I pay for six months where is it?

Of the fence, because it went over because you remember you said you you get paid billed in for six months at a time, and that's what we were trying to do to get in that second six months because I think what he's asking is did he get billed for six months' worth of fence for the one month of time for the three weeks?

The billing comes every six months, not it has to be billed in six-month intervals, right?

Am I making it?

Well, yeah, the the L and M fencing does bill in six month increments.

So if you call for a fence and you have it out there for two days, their fee is gonna be still for six months, but it's gonna be it's cheap.

I mean it's two hundred two hundred dollars or something like that for six months.

So this invoice that he received, had they picked it up before December 31st, he would not have gotten the 225.

Or is this retroactive for the previous six months?

Did you know because it was paid on the 15th?

So this has to be for the next six months.

Yeah, yeah.

I see.

Yeah.

Any other questions from the board?

I'm I'm good.

I think I'm ready.

So I okay.

No, let me ask.

Oh no, go ahead.

Or me or no, I have questions.

She has questions.

Oh, no, no, I don't think she has a question.

Can I just ask the real quick on the fees?

Then the $380, I get what the $30 is.

Is that also would that have been is that for every six months too, or is that the one time?

What's the three eighty for for the admin?

The three hundred and eighty dollars is for uh our clerical staff for admin for the city.

That's not that's a one-time charge.

That's a one-time charge for the entire not from the December though, that goes all the way back to April, right?

That's a one time charge.

Okay.

So I have my thoughts, but I will bury.

Go ahead.

Thank you there.

You most of the questions got uh answered.

Um my question is the as you said.

You called in, it was a delay, how many every day, weeks, with that said, what is the um policy that the city of Sacramento uh code compliance has with L and M when requests for removal of fencing?

There has to be some uh a policy written between uh in an agreement with the city of Sacramento and L and M.

What does that policy state?

I don't know exactly what the policy states because we've never had this where it's taken them that long.

Um any securement contractor, everything usually happens within that day or the next day.

But I didn't know about this, took them 10 days to get out there to get the fence.

I don't know, I don't know too much about that.

Something that I guess we all need to find out.

So we'll have it in the in the future.

But with that said, because it's billed and six month increments, there's still going to be there would have the two twenty five still was going to happen, even though that you had cleared the fees up to December 15th, uh 12th, 15th ish.

So the second six-month of fencing would have started April, I mean, excuse me, October-ish, somewhere in there going forward.

So the two twenty-five was gonna happen one way or the other.

And the other question I had was going to be is this a secondary administrative fee of three eighty, but you're saying it's only a one time that encompassed the entirety from April uh 18th, when the fencing went up until the offense went down.

The one-time period.

Per invoice or per for the amount of time of fencing?

Yes.

Yes to which one?

The invoice well, if the invoice, like if I had the fence for a year, L and M would send me a bill for a year, not broken up in six months.

I'm not gonna send bill after bill after bill, okay.

Maybe I misunderstood.

Yeah, you get you um order the fence, the day the fence is picked up, that's when we see the billing.

And not six months increments.

That's L and M.

They say that's how they bill.

So 225 uh for the entire year, or from the entire if it's one day, one week, one year is two hundred and twenty-five dollars.

Yes.

Gotcha.

So where did just curious where did the six month come in from?

Uh in regards to, let me uh ask the appellant, where did your thoughts of being billed each six months come in for the temporary fencing?

I was understanding that we still were in that first six month billing cycle.

Okay, that's what I'm asking you.

Where did you get that there's a six-month billing cycle for temporary fencing?

That was what Ms.

uh Mr.

Lovato talked about that we had to call get that fence.

We didn't want the fence, we needed to get it down before the next billing cycle kicked in.

Okay, so back to you because you just said the contrary.

So there's only one billing cycle per what you just said from the time the temporary fencing goes up until the day the temporary fencing goes down.

That's whether one day, one year, five years, according to what you just said.

So that's why I'm asking.

So it's just it would have been two hundred and twenty-five dollars, whether it was one day, one week, one month, or ten years.

Do I have that?

They bill in six-month increments.

Yeah, so that's that's what I asked, and then you said no is the entirety, or maybe you were talking about the three.

But the billing for the fence is each.

Sorry, my apologies.

Now I'm with you.

So you understand that part.

Gotcha.

So the 225 still had happened, the 380 still would have happened simply because it's for the entire entirety from April 18th through January 9th, I believe, when the fence went down.

So they're just so we're all just making sure that you understand that.

So but I still don't understand when was my six months?

Okay, gotcha.

So it the we never received any bills.

I understand, and what that said, because the temporary fencing went up April 18th, 2025.

Six months later would have been October 2025.

That's first six months, second six months from October to right.

And you had it taken down January, so it was January, February, or March.

It still would have cost the two twenty-five, the one-time administrative fee of three eighty.

That's how we come to the numbers that we come to.

So I'm good.

Well, I want to make sure that that's clear how LM operates.

We're listening we're assuming that that's how it the six months start.

If they're doing a six-month increment, they could very well be saying it's January through June, July to the end of the year.

That's why his presumption was get the fence off of my property by the end of the year so that I'm not accruing a new fee in January.

Not that it started in April, but the actual because he said it whether it's one day, two days, it could be from April to whatever the date until the end of June, it that's a fee.

It starts over in we're we're assuming that LM has a process where it starts the six-month ticks, the clock starts when they put the fence in rather than they're doing January through June, July to the end of December.

So can we just ask if this fence would have been taken down by December 31st, would there have been another bill?

I would have to look into that.

I mean, I don't so I I can you answer his question though.

So it started April 18th.

Does the six-month clock start April 18th?

Because that does change it.

Yes.

So the six-month clock starts that day.

So even if the fence was taken down then in December 10th, you still would have got another six-month bill then, right?

Because that would have been in month two of six.

Okay.

So that changes that then.

And that bill should have been included when we paid everything in the 15th because they knew it was already gonna be.

They didn't have the bill yet, though.

That's the problem, and that goes to what.

Well, then well, third party contractor, so they're waiting on it.

Um it's not from like the city or the county, and so they have those bills ready.

And considering the language in the title, said you may have outstanding bills.

This is considered that outstanding bill that Peter was mentioning earlier.

Yeah, yeah, and I I know it's a bummer.

It's it's it's not the most fun fee, but it is one of the outstanding title documents that did come a few weeks later than some of the other ones.

Yeah, in a nutshell, the only way to avoid the uh the additional two hundred and twenty-five dollars if the property would have been purchased prior to October 17th, and fence taken down at the same time on that date.

Okay, how about the administrative fee?

That was that's the bill or it occurred incurred during the first billing.

