The meeting of the June 10th, 2026 of the Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board will now come to order.

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

The board is an impartial decision maker.

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

Your board members are myself, Clancy Taylor serving as vice chair this evening.

We have Mr.

Fisher, we have Mr.

Antablian, Mr.

Boyd, and Mrs.

Bunting.

I would also like to introduce Leia Billings, the secretary to the board, Peter Lamos, who is code and enforcement housing enforcement chief.

We have Daniel Bother, who is the principal building inspector, and David Kim, who is counsel to the board.

Secretary, can you call the roll, please?

Fisher.

Taylor, here.

And Tablion?

Boyd.

Now we'll move into our land acknowledgement.

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

To the original people of the land, the Nissanon people, the Southern Mayo, the Valley and Plains Miwok, 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 come before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples' history, contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

Now we will turn to the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

You may be seated.

Now quickly, I will get into why we are here today, what the purpose of all of this is.

So for item number two, we are here to determine whether the owners of the buildings and structures in the cases before us this evening have violated the provisions of Chapter 8.96, which is the dangerous buildings code, or Chapter 8.1, the Housing Code of the Sacramento City Code.

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

If it is shown by a preponderance of 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 to 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 costs incurred for the work may be made a personal obligation of the property owner and either a nuisance abatement lien or special assessment against the property.

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

For item number four, which is our cost recovery item.

We are here to consider the expenses occurred by the city in the notice in order and the repair, demolition, or securing of any building or structure done in the housing and dangerous building cases before us, together with any protests or objections.

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

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

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

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

You will hear our decision today and will 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 ordinance with the city code.

Alright, a few more items of what we are doing before we get started.

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

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

Please be concise in your appeal.

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

Now I'll ask the secretary to swear in appellants and city staff.

Yeah.

We'll do it.

Yep.

So for item one today, we will approve the May 13th minutes.

Can I get a motion?

I will motion to approve the minutes of May 13, 2026.

Second motion.

Taken the motion, sorry.

Taylor.

Yes.

And tablion?

Yes.

Boyd.

Aye.

Thank you.

All right.

Now we are moving on to item number two.

Will those speaking for item number two, please come forward.

And the secretary will be swearing you in.

I can have all parties for item number two for the property located at 2117 3rd Street.

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

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

Thank you.

So for item number two, city staff, can you please start?

Good evening.

Uh my name is Elijah Proc.

I'm a city building inspector for the housing and dangerous buildings.

Um this is agenda item number two, case number 25-006734.

Property owners De Barros Anthony.

Property addresses 2117 3rd Street Sarcamana, California 95818.

Parcel number 009 0112 023.

Today's date is June 10th, 2026.

And this is for the notice and order appeal.

This case opened on February 26, 2025.

Current case status, it is open.

This appeal is limited only to the validity of the notice in order to pay and not any fees.

An initial inspection was performed on April 4th, 2025 by building inspector proc.

Inspection identified the property was in violation of the Sacramento City Code.

Sections including the following, but not limited to 896 110L, 896110H, 8100.190.

On July 17th, 2024, an inspection of the property was conducted by a rental housing inspection program, which identified unpermitted construction associated with the creation of additional dwelling units.

April 4th, 2025.

Following reassignment to HDB, an inspection confirmed that the violations remained.

Unpermitted work includes but is not limited to creation of two additional dwelling units identified as Unit A, which is a converted basement, and unit C, converted detached garage.

Construction of rear stairs and a sun deck.

Installation of unapproved mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems.

This improvements were completed without permits and constitute violations, rendering the property a public nuisance unsafe and/or hazardous under Sacramento City Code, titles 8.100 and or 896.

On February 12th, 2026, a notice notable was issued due to continued noncompliance and failure to obtain required permits within the reasonable timelines provided by the city.

From July 24 to June 26, despite multiple opportunities to comply, the property owner has failed to obtain the required permits or otherwise legalize the unpermitted construction, and the structure remains in violation.

The validity of the notice note is the subject of today's appeal.

So the clause was recorded on the prop on this property on May 28th, 25.

Property owner was contacted prior to the issuance of the notice and order.

Preliminary letter was sent on April 10th, 25.