Right.

So that's a one-time administrative fee for that.

That should have been included when we tried to pay all the fees.

I understand what you're saying, but since the uh invoice hasn't been closed, so the it's an ongoing charge, so the administrator is still keeping that case going until an invoice hits.

Once the invoice hits that administrator, then the administrator can say, Okay, fence is removed.

Now we can stop the billing.

Uh excuse me, the administrative uh aspect of that bill.

Now, did administrative fee come off when the fence was picked up or when the we finalized the permit, Mr.

Lovato.

The administrative fee goes out when the invoice goes out.

Yes.

All right.

Any other I understand your point is George, you walked it through, so you're good on that.

Whether it's January, June, June, end of the we did not.

I mean, L and M is not here, so we we won't know that definitively, but I'm I'm good with right on and but and to your question and my question prior.

Let's have that information available to where we the board and the public can just go online and pull up that information.

Uh, if that agreement was a public uh entity, so it's public access.

Um, so that should be readily available, so the appellant could have looked that up and see exactly how billing occurs with LM through the contractual agreement the city of Sacramento has.

Well, I think we'd have to keep in mind is we have a list of contractors who are do contracted work with us.

So I know we're talking about L and M fencing right now, but you the list is a lot of demolition, securement.

I mean, there's a lot of things.

No, I understood.

Just um, was it bid something with the city of Sacramento?

I forget what it's called, where you can go in and pull up the agreements for whatever contract the city does business with again because it's a public entity, so it's the public has access to the dealings with the city of Sacramento.

Only the um uh uh what's called non-disclosure items that we the public cannot view, but in agreement with a fencing uh securement gray, uh, whatever they call gray something that puts up the boards.

Those contracts are available to the city, or excuse me, to the public.

And so that's what I'm just asking.

What that said, because I can't remember the website if one day when you guys remember if you'd bring that forward.

Um, if Chief Lane must limos uh knows where we could find that he could tell us now.

If not, one day soon.

So we'll all have it and just an FYI and I'll conclude.

Have once that site is found where the public can research fees, make sure to include that language and correspondence to the appellant so they'll know that they can read what is, and it could uh suspend and or stop the appellant from appealing, and we wouldn't be here for this particular case, my opinion.

Thank you.

I'm ready to all right.

Your motion or any other comments?

I'll make I'll make a motion.

Listen, I understand this is a unique situation, and again, as I've mentioned in the other case, I'm an individual board member, so I'm going to do what I think is meeting you as somewhat in the middle.

The two hundred and twenty-five dollar fee is something you would have paid through escrow.

So I agree to that, but I do understand the confusion and some of the issues.

So I'm gonna make a motion reducing your admin fee by 50 percent.

So with that, again, the rest of the board has to agree.

Um, so I've done the math here.

That's yeah, sorry, just 445 40, but I'm gonna keep it up as I read it.

So hold on.

So I'm gonna make a motion.

Oh, I have to go back to the top.

If you give me 10 seconds, all right.

I'm gonna make a motion confirming the total charge and reducing it to 445.

Or the why does it say 635?

That was a total charge.

Oh okay.

I don't know why in my head that looks wrong.

Sorry.

Uh start over confirming the total charge.

Uh now a 44540 for the work performed by the city on the property known as 4455 71st Street, Sacramento, California 95820, APN number 02102610130.

Second.

Taylor.

Yes.

And tabling, yes.

Void.

Thank you.

So we did find in favor of the city, however, we reduced your uh total charge from 635 40 to 445 40.

You'll receive this notification in the mail on any next steps you can take.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Inspector Jeremiah Carter, 6975, Mesa Grande Court.

Appellant is Howard Gion.

Please correct me if I said your name incorrectly.

Thank you.

Please come forward.

The secretary will swear you in.

Oh, this is Inspector Park, please begin.

Oh, my apologies.

That threw me off.

I could have all parties for item number four for the property located at 6975 Mesa Grande Court.

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.

Good evening, uh Mr.

Chair.

My name is Elijah Proc.

I'm building inspector filling in for Jeremiah Carter.

This is for the agenda item number four, case number two five zero four seven nine nine eight.

Property owners Howard, I may butcher his name.

Chang Gang.

Property address is six nine seven five Mesa Grande Court, Sacramento, California, nine five eight two eight.

Parcel numbers zero four zero zero one eight one zero zero seven zero zero zero zero.

Today's date is May 13th, 2026.

On December 30th, 2025, Mr.

Carter met with the tenants of the property.

Tenants stated that the water heater was continuously malfunctioned over the past year, and that the owner will come and make temporary repairs that would last for a month or so, and the parts have been ordered to fix it.

She stated that she could she had called PGE because of a strong smell of natural gas in a garage.

The PGE test revealed a dangerous level of carbon monoxide in the garage and disconnected the gas line to the water heater.

She then notified the owner, PGE had disconnected the gas line to the water heater.

She said that the owner came by today and threatened to evict him for causing the water heater to continue to malfunction and that he was not responsible for fixing it.

When Mr.

Carter inspected the water heater, he observed that the vent has less than 90 degrees angle, causing a backflow of exhaust gases to escape and flow into the garage.

Also, the pilot control knob has been strapped down with zip ties, creating a hazardous condition.

Mr.

Carter called the property owner, who was very upset, that the code enforcement was calling him about a problem he did not create.

He said he had ordered the part to fix the water heater, but did not know when it would arrive.

Mr.

Carter told him for the dwelling to meet habitability standards that the hot water needed to be working and that Mr.

Carter would be back out for reinspection on January 2nd, 26 to check the water heater, and that if it wasn't working properly, there would be a possibility that there will be costs incurred at the owner's expense to replace the water heater.

During the call, the owner was very angry and said he was a former inspector.

And uh Mr.

Carter could not do that, and that the city code does not state that he must provide the tenants with the hot water.

The tenants said that they had not heard from the owner.

Mr.

Carter then called the owner and there was no answer.

Notice no orders requested to be issued due to non-compliance.

Uh this case is currently closed.

Uh the total costs are 1,468 dollars and 80 cents.

The notice in 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 1,000 $468.80 cents.

There's a type of there in the report for the notice and order on the property known as 6975 means the Grande Court, Sacramento, California, 95825.

Property parcel number is 0400181-007-000.

This report was prepared by Mr.

Jeremiah Carter, the building inspector.

Please see the documents attached.

But I I make four copy because I notice that there are four member that's not a CD employee.

I would like to give to follow because I'm gonna read something off here, and then something that I that I can see.

If you can pass it to four members, yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah, first of all, oh, I I couldn't hear anything.

First of all, the microphone doesn't work.

Uh so okay, so it works now.

Yeah, okay.

So first of all, I I have three dispute, and you can look on here, you can see that there's three disputes.

Um, but before that, I like to um explain to you a little bit that meet the Jeremy Carter, the way he uh conduct a bit unprofessional.

Uh he when I call him, he would tell me like I'll call you back, and he picked up a different phone that have no call ID.

So he would use a phone that communicated with me, like his phone or something that's not recorded, so there's no core.

He's not here today to actually, because I need to ask him a certain question.

Today, today the report that that you receive here, this is the first time I received it by this inspector right here at the door.

He just gave it to me.

I have not seen this report before.

Okay, this is the first time.

And the second thing is that me the German Carter would not arrange a meeting with me at the property where he can point to me that what is considered hazardous structure or dangerous from the second page that he sent to me, uh no, from the third page that he sent to me that he said that this is a uh a notice order, substandard and dangerous structure.

And this is a just a water heater, it's an applying.

So that's the first dispute that I have is that I didn't order the inspection.

So oh wait, let me uh I uh let me begin another thing.

Is that uh tell a little bit by myself?

I'm a super engineer, a retirement professional CEO engineer.

I have professional license, and also that I a uh real estate home inspector.

I was a real stakeholding inspector and waited on faster, so I have that experience in this field, and also that I did a lot of repair for my home and my rental property.

Uh I do hire some professional, do some work if I couldn't do it if it takes too much time.

So my background is engineering and home inspectors.

Well, so I know what I'm talking about.

Okay.

So when I when I read the letter, I object right away because what happened is that this tenant live here, they live here like about 16 years.

And I, and I have kind of some kind of relationship with them.

That's why they stay there and they have a cheap rent.

But however, they have like nine or ten people live there where the rent the rent agreements only have five persons only, and they violate that, and also they violate by growth mere one in the backyard for years.

And when they told me that oh my son have um cancel and the law, the government allowed me to grow, and then they keep somebody that um they can grow that, and then also they have pet in the house, which they violate the rental agreement as well.

And also that the person that called PGE, she wasn't a legal eye tenant on the property.

Her name wasn't on the rental property at all.

She just happened to be a spiral of the uh of the uh uh of one of the tenant the son.

But my agreement with the tenant is that they have, yeah, you got one second, I think we have a uh kind of a discussion for the from the board.

What I was saying to the chair is we're here in regards to the violations that you received.

Yes.

And your explanation of your relationship with the tenants, in my opinion, isn't your main to the facts of the violation.

The violations being that of a water heater and not that of a complaint from your tenant or your relationship with the tenant.

No, I get to that because it I explain to you what the cost and how it gets to this point because I couldn't explain to you.

What happened is that because they have a lot of family members live the nine or ten, they have six car, and then they oft occasional they have gas from another state, can visit.

The one here is only 35 gallon that only per 10 for five person family.

Okay, it's a three bedroom how too bad.

It can be, but they have a lot of memories there.

So they often turn the the the dial in the thermos bath to maximum so that they can reheat the water quick so that somebody can go and take a bath.

Okay.

So they when they did that, sometimes they they it's fine.

Sometimes they forgot to turn it back to to the low setting, like a meeting.

It burned the thermocouple.

Thermocouple is like a like this one.

So that the thermocouple control the you know, like w when is when the water too hot, it will stop, okay.

I think what he's trying to say, uh is it okay?

I think what he's trying to say is I get that we understand that concept.

If you look at the inspector's report, I think it's false.

I disagree with the report.

That's why I did not appeal for that.

I reject that.

Everything in here is is wrong.

A false accusation.

That's why the fact that P G and E came and smelled gas has nothing to do with the coupler there.

Obviously, there was a backdrop.

Let me explain to you and then you get to that point if they understand because you will understand why PG will show up.

And Mr.

Giao, we're only here for the question of are the fees costs and other amounts claimed by the city reasonable and justified.

You did not appeal the actual notice and order.

It's not justifiable.

So I didn't appeal.

I told them that I this is not a co-violation.

Right.

That would have needed to be a appeal on the on the basis of the notice and order.

This is we're only here to consider the fees.

Are they reasonable and justified?

It's not justified because the case is not justified.

So the fee is not up.

No, that's what he's trying to tell you.

Is you didn't you didn't put an appeal that the case is not justified, right?

No, because they asked me to pay seven hundred dollars to appeal for something is not even uh a false accused to I think they're not understanding.

There's two different appeals.

You didn't appeal that this case is not justified.

No, but I contact I told them they I told them that I say that this is wrong and everything, but they still insist that well, even if it's wrong, you still have to pay seven hundred dollars.

We get that, and you didn't appeal that the case is wrong.

That's not what you're here for today.

No, I I came here to because they wouldn't give they told me that okay.

Well, you know what, after seven uh after one month, you didn't appeal, we're not let you appeal anymore.

But say I wouldn't like my appeal for seven hundred dollars.

The appeal packet comes in the mail automatically.

That's not with the inspector.

You're only appealing the charges today that the charges.

You're you're arguing a case that this is a notice and order.

You didn't argue that case.

You didn't appeal.

Well, I'll argue that case, but not appeal through writing.

I appeal because they say that you have to send 700 to appeal that.

That's fine.

What I'm so that is confirmed that to appeal a notice and order, it does cost 700.

So that is I just wanted to know that was correct.

Right, that's correct.

But the thing is that I wouldn't uh pay seven hundred dollars for something I did not do any wrong with it.

That's the thing.

I've come here too.

You can't use this hearing to appeal something that we can't listen to.

Even if you all of that is correct, that's fine.

That's not what you're here to hear today.

That's not you can't talk about this case.

You're only talking about the fees being unjust.

Yeah, I think the fee and just because the case is unjust.

But you can't say the case is unjust, you didn't appeal the case.

But let's say if I don't appeal to the case, you need to talk about why the fees are unjust.

No, no, but why you they sent me a letter of something that's a danger.

But what is the danger?

They couldn't prove to me.

They didn't send me the uh the evidence.

E G and EGNE unplugged it.

Yeah, why then I asked you why P and G come to my property to uh in the notice and order, you would have received the the violations.

We we see it on our answer.

I know that you received it, uh eight point nine six point one one zero due to lack hot water working working water heater and the lack of working smoke detectors, disability is unsafe for human.

That is the violation.

You would have needed to appeal the notice of order on that violation.

We cannot consider that tonight.

We can only consider the fees.

Are they reasonable and justified?

That's all we can.

We cannot Monday morning quarterback about the yeah.

Like I said, I came here, I would not pay that.

Even the government uh tried to put a uh lean on my house, it's okay.