Notice notice was sent on February 12th, 26.

The owner was sent this uh notice noter appeal hearing on March 3rd, 26, and was effectively served.

Stuff 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 the decision of the decision and ordering of the property that if the property owner fails, refuses, neglects to correct the dangerous conditions, or demolish the structure within the time set forth in this decision that the city of Sacramento may repair, demolish or secure the structure or institute an action to compel compliance with the order.

The property known as 2117 3rd Street Sacramento, California 95818.

Arsenal number 009 0112 023.

Thank you.

Um we hear from the appellant, please.

Would you allow me just to read a statement?

Um can you please state your name and your address first?

Yes, my name is Anthony DeBarros.

Property address is 2117 3rd Street, Sacramento, California, 95818.

Thank you.

And the floor is yours, sir.

Thanks.

I just wanted to begin by making it clear that I'm not here to uh avoid compliance or challenge the city's authority to enforce building and housing codes.

Uh my goal has always been to work with the city to bring the property into compliance and pursue uh the legalization pathway under California law uh AB 2533.

I'm here today because I believe the actions taken in the case don't accurately reflect uh my efforts to cooperate.

Uh I have documented communication uh failures that occurred throughout the process.

Uh from the beginning, I did attempt to engage with code enforcement division regarding the property.

Uh prior to the issuance of formal notices, I made multiple attempts to communicate uh progress of compliance, uh leaving voicemail.

Uh it was never clarified for me that in addition to those needing to have any type of written documentation.

Uh, after the notice and order was issued, my efforts to communicate increased.

I reached out repeatedly both via phone and email in efforts to understand the city's expectation, provide updates regarding compliance efforts, and establish a productive path forward.

Those communications uh initially were unanswered.

At no point did I ignore the city, at no point did I refuse to cooperate, and at no point did I attempt to conceal information or avoid compliance.

Uh to the contrary, I was actively attempting to engage with the city, uh, building departments simultaneously retaining professionals, investigating compliance options, uh, investing significant resources into resolving the issue identified at the property.

Uh, despite these efforts, enforcement actions continue to escalate.

Uh most notably, tenants were served notices requiring them to vacate the property before I was able to secure a meeting with code enforcement supervisor.

Um, before, excuse me, and before I had the opportunity to uh address any of the communication breakdowns.

That sequence of events I believe is important.

Uh tenants were displaced before meaning meaningful dialogue occurred regarding substantial efforts already underway to achieve compliance.

When I eventually met with supervisor code enforcement uh and the uh inspector, I was advised that the city's objective is to is compliance, not displacement.

And I appreciated hearing that because it aligned with my own understanding of how these situations should be addressed.

However, by that point, the enforcement process had already escalated and had already progressed into tenant displacement, despite my ongoing cooperation and repeated attempts to communicate.

I respectfully submit that those actions were inconsistent with the city's stated commitment to working collaboratively towards compliance and avoiding unnecessary displacement whenever possible.

Um throughout the process since the initial notice from RIP, uh I've retained contractors, engaged design professionals, completed corrective work, commissioned utility investigations, prepared permit applications, to move in and hoping to achieve compliance.

Those are not the actions of a property only attempting to avoid any responsibility, those are actions of an owner actively pursuing compliance.

The financial impact has been substantial in addition to professional fees, permit cost, investigations, repairs.

Uh tenant displacement has created significant hardship for the residents involved, and additional financial burden on me as the property owner.

Despite these challenges, I remain fully committed to completing the process and bringing the property into compliance.

For those reasons, I respectfully request that the board consider the full record of my cooperation, my documentation attempts to communicate with the city, uh, lack of response to those communications, and substantial good faith efforts that have been made to achieve compliance.

Sorry, to allow the active compliance process currently underway to proceed under completion underneath the framework contemplated by AB 2533.

I believe that outcome is consistent with the intent of the law and the city's stated values and the facts of the case.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

We'll now hear any questions from the board.

Okay.

So I will say uh in reviewing and looking at the pictures, uh, in my opinion, I'm just one board member, there does seem to be a housing issue.

I can see that why they did the notice in order, the additions and the concerns.

I will say I also note that this started in July of 2024 and it's been almost two years.