But I'm telling you, the the tenant left the how would I pay the last month rent and the tenant damaged my house?

Then I might cover it then with a whole bunch of stuff like at least a item on I have a list here, and they abandoned my house right now.

Is that I couldn't sell it.

My my broker put on sale, and then we have to withdraw it because uh need to repair, and now the repair haven't done yet.

And now the because the CD have some kind of liability or some kind of responsibility for saying a force, a force uh uh report or report uh inspection because they have no justification to come to a how to do inspection like that.

They don't because they do.

And the problem is it's riddled with errors.

You're telling me that your gas water heater on here is a propane from the city.

That's not even you're you're riddled with errors all over this.

The city has the right to come in.

It's called the rental housing inspection program.

But again, we're not gonna talk about that.

We're only gonna talk about the fees.

We only have a set amount of time.

If you have a justification for why you think the fees are unjust, we will hear that.

Yeah, I think the fee is just because this the case is that is there's no violation.

So how you how you justify to to uh to get a fee.

There's no violation.

If that's his argument, that's his argument.

Right.

Well, we understand, but you would have needed to appeal the actual notice in order for us to consider the violations.

We cannot now consider the violations, but because you want to circumvent paying the seven hundred dollars.

You would have needed to appeal it and pay the seven hundred dollars for us to have an uh uh an opportunity to assess the violations.

We cannot do that.

We only can consider are the fees and other costs justifiable and reasonable.

Like I said, I don't think it's justified because let's let's assume as I violate the code that's something that I Mr.

Gill.

We heard what you stated.

Yeah, it was repeated to you what we can hear.

It's not a just suppose, it's not a hypothetical.

Right.

The actual and only things that we are here to hear, is in fact is the c what you appealed.

The only thing that you can be conveying, not the only thing that you can be, but the only thing that this board will hear is your conveyance of what you appealed.

That is it.

There is no part B, there is no part C.

There is no deference on your opinion to what should be or should not be.

The only thing this board will hear is what you appealed.

If you are finished with your presentation on what you appealed, we will make a motion because there isn't anything else that this board can listen to outside of what you appealed.

That is it, cut and dry.

And your argument for the fees cannot be there was no violation.

That that can't be your argument tonight.

You would have needed to argue the the basis of the violations from the notice and order appeal, not from this fees and cost appeal.

So you can't say the fees and costs are unjustified because there was no violation.

You would have needed to do that with the initial notice and order appeal.

So I I is that clear.

You can't argue the fees and you can't.

The thing is that there's certain rule that I I'm not aware of.

I this is my first time.

You cannot say that, okay.

Well, there's something wrong with the notice order, and then when I talk to them, I call on the phone, I email, they tell you that, oh, work with the inspector, he would take care of it.

So I assume that, okay, I repaired, and he came, he's supposed to c he and he agreed that he came inspect the water here, and it worked fine.

And it was like over a few months, and then the tenant just move out without uh give me a last uh last one notice.

I feel that the CD is like uh like a uh CD uh co-enforcement is kind of like uh a rain tall defendant.

They on the side of the tenant, they're not on the side of the landlord.

Because for me, it's like they punish me, not the tenant, they never punish the tenant, but only punish me.

So I don't think this is just a fine to punish me for the fee because I do nothing wrong.

The tenant did something wrong the publicly get me in trouble so that the city will punish me, and then they will now it's like I'm being punished and they not being punished.

That's all I say.

It's not justifiable.

Well, ask me to pay for the fee.

I refuse it.

I refuse.

If I have to go to Supreme Court, I would argue in front of the just Supreme Court because it didn't.

And I'm not sure if you were here when Mr.

Antabman spoke about giving an example that if you have a tenant that is growing marijuana illegally on your property, the owner is responsible for the violation.

So you it may seem unfair, but the city is not on the side of the landlord or the tenant.

They're just upholding the code.

That's all they're doing.

No, the on the side of the tenant, because the tenant used to see it to threaten me.

I want to raise the random they would say, you know what, I'm gonna call the CD.

So that's is that a threat?

If you use a CD to threaten, if they have nothing there that's in violation, I would say bring the city on, have them inspect it.

In fact, you're a part your house is supposed to be inspected by the rental housing inspection program.

Yeah, but I'm on I'm a memo of the then you should be fine.

You welcome an inspector.

Then why then one does the inspector came in and tell me that?

Because it was bleaking gas.

No, it wasn't leaking gas.

No leaking gas.

I didn't repair any leak gas.

There's no recall.

All right, this is the last opportunity.

We're done at this point, or at least I am.

Mr.

I I have final comments from Mr.

Boyd.

I'll let you make a final brief statement, and then we will consider a motion.

What's happening?

I'm looking at I oh okay.

I just wish to say one last thing, and then but I'll let Mr.

Boy go first, and then I'll let you speak.

To your point, Mr.

Gillong, gas may not have been smelled.

PG and E came and smelled carbon monoxide, is why they turned the water heater off.

So, the wording from PGE was they smelled carbon monoxide that had backed up into the garage.

That is a danger.

They shut off the source of that carbon monoxide, which was the water heater.

Going and finding that this is what they do for a living, they are the ones who then stated there's an issue with this water heater.

Tied the control knob, zip tied down, so for non-adjustment, as you stated, because of the multiple uh multiple use of dialing the temperature, broke the heating coupler.

That's not how that works.

Heating coupler is is copper.

That will only break over time and physical damage too, not the turning of the dial.

Some of us up here are experienced in home repair.

Some of us up here, I'm just throwing a broad stroke.

Hold law degrees.

Some of us up here understand exactly what we're speaking of.

And I'll conclude with this, as a you stated, your words were a former code compliance officer or code inspector, if I heard you right.

So then you would know it's not an illegal check on your property.

It was a dangerous issue that was that had transpired that needed to be addressed, and it was addressed by PG and E.

And from that, the ball started rolling on source.

From that, code compliance comes in and starts the violations that that inspector saw.

That's where we are.

The reason we're here is your appeal to the dollar amount that you requested.

That is it.

I appeal that this is going in circles.

Let me explain.

Let me ask you this, then if you can explain to me that a water heater and gas applying, like gas stall and uh gas furnace, how we produce carbon monoxide.

And I asked you that.

If you say that you took how it the only way you can get produced uh carbon monoxide is that you burn something other than propane.

You burn, you can burn paper, you burn uh styrofoam uh aerosol, it would produce that kind of carbon monoxide because Mr.

Let me just stop you.

Just from my purview, I don't have an answer to that question because I have no the I'm not an expert.

We are not employees of the city, we don't work for code enforcement.