So I will say I it's hard for me to vote to waive the notice in order because there is clear proof that it happened, but I also understand the situation of working.

So in trying to get you to where you want to be ultimately, I think you also know, and it sounds like you're working to get building permits to get this up to code, correct?

That's correct.

As of today, I have one permit for the unit C already submitted, and unit A is not submitted, but I have basically about half the plans that are necessary.

Still need to uh have my structural engineer share what needs to be done to have floors lowered.

So can I ask how long do you think until building permit A will be submitted?

That's a good question.

Um that depends on the workload of both the primarily the engineer.

I have uh as built plans already set, so basically I need that from him, and that should allow me to then submit.

So I would share probably within 30 to 45 days for the A to be submitted.

Okay, so what I'll ask is Inspector Proc.

Right now are there since he has one of the building permits pulled out of their monthly monitoring fees being issued?

Currently there are no permits pulled, just an application that was submitted on 529.

The permit application's been requested, so it's still with the city?

It's still being reviewed by the city.

Okay.

So at this time, no, no costs, no monitoring fees are being issued, right?

Uh no, because today's the purpose of today's meeting is to verify and uh confirm the ability to have the notice in order.

Okay.

So in my opinion, just so you're aware how it goes, because I learned by sitting up here the process as well.

Um, once you get the notice in order every 30 days, they can give you a 300 and some odd dollar monitoring fee.

Is that right?

Okay, and so I just want to make sure that you're not getting the 300 and some dollar in my again, my opinion.

Um, so I don't have any additional questions, but I'll at least let you know where I'm leaning as to make sure that you have enough time to get your second building permit in.

Um, but I will say I do see that there is a housing issue, and by waiving that, I personally I I can't waive it because we have to go by the city code and the rules that there is violations on the property from the pictures documented, uh, but I do want to make sure it sounds like you're doing your due diligence.

So I do want to make sure you get enough time for that.

Uh, but I'll defer to any other questions or comments.

Thank you.

Uh I'll echo the uh comments of my colleague up here.

And just uh add a couple of questions to that.

Um, just curious.

Uh which year was the A B 3235 that you had mentioned?

A B 2533.

Okay, I screwed it all the way up.

That's okay.

I believe that went in place January first, 2025.

2025 AB 2225.

A B2533.

Two five three three.

Dang, I think I have dyslexic hearing, but um wonder I couldn't find you because what I pulled up was nothing uh remotely close to what's going on here.

Um to the um uh three things when were the eviction notices given uh do you have that?

I can pull the notice here.

Well, you're looking so as of now it's a vacated uh premise.

Uh yes, he had served the notices when the notices were first served.

That was prior to me filing, or in the process of me trying to file for the appeal, and I think that just freaked them out.

So even after I had conversations with the supervisor who agreed, we don't want to displace them.

They can stay, being that I was showing I was actively working on it, the tenants um due to how it was discussed with them uh from the inspector, we're no longer comfortable in and felt that their housing was in jeopardy.

So they vacated?

Yes.

And there's no vacancy currently at the property, right?

No.

Okay, so that happened when when did the tenants vacate?

A month ago, two months ago.

Okay.

Yeah, so we yeah, they they vacated seven days into the 10 day notice.

Seven days into the 10 day notice.

Um, day notice.

I don't have the date here.

Gotcha, but uh April ish.

Yeah.

Okay, which uh my colleague board member up here had stated this started back July 2024.

So that was what one year, 10 months?

Yes.

After the start of this point being it's a long process, you know, if we all had money that was just, you know, flush, we could do things quicker.

I understand that.

But the point of this hearing is it's uh been repeated, that it is a dangerous building.

There's no denying it.

But I uh question that I do have also in regards to the dangerous building.

Now, is this just bad photography, or am I looking at black mold throughout the the entirety of the uh uh of the pictures that are shown that's bad photography, but there is uh mildew in the unit C from the tenant.

The tenant was not a very clean cleansly person.

Okay, um, just the limited area.

Let me go to the inspector.

I don't think mold was an issue.

Um that photography would be referred to uh when you copy original copies, it just comes out bad.

But the photography is good.

Oh, it's not a digital, you have a copy there.

It's not a digital gotcha.

Copy of a copy.

Because I was gonna say, man, uh who's living in that.

Gotcha.

You know what?

I think that cleared up everything that I have.

Um again, just going back nailing the point of there's no way around it, the dangerous building aspect of it.

Um, and with that I'll hand it off to vice chair.

Oh yeah, she said I have a question.

Just one comment.

So AB 2533 provides amnesty for legalizing uh ADU units, but it specifically says that full compliance with current building codes, while not universally required, only needs to be the minimum health and safety.

And according to this, the items that are unpermitted include mechanical, unapproved mechanical electrical and plumbing, which would fall, in my opinion, under the dangerous and housing uh so this for my understanding of 2533 is that would be an ADU that just didn't get permitted.

But it appears that this has some other issues, not just the freestanding ADU.

So I don't believe that they have issues.

I believe the fact that it's not permitted is what makes it the violation, but that I'll leave for the city inspectors when the permit opens for them to come and determine.

Okay, I have no other questions.

I'm happy to do uh unless you can chime in because I saw the look from the chief.

I'm not speaking for him.

It's not a matter of there was a permit, it was work done without a permit.

So you cannot construct in the city of Sacramento without a permit, which means someone coming out there to say yes, the work is in compliance with the code of the city of Sacramento, and if you don't have someone to come check that off, it's a dangerous building because I grabbed a hammer and some nails, and yeah, it looks nice, but what I didn't do was the joles.

What I didn't do was the settings.

What I so just for clarity.

Thank you.

Uh, and if I can state, you know, I purchased the property in this condition, and there was even when I spoke with um the supervisors over at building permits, there is a lot of question around it because the property is listed as a duplex, the property has addresses uh approved with the city through it.

So it's something that we believe through talks with them probably happened back in the late 90s and just kind of slipped through cracks.

Um, and you know, it's hard to kind of go over that when there's no employee that was here 30 years ago to kind of address, yeah.

Actually, here's one more thing that you don't probably don't want to hear.

Violations stay with the house, not the owner.

Yep, no, understood.

Um, not avoiding it, just just for clarity, but also when the purchasing of the property, whom whoever brought it forward to you, should have brought all information forward, and part of that due diligence and vetting would have been the permits for the additions to the property.

Yeah, to understood, I I purchase many properties, I've never had permits disclosed.

Typically, you go off of what's on title.

If there's something questionable, then you could ask for it.

Everything on title was clear.

So it's kind of one of those things you just you just inherit, and now I'm I'm the owner, so I'm here fixing it.

Gotcha.

It just I heard I hear you.

So the title shows it as a uh duplex or the right place?

Yes.

Even the city has it listed as a duplex.

The city has approved addresses, multiple addresses on the property, yeah.

Yeah, it's just that it was not permitted.

I had the same look.

Hold on a second.

Just so everybody knows we're not talking in secret, so that's not allowed, so you're gonna hear us speak.

I'm gonna defer actually to the attorney.

You know what?

First, my deferred to the chief.

Chief Limos, as the appellant just stated, even is showing title as a multiple unit property.

And clear title as multiple units, and so the purchasing of that property with a title showing multiple units.

How do we defend i.e.

the city, how does the city defend stating it's a dangerous building when in fact the city county has it listed as a clear title?

So I'm not sure what you mean by clear title, but if the county listed it as a duplex, because they found two units, the county's not going to check to see if it was permitted to have two units.

And in fact, when assembly bill 2533 was brought in 20 in 2025, it what it did is create a government code 66332.

And what that is that allows for if a property was a legally built, they can go forward and get permits for it to legalize it without all the penalties, unless there are housing code violations that are found by the government jurisdiction.

So if we find violations, other health safety code 1792.3, it kind of voids out the assembly bill.

It's clear in the assembly bill says that the government code no longer applies.

In this case, we're the city's not stopping him from obtaining a permit to legalize it.

So that's what the whole point of the assembly bill was to do is to allow um property owners to legalize them without the penalties of all the impact fees, all of that kind of stuff.

And so that's not what our goal is here today.

So we've identified that it is first that it is a non-permitted unit, and the inspector found actual clear building code violations in the unit.