I haven't taken one class about what their expertise.

Right.

So I can't all we can talk about tonight is are the fees.

And again, I'm gonna say this for the last time because we have to move on.

We can you you cannot use there's no violations as a reason that the fees and the cost are unjustified.

You would have had to contest the actual notice and order.

So I think we're going in circles because you're it's not the same.

So you assign responsibility, you have to assign responsibility because when I when I opened the water heat up, I found that they used aerosol to spray to create carbon oxide so that they can call PG to come and then they roll the thing.

The reason why they did that is that before that they did a lot of I did a lot of repair.

I repaired five times the copper uh one year repair five times the car uh the copper copper tub, one time this one the burner, the whole assembly, and one time the thermosass.

So I replaced all that in one year.

Okay.

Why is that?

Because before they told me that this water heater is 35 gallons isn't too small for for their family.

I say five people for uh five 35 gallons, correct.

And so I told the the the tenant, the man, I said that you know, if next time if they broke again, I'll replace 60 gallon, they hold that 60 gallon.

So I give them that, you know, like okay.

Well, in the future, if it broke, are we playing he's gonna replace the gallon because they don't sell 35 gallon anymore in Homeboard?

I told them that.

And so what happened?

It keeps broken all the time, and then so on the day that they broke that, and I say I have to order this one because this one takes a long time because it takes about two weeks to arrive.

Like maybe one week and a half and two weeks around.

And so when I came there, right, and the old inspector, and I tried to call a a contractor to get them replaced new water heat right away.

Because I say, and so when I open the water heater up, because you have to drag all the water out to replace this one.

You drank all the water, and I opened everything up, and I found that they spray styrofoam with aerosol in there to burn to create a a uh a carbon monox mail, and then they call PG.

And then when I talk to the tenant, why you doing that?

They say, Well, it wasn't me, I didn't call it was somebody else.

And so it's it created that problem.

So the problem it doesn't, you know, the because you can turn like really high volume.

It doesn't produce carbon monoxide.

The water here doesn't produce carbon oxide because it burn propane gas.

It doesn't burn paper or wood, right?

The only time that I violate the code is that I modified because what happened is that what I what I did is that I pushed the pilot and I light up, right?

So it heat up water, but again, you know.

We're done at this point.

Yeah, you're arguing something that you didn't put an appeal in for.

This is the last time we're telling you whether or not they took out the thing, you didn't appeal that.

We're here to talk about the fees.

So you're you continue to talk about things that we cannot talk to you about.

So at this point, I'm going to make a recommendation confirming the total charge of 1,360 for the notice and order on the property known as 6975 Mesa Grande Court, Sacramento, California, 95828 APN 0400 181 007 000.

Uh may I?

Uh that really total charge.

Oh.

And that paragraph was a little bit off.

Um it should be 1,468.

Oh, well, then yes, you should have, thank you.

Telling stop me.

I guess 1,468.

Confirming the total charge of 1,000.

Can I just edit the number or do you gonna make me read the whole thing again?

You're gonna make me reread the whole thing.

Confirming the total charge of 1,468.

For the notice and order on the property known as 6975, Mesa Grande Court, Sacramento, California, 95828 APN number 040181 00700.

Thank you for catching by the way.

One second.

Yes.

Taylor.

And Tablion?

Yes.

Void.

So Mr.

Guillon, we did find in favor of the city confirming the total charge of $1,468.80.

Again, you'll receive uh notification, written notification in the mail about our decision and any next steps you can take.

Um I don't know what other next step I can take because I I think the CD still responsible because it costs us to have a tenant vacate the how damage to how and I cannot sell the how and again right now.

It says status is closed on this.

So I would recommend working.

Are you the current or are you just filling in for the day?

I'm filling in.

Um we're gonna address this outside.

There we go.

Perfect.

We'll work with you directly right now.

Thank you.

Okay.

Items five and six.

Inspect the Arian Gildesleeve 4561 10th Avenue.

This is Jose Francisco.

Please come forward.

Thank you.

The secretary will swear you in.

I could have all parties for items number five and six for the property located at four five six one tenth Avenue.

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and at the end of the truth?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Gillesleaf.

Evening.

This is uh agenda item five and six, case number two five-zero three five five eight three.

Property owner is restated.

Francisco Lee Family Trust.

Property address located at four five six one tenth Avenue, parcel number zero one four-zero two two two two-zero three nine-zero zero zero zero.

Um my name is Arneon Gildersleeve, building inspector for the city of Sacramento.

Case open on September 11, 2025.

It's currently closed.

On September 23rd, 2025, I arrived for an initial inspection of a duplex.

I met with the tenant who allowed me to inspect the home.

I noted violations in the bathroom and the wall heater located in the living room.

Photos were taken.

I requested a preliminary letter to be sent out.

October 30th, 2025, I arrived for a 30-day inspection.

I received no response from the property owner.

There's no building permits issued.

I checked with the tenant to verify if the property owner contacted them or fixed the violations.

And the tenant stated nothing has happened.

Photos were also taken.

I requested a notice and order, which wasn't contested.

Cloud and title to be sent out, which the fees are being appealed this evening.

December 15, 2025, I arrived for a 30-day inspection.

The violations remain the same.

The property owner hasn't contacted me.

Photos were taken.

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

The property owner contacted me in January 2026, indicating that he had traveled out of town during the violations corrected.

I met with the tenant March 6, 2026 to inspect the home.

The violations didn't require permit and were repaired after confirming the completion of the work, I closed the case.

$190 for termination fee, title cost $47.50, code technology fee $30.40.

A monitoring fee of $380.

Total cost of two uh $2,007.

The notice of list pendants or cloud was properly recorded at the Sacramento County Assessor's Office on December 11, 2025.

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

A preliminary letter was sent out September 24, 2025.

The notice and order was sent to the property owner address listed on the current title report October 31st, 2025.

It was effectively served on October 31st, 2025 by substitute service.

The notice and order was not appealed.

Um the appellant um has received the information being presented this evening, and staff uh recommends that the board adopts a decision confirming the total charge of 1,597.50 cents for invoice number CDDCAC 23450 for notice and order cloud and title on the property known as 4561 10th Avenue, Sacramento, California 95820, parcel 014-022-039-000, and also for the total charge of $410 for invoice number CDDCHC 23817 for the HDB monitoring fee and code uh technology fee also on the property of 4561 10th Avenue uh Sacramento, California 95820, parcel 014-022-039-000.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Francisco, please state your appeal.

Yes, uh good evening.

Um I know it's late, so I'll try to be brief.

Um in 2024, this exact same.