So once that was identified, then you know, none of the other applies.

And so we are here today to say the notice and order identified violations.

Not only was there work done with permit, but there was there's corrections needed.

So if the inspector would have gotten there and just said, you know what, there's I don't see any violations here, but I don't find a permit, that's a little bit different.

You just refer them to get a permit to legalize it under the assembly bill.

In this case, unfortunately, there were clear violations noted, and that's why we're here today is for the notice and order.

See, I was gonna say the same thing.

Thank you, Chief.

So now everybody's clear.

These guys are clear, we're clear.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Chief.

Do we have a motion from the board?

Yeah, I'll do a motion.

So as I mentioned earlier, let me just so I definitely agree that there are um issues that uh that meet the notice and order.

So in my motion that I'm going to say, I I agree that there are, but I also want to understand or I understand that you're working to make that happen.

So my goal is to make sure that you have the time that you've identified to make sure that there's no penalties that go.

So I want you to understand what my motion is as I'm about to say it.

So I'm gonna make a motion finding that the property owner has violated the provisions of chapter 8.96 and or 8.10 of the Sacramento City Code ordering the property owner to obtain a permit to correct the dangerous conditions or demolish the structure within.

So you said 30 to 45 years.

So I'm gonna say 45 days of the date of the decision and ordering that if the property owner fails, refuses, or neglects uh to correct the dangerous condition or demolish the structure within the time set forth in this decision, 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 2117 3rd Street Sacramento, California 95818 APN 0090112 02300.

Second, Taylor.

Sorry, before did I say something wrong?

I just want to make sure we're clear so the inspector doesn't charge unnecessary fees.

Is this 45 days from the time that the permit is issued?

No, he has 45 days from today's hearing to get the second to so that he can't that there's no fees issued and he has 45 days to get to submit documents for a hearing.

Not issue because he can't control when you submit them how long it'll take for them to review.

Correct.

That's what I'm concerned that if um there's some changes or something needed in his plans, is delayed and we're 30, 45 days out, and he hasn't been able to start work yet.

No, I just he needs to at least submit his first set of plans for for the next unit.

He already submitted the one, but I want to make sure he has the 45 days to submit.

Okay, it's just submittals.

That makes sense.

And to submit, I would just add uh to provide an acceptable submittal for the second unit because just a mere email or correspondence, which really doesn't mean anything.

We do need to see an acceptable submittal for the second unit.

With the understanding that there could be some small deficiencies.

I get if he submits a half application.

I won't be accepted.

So the way it works, would you have to have pretty much all the uh check boxes checked for the submittal?

Now the submittal itself is not a an approval of the submittal.

I get that this is just a basic okay.

This is it, you know, check, check, check.

We can accept this now, it goes to the review.

But as long as we have that acceptable submittal, I'm okay with that too.

If I could provide some clarity, uh so the first that unit that currently has a submitted permit, it took about from my initial submission, which I thought was a full set of plans, it probably took almost 60 days to get it to where it's fully submitted and being reviewed.

The reason for that is the uh submittal, you know, um, I forgot what their names are, but the intake officer will look over things and they might ask for something to be here or something to be there.

Right now, all of your all of my designers that I have hired are extremely busy.

A lot of them are doing extra work done in Los Angeles with all the builds, and so a lot of times just for simple updates, it takes two and a half weeks for me to get it back from them, let alone if it's something that they have to go in and actually design versus just label.

And so if we're looking at a full sum accepted submittal, I I'd ask for longer time in case I come across that same thing.

So I would say with that, Inspector Proc will probably work with you as he can see the submittal, right?

Or do you need once he submits it?

I think you can understand that if it's one or two little things that you understand that they've done the work, but if it's a significant amount of work that's submitted just to meet the deadline.

Yeah, what I would suggest, and I understand this may take some time.

Like you said, you know, you know, those uh whatever corrections may not be submitted on just the on the flip of finger, but uh I would just encourage you to work on that one submittal that you've already done a week ago.

So if there are any plan check corrections, please respond to that immediately.

So once you have at least one permit on the property, that will stop the fees and administrative balances issued against the property.

That that is that's that's far more realistic since it's already been in review for a week.