I I found myself here in the same situation for to appeal for a rental inspection, and I decided on that time that I better make arrangements that notifications for any inspection be provided to my property manager.

So I th or so I thought that that arrangement has been made.

So when I was out of the country from uh September 2nd through through uh through um January 15th uh 2026.

So what happened was, you know, the the notification I I've been a long time uh rental inspection, you know, property because I do own a duplex that's very old, and I do welcome any improvements.

Probably I can't do it all at once, but but uh you know, that's why I have a property manager because I find myself um out of town quite a bit.

Uh I was out of town during the time of the inspection.

The notification was sent to my address.

Nobody was there to receive any mail.

Um, neither was my property manager, you know.

They didn't receive anything, even though I thought that we've already made arrangements after the 2024 hearing.

As a matter of fact, I do recognize Mr.

Boyd was in that hearing.

Um I did say that, you know, the following date that I better make that arrangement.

And so um so I I was a little bit surprised that this is happening all over again.

As you can see, I I didn't was not aware of any city inspection until the day after I returned, which is January 15th, 2026.

Immediately after I got that, I said, What's going on?

I checked with the property manager.

Did you receive any notice?

Can we address this right away?

Because I don't want to, you know, but it's already outside the purview of the appeals period.

I I did double check on F February 2nd.

I called the city and said, you know, are you is the property manager's address on the list of contacts?

And they said yes, and and so I'm I know so I decided to send an appeals letter to the appeals and hearing did it February 2nd, 2026.

However, it was returned to mean saying that it the appeal was invalid because it's over the time period, and all we're appealing right now is the fees.

And so I was no longer, and and the only thing I can appeal right at this point is the fees.

That's I I totally understand the procedures, but um it's a little frustrating for me because I feel like you know, I we didn't receive any notification.

We reacted promptly, and right now, you know, um we're receiving this fee, and uh frankly, I frankly I can't afford it.

You know, that's uh, you know, there's there's other things that I I'm addressing that property that we replaced the heater as you know that heater has been replaced.

I have been proactive.

I went to the other unit and they said, you know, this thing might break down.

I replaced the other heater proactively so that this will never happen again, and um, and I'm just uh I'm at my with M.

I just, you know, I don't have any, you know, I'm not making him any money from this property at all.

And so I just uh that that's it.

And so I I called the city again and and I just want to make sure that the city uh has the correct contact, because uh, you know, I I'm I'm I'm willing and able, you know, to to abide by what the city finds, but please, you know, I if I if I don't know, I I if I'm not aware, how could we act?

So uh I just I what I would want is you know I mean can you help me out?

You know, can you can you help me out with this?

Mr.

Lee, can I ask what is the address of the property uh managers?

Oh, at the time it was real property management select two one four three Hurleyway, suite 103, Sacramento, California.

And because it's public record and it's before us, so this isn't uh letting a cat out of the bag.

Would you state the restated Francisco Lee family trust address, please?

Uh it's 6409 Driftwood Street, Sacramento.

Thank you.

And let me turn to my uh guilders sleeve, uh Inspector Gilder's sleeve.

What is the address?

Let me back up.

Uh what is that thing called?

The um confirmation of delivery, what is on that in regards to the letter going out to property manager was for 64093.

I think the question is within the rental housing inspection program, is the pro property manager's address listed as the main address, or is it the driftwood address?

Um I think at well at the time it was it only had one address because when I spoke to uh Mr.

Francisco back, I believe in February, that's when I myself put the address that he wanted in the system, um, which I believe that if I'm not mistaken would have been the the uh 2143 Hurley way, and I originally put that in there.

Is there a way to check when that address was added?

Uh it shows property or added on February 5th, 2026.

My conversation with the city was on February 2nd.

Okay.

Because basically what happens once I put in the information, then back office has to process that, so there might be a little delay, you know.

I understood.

So what that said, but your contention was that you put in writing the uh additional address and what evidence or and what can you show us the board that you uh email handwritten letter.

What can you show us that you had that done and the um recep the reception from the city of Sacramento in your request for it adding on the property manager's address?

Oh, I don't have any written evidence from 2024 to produce right now, but all I know is I did call the city.

Okay, let me stop you just prior to let me stop you just one quick second.

Uh inspector, would a phone call suffice from a property owner to add an additional address for notification?

Yes.

Okay, so with that, as you discovered, when you um spoke to the inspector, to add the property manager's address February of 2026, there you added it because it didn't exist prior.

So my point or my question to you is as you stated in 2024 you called and asked for the additional address for the property manager to be put on.

What was the confirmation you received that that was done?

I don't recall what the confirmation is.

All the confirmation that I got was prior to me talking to Mr.

Gildersleeve that the address is there as a secondary contact.

I'm sorry, repeat that again.

The address was there as a secondary contact because I went through the website and I said, okay, let's take a look at my parcel and see, you know, the rental housing inspection program list of properties.

And so I did call and I said, for this particular parcel number, what is the address that's in the in, you know, in that's registered aside from the restated Francisco Leaf Family Trust, there's a secondary address there.

I said for 2143 Hurley Way, and so if there's a secondary address here, I'm a little confused why it was not, you know, at least CC to that property, or you know, there should have been to your point.

So what you looked up was the county assessor's uh website for the property um um address showed both your address or the trust's address and the property manager's property manager's address on the county accessor's website, correct?

No, I I looked for a reference so that I can call, then I called the city and confirm over the phone.

Then I'm uh I missed something.

What website were you on that you saw both the trust address and the property manager's address that you just stated?

No, the website that I I checked, okay, just showed the list of properties listed in the rental housing inspection program.

There were no addresses whatsoever listed there.

Okay, I I used that to get a reference number or a assessor's number or or what have you said I can use to call uh the city to confirm that that address has been, you know, been there because you know I again I that's that's what I you know I I put into action back in twenty twenty four had had the property management company received correspondence uh had anything else come to Driftwood before this or was everything flowing from the city to the property management address at Hurleyway since 2024 no the property manager had gotten everything they they received all the documentation and letters and full full of your properties oh since since for for this case you since 2024 when you changed it they the if the city sent they would send it to the property manager would it still send it to Driftwood.

I did not receive any since 2024 this was the only time we received some sort of like a notification what he's saying is you would have received renewal notices in the mail for the rental housing inspection program over the last two years.

Where did those renewal notices go?

Oh they came to me yeah so that should have okay so can I just can I ask Mr.

Chief Limos I have a feeling you've been looking up the history of the property over there.