Perfect.

And so also with that 45 days we'll say no fees are to be issued within the 45 days.

So that gives you enough time to do the two and two weeks.

Sorry, should we go?

I know I stopped because I thought Peter had uh or chiefly most had a yeah.

For uh everyone, could you restate your motion?

The whole thing, or the heart of it, the meat of the issue here.

Yeah, finding the I submit a finding that the property owner is violated provision of chapter 8.96 and or 8100 to the of the city of Sacramento Code, ordering the property owner obtain a permit to correct the dangerous conditions or demolish structure within 45 days of the date of the decision to include no fees, and ordering that if the property owner fails, refuse, or neglected to correct the dangerous conditions or demolish the structure within the time set forth in this decision, the city of Sacramento may repair, demolish, secure, or sh or the structure or institute an action to compel compliance with the order for the property known as 2117 Third Street Sacramento, California, 9581 8 APN 009 011202300.

I'll second the motion.

Taylor.

And Tablion?

Yes.

Thank you.

You will uh be receiving our decision in the mail, and also please be sure to follow up with your inspector if you want to tonight.

He's here right now.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we'll be moving on to item four once everyone reshuffles.

So all of those speaking on item four, please come forward and we will work on getting you sworn in.

So my understanding is that item three was withdrawn.

Is that correct?

Can we just get that on the record as well?

Just to Yeah.

So item three has been withdrawn.

And so now we are going to move on to item four.

Hello.

Agenda item four case.

Yep, sorry.

I can have all parties for item number four for the property located at 1445 Nogala 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.

All right, city staff, let's get started.

All right.

Agenda item four, uh case number 22-02072.

Property owner is community church of God in Christ number one.

Property address 1445 Nogalo Street.

Parcel number is 251-018-102-900.

The hearing date today is 6 10 2026.

City staff is me, Matthew Sartain.

On 613, 2022, Building Inspector Zamora arrived on site.

After walking the property, he found several violations, including siding falling apart, broken windows, and a large hole in the roof.

On 17 2025, I arrived at the property.

All the vehicles, junk, and debris had been removed, and the property had been fenced.

There had been no contact from the owner and no issued permit.

Sending I sent an administrative penalty and monitoring fee.

Since this case had been opened, there have been 20 monitoring fees and 18 administrative penalties issued.

There's been no permits issued.

Thank you.

And can the opponent please state their name and their address?

R.

Garrel Harrison 2845 35th Street, Sacramento, California, 95817.

Thank you, and the floor is yours.

Okay.

Where's my AV?

Oh here he is.

This is a video that I put together trying to illustrate what we started with and what we're working with now and where we want to go.

Um I'm hoping that um you know we can actually be able to see what we have to work with.

Will you guys be able to see it also on your screens?

Okay.

Yes, we currently have a picture with some trees in the background and I don't know, maybe a car in the foreground.

Yeah, so we just play with that.

Okay.

And you'll see this property as a journey.

Watch your head.

Watch your head.

Okay, this is the second phase.

We're over here cleaning up now.

We just bought the trailer and everything.

We have to start hauling it up.

We're gonna fill it up.

This is the first day then after that we're gonna start going into the next yeah we're gonna clean it all up.

Or if you see all these trailers that are on the property are unhoused.

Hey we want to go to all the people so like I say we're we're cleaning up now we're gonna continue on with it everything that's happening you know that's um that's going in from there we'll keep you guys supposed to be the part two of the of the development project so today's cleanup day we came in because it's it's gonna rain tomorrow big time and we want to hit this real hard so yeah we're cleaning up we got the trailer pretty much full right here so we're gonna turn it down go to the dump and then we're gonna come back hoping we can do a couple couple dump runs if not three three dump runs a day.

Okay you see we're getting closer and closer we're gonna knock three piles down did one one dump so now the rest of this right here has to go but you can see the people they got the message that um the party is over these are all of the signs that we put up and post them all type of money and they take put them right back down as you can see now everything has been removed from the property we've been very proactive cleaning it up we put a fence around it secured it and it's constantly being monitored it's all those motor homes all those trailers all those cars um are gone okay here we are seeing inside of the building you're seeing what we got to work with we got a roof caved in here so my contractor friend is saying to replace the roof we can keep the bones we keep the foundation we go ahead and make this into a handicapped bath bathroom and expand it out a little bit to be able to accommodate the people because I think Eddie um if we it's gonna be better you know what I'm saying yeah to repair it then to try to demo everything yeah I I thought about it man and all the all the hassle that they're giving me and this right here we have to have to demo all the ceilings.