Could you shine some lighting inspector Lothar um in the rental housing they do have one other um address and it says local contact rep and that was it is for two two zero long iron court West Columbia South Carolina attached to your rental housing um application in both um current housing case and the previous housing case uh the only address that you have connected on within your contacts is driftwood um and then Hurleyway got added to 526 when both notice and orders and monitoring fees were issued at uh 12 16 25 before it got added to the actual case so Hurleyway would have never seen any of the information we rely on what's the title report once uh money gets issued to the property we pull a title report and all the beneficiaries get added to it uh but since you contacted Mr.

Gildersleeve to add Hurley Way after the fact that those have been issued according to what we see here got added in I believe I said um February 5th of 26 and the the all the all your fee all the um paperwork that was sent to you was sent in 25 correct I will I wasn't here so we didn't have your Hurley address for your property manager until 26.

Well spoke actually in 2024 he spoke December 27 2027 before he spoke to the tenant protection program and gave them 2143 Hurleyway suite 103.

So the tenant protection program has a additional address they have Driftwood 10th Avenue you didn't see the rental housing program.

Yeah we had a tenant protection program unfortunately our system currently does not share information between it with the program we're building in in the coming months once one program changes an address or adds an address, everybody will know right now.

Somebody has to actually go through every case and read the notes to buy.

I mean, I I thought I I acted in the by the way I I I don't know what that South Carolina address is.

I I have no idea what that is, okay.

Just just just for the record.

I Hawaii wide there's uh uh address in I would reach out to the rental housing supervisor and update your contacts.

Um you can come in fill out new paperwork to make sure that they get uh updated uh contact for you, and then you can add your property manager.

Your local rep on that uh Mr.

Gildersleeve, could it possibly be a a previous owner or something?

It could be anybody that has uh, but it says local rep right next to them, so um, I would say um update your rental housing and not your tenant protection.

So I I think all the solutions have been done.

I mean, what Mr.

Gildersleeve's recommendation you finished the case is closed.

You know, you you can all see that I acted in good faith and gave the address to uh but it's the wrong are there any other comments before I make a no okay.

So listen, you did make a good faith effort.

I do agree with that.

Um so here's here's the thing.

I would make sure that tomorrow every program that's out there you have um the information, and then to confirm when your tenants get stuff and that you're not hearing, make sure they're talking with the property management company as well and not just letting things go.

I mean I get that's not their responsibility.

But this is also your responsibility.

So I'm one board member that will make a motion.

I am your total bill right now is listed at two thousand seven dollars and ninety cents.

I'm gonna make a motion reducing that by five hundred dollars.

However, this is technically your fault.

You did not update it, but I would I would like to admit you did make a good faith effort.

So the city has met their due diligence and obligation, they have followed every rule, so I want to make sure that the city is aware that like they followed it.

You just updated the wrong system, which I get it sucks, and that's why I'm trying to meet you with this.

So I'm going to make a recommendation.

Oh no.

Oh, which charge?

Because there's two.

I'm I didn't the 500.

What do you mean?

Oh, well, let's make it easy.

We'll do them separately.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna take it off the first because I can subtract 500 from that one easier than I can the other one.

The other one, as it would be negative.

So for the first one, I'm gonna do confirming the total charge of 1097.50 cents invoice number C D C H C two three four five zero for notice and order cloud and title on the property known as 4561 10th Avenue Sacramento, California 95820 APN number 01402203900.

I'm sorry, give me the dollar amount again.

1097.50 cents.

I subtracted the uh second, excuse me, second.

Yes, Taylor, yes, and tablion?

Yes, void.

All right.

Uh I'm gonna move on to the second one.

Con uh moving on to case number the second case.

Um confirming the total charge of 400.

Did you need is that okay?

You were looking at me.

There's something I'm missing.

Um item.

No, they were uh they were just read out out of order.

So item five was the 410.

Oh, well, they're listed that way on the thing.

Sorry.

I apologize.

All right.

So I just read the other item then.

Can you you can swap them?

Or do I have to read it again?

Is that why you're looking at me?

Let's read it again.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

So I am going to read the other one first, then, right?

I'm gonna just start confirming the total charge of 41040 before I okay.

Confirming the total charge of 41040, invoice number C D D CDDCHC 23817 for HDB monitoring fee and code technology fee on the property known as 4561 10th Avenue Sacramento, California, 95820, APN number 0140222-03900.

Second, sir.

Yes.

Taylor.

Yes.

Yes.

Void.

Thank you.

Now moving on to the next one.

Confirming the total charge of 1,097.50 cents.

Invoice number CDDCHC 23450 for notice and order cloud and title on the property known as 4561 10th Avenue Sacramento, California, 95820 EPN number 014022, 039000.

Thank you.

Taylor?

Yes.

Void.

All right.

So Mr.

Francisco, we did find in favor of the city.

However, for item six, we reduced it from 1,597.50 cents to 1,097.50 cents.

A reduction of $500.

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

And to confirm is going to be sent to which address.

I just want to make sure.

Is that where you want it to be sent the notification of our decisions this evening?

So your driftwood address?

Sure.

Okay.

I I I need to also find out you guys have like payment plans or something like this.

And all of that will be in your paperwork.

So I want to make sure you got it.

That's why I'm asking.

Yes.

Okay, please.

But for any future notification, are there any other departments that need to know the property manager's address?

RHIP and rental housing.

And I think can who can explain it?

Can you talk to him outside and after this?

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Gill.

You know, I don't want this to happen.

Yeah, no, I understand.

Thank you, Inspector.

So if you can um stop at Francis out there, she can also give you another document for the payment plan so you have that ahead of time.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before we move on to the next one, Mr.

Inspector Martinoni.

Any chance we can um do a condensed version of this one?

Uh I was interested in asking that.

Absolutely.

This could just to confirm this person is not here today, right?

So a condensed version would be great.

Thank you.

The secretary will swear you in.

I could have all parties for items number seven and eight for the property located at 3439 23rd street.

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

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

Yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Martin.

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

This is uh agenda item number seven and eight, case number two five-043.

I'm sorry, case two five-zero four two three one three.

The property owner is Vincent Lira.

The property address is three four three nine twenty third street, Sacramento, California, nine five eight two two.

Parcel number zero one three zero one nine seven zero zero three zero zero zero zero.

Um the case was opened on November 5th, 2025.

The current case status is open on November 13th, 2025.

I performed an initial inspection at 1020 a.m.

When I arrived, there was a contractor standing on the front porch and construction material.

I informed him that I was there due to a complaint about work without a permit.

I checked the Excel permitting system and there was no permit issued for the work being performed.

He stated they were doing an interior remodel.

He gave me permission to inspect the interior and exterior of the structure.

The main structure is being remodeled, the kitchen, new countertop, sinks, fixtures, one bathroom remodel, vanity sinks, fixtures, new toilet, tile, shower enclosure, the addition of a new bathroom with tile shower and closure, the rear detached garage is in the process of being turned into an additional dwelling unit.