Right.

All of it.

Just keep it the wolves.

Just make sure this sucker don't collapse.

Uh-huh.

So it's got a concrete slab, man.

So I say, well, let's let's play off of that because we're gonna turn these into watch your head.

Watch it.

Okay, this is the second phase.

We're over here cleaning up now.

We just brought the trailer and everything.

Okay, as I've already stated, my name is RDO Harrison.

Um I'm appearing on behalf of the community, Church of God in Christ number one in 1445, Nigales.

Yeah, we'll see those other.

The case is not about owner refusing to comply with the city requirements.

It's about the owners who have been actively pursuing compliance and redevelopment of a difficult property.

For more than a year, we have been working to bring the property into compliance.

We have hired consultants, prepared plans, responded corrective notices, and submitted applications to the city.

We have submitted demolition plans and redevelopment plans, and have continued to revise these plans based on the city's comments.

Every time the city requests additional information, we respond.

Every time corrections are issued, we work to address them.

The reality of the permitting process has been lithy, expensive, and complex.

We have spent substantial funds on planning, engineering, architectural legal work and permit preparation.

We have continued to move forward despite the cost.

Most importantly, we have a long-term plan for this property.

Our vision is to turn this property into a safe co-compliance housing that benefits the neighborhood and increases housing opportunity within the city of Sacramento.

The plans shown phase redevelopment.

This is not an abandoned project.

This is an active project moving forward with the city review process.

The purpose of code enforcement is to obtain compliance and eliminate unsafe conditions, and that's exactly what we're doing.

Imposing additional pennies on a property who, when we're actively working with the city and investing resources to comply, doesn't advance the city's goals.

Instead, it diverts limited resources away from the improvements that the city wants.

We respectfully ask that the board consider we acted in good faith in the process.

We have submitted plans and permits applications.

We have responded to the city comments, we have invested substantial resources toward compliance.

We have a clear redevelopment plan that will eliminate the issues given rise to this matter.

Waiving or reducing these penalties would allow more resources to be directed toward completing the project and bringing the property into a full compliance.

For these reasons, I respectfully requested the board waive or significantly reduced administration penalties and allow us to continue forward with the redevelopment process without any additional fees.

So if um should I operate the computer?

So this right here is the plan.

As you see, you have the um the church building, which is on the left side, looking, you're looking at it like I'm looking at it, and um what we submitted a set of plans to remodel the building.

We were looking at the least path of resistance to stop the fees, but it's not what we really want to do.

What we want to do is take the church, and it has five apartments.

We're gonna change the roof line, and this is an actual model of what you're looking up there to take the church and turn it into four one bedroom apartments.

That's our golden objective.

But if these penalties, because we're getting hit almost $2,500 a month with the penalties that keep coming, we're up to like $90,000 now.

And when you look at it, you know, Matthew, he's been great working with us.

Oh, I'm speaking, uh, y'all can't hear me.

That's it.

I might as well start singing now.

I got a mic.

Um, so this is uh one prototype, and what we've done throughout the city is that we made a cookie cutter.

Um, as you look at the top of the um the project, we've taken a building that's already there, and we're the goal is to make it into four apartments now this right here is an easy fix for us um we can go in there uh the roof roof is good it's no problem there we just have to make the walls do the title 24 um make sure it complies with all of the city ordinance and everything like that so it's not something that is really really hard but our future plan as you see the green oh they're almost all green there are our four fourplexes and that's the lot phase three which is the fourplexes those are our cookie cutters and those we want to incorporate into this whole program where we end up picking up another 12 units and um you know one of the things that the the city is want to increase housing we need housing housing housing and this is part of the formula to be able to increase the housing because with the five then the other nine um and twelve that will give us close to um what's that 1920 20 close to 22 doors new constructed doors