I posted a stop work notice and provided the contractor with my contact information.

A buster preliminary letter was sent and a notice and order was issued.

Photos were downloaded into the electronic case file.

The notice and order title and termination fee is being appealed today.

On December 15, 2025, I performed a reinspection at 1040 a.m.

I arrived at the single family residence due to the present violations.

The first housing and dangerous building monitoring fee of 380 was issued for the month of December 2025.

Photos were downloaded into the electronic case file.

This housing and dangerous building monitoring fee is being appealed today.

The property was the owner was not contacted prior to the issuance of the notice and order.

The preliminary letter was sent November 13th, 2025.

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

Staff recommendation is if the board adopts the decision confirming the total charges of $2,007 for the notice and order and the work performed by the city to the property known as 3439 23rd Street Sacramento, California.

APN 010, sorry, APN 0130-19703000.

Invoice CDD CHC2350 for the termination fee of 190, the notice and order of 1,360, the title 4750 for a total of 1,597 dollars, and invoice C D D CH 23820 for the housing and dangerous building monitoring fee of 380 dollars, co-technology fee of $30.40 for a total of $410.40.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Martinoni.

Any questions?

If not, I'll call for a motion.

I have a motion.

Yes.

Thank you.

But I'm not falling for it this time.

Yes.

You put it also reversed.

Confirming the total charge of $410.40.

For invoice CD DCH 23820 for housing and dangerous building monitoring fee for the property known as 3439 23rd Street, Sacramento, California, 95818 APN number 0130197003000.

Second.

Yes.

Taylor.

And tablion.

Yes.

Void.

All right.

I have another motion.

Yeah.

Okay.

Confirming the total charge of 1,597 for the notice and order, the work performed in the city of the Sacramento City on the property known as 34.

I'm sorry.

Did I say the amount?

1,597.

For the city.

This doesn't say 50.

440.

Oh, this does.

That doesn't.

All right.

Let me start over.

Confirming the total charge of 1,597 50.

For the notice and order and work performed by the city on the property known as 3439 23rd Street, Sacramento, California, 95818, APN number 0130 19700 3000.

Second.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Taylor.

Hi.

And Tablion?

Yes.

Void.

Hi.

All right.

Item number 10.

Right there, Elijah Proc, 4301, Marysville Boulevard.

Appellant.

Is Tiffany Rogers please come forward?

Tiffany, Ms.

Rogers, um had to make early, so she wants it read into record, and she did also submit these two photos.

All right.

Thank you.

Considering that the pillant is not here, Inspector Proc.

You can condense if you would like.

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.

Mr.

At the Prophet is beginning.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair.

Again, uh, my name is Elijah Proc.

I'm a city building inspector for the housing and dangerous buildings.

Uh, this is um for the agenda item number ten.

Case number is two five-zero zero five nine eight seven.

Property owner is Ingrid Meregart 2024 revocable trust.

Property addresses 4301 Maresville Boulevard Sacramento, California, 95838.

Parcel number is two three seven zero one five two zero two nine.

Uh today's date is May 13th, 2026.

And this uh type of report is for the accounting of expenses.

This case opened on February 18th, 2025.

The current case status, it is open.

This case originated from a complaint received on February 18th, 2025, regarding multiple makeshift structures on the property that were unlawfully occupied and served by illegal electrical and plumbing utilities.

The site inspection confirmed the presence of multiple transient occupied structures.

The owner stated she was allowing unhoused individuals to stay on the property and was advised that the unprimitive structures and associated mechanical electrical and plumbing systems.

Hello?

Um, my mic is cutting in and out.

Okay, so the owner stated that she was allowing unhoused individuals to stay on the property and was advised that the unpermitted structures and associated mechanical electrical plumbing systems violated the circumvent of city code and required permits for corrective action.

Despite notice and opportunity to comply, no corrective action was taken.

Every inspections confirmed the violations remained with no permanent activity or admitting full compliance efforts due to the continued continued blight and attractive nuisance conditions.

A notice and order uh was issued on December 31st, 2025.

As of today, the violations remain unresolved, and the property continues to violate title eight and fifteen of the Sacramento City Code.

The current appeal pertains to the delinquent enforcement invoice associated with the notice and order activity.

Um the total costs are 1,725.30 cents.

Uh the cloud was properly recorded on the property on February 5th.

Prelim letter issued March 27th, 2025.

Notice notice sent to the property owners that is listed on the county assessors' office, uh records, December 31st, 2025.

And it was effectively served by conspicuous posting of the notice on the front of the property and by simultaneous mailing by both certified mail returnity requested and first class mail, which was not returned.

The notice order was not appealed.

Stop recommends that the board adopt the decision confirming a total charge of 1,725.30 cents for the notice and order on the property known as 4301, Mayor's Bill Board of Sacramento, California 95838.

Parcel number 237 0152 029.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

If not, I'll call for a motion.

Not a question, but I'll just add to the record that the documents that were provided, whether they were 120 square feet or not, is a non obviously he's saying that this is a habitable structure, not a storage unit, so it doesn't matter if it's a hundred and twenty square feet or ten square feet, it can't have electrical or plumbing, right?

Just stated.

That would be correct.

Alright, so now if somebody would like to, I feel like I hog it.

Go ahead.

I would like to make a motion confirming the total charge of 1,725.30 cents for the notice and order on the property known as 4301 Marysville Boulevard in Sacramento, California, 95838, APN 2370152, 02900.

I'll second.

Yes.

Taylor.

And tablion?

Yes.

Void.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr.

Prock.

We're now moving to item 11.

Uncontested the secretary read this in.

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 and the of the provisions of the housing code and or dangerous building code with respect to the property known by the physical address and or parcel number APN as noted within agenda line for items number 11, lines one through two, lines four through 145, and lines 147 through 188.

So move.

Second.

Taylor.

And tablion?

Yes.

Void.

Okay.

Thank you.

Discussion calendar.

No.

Or comments, ideas, and questions.

Yes.

And I forget what my question was going to be.

Um give me one second.

If somebody else has a question, please go ahead.

I like to officially welcome Principal Inspector Lothar to his new position.

Oh, do we have?

Did was that or no?

That's next on the list.

I don't know who's in the audience.

Do we have public comment?

Public comment.

No.

Okay.

All right, Mr.

Boyd.

Question.

All right.

And we also welcome Miss Bunting, who had to leave earlier.

Now our fifth board member.

Right.

Meeting adjourned.

Thank you for closing the door, Peter.

Sorry, one last one.

That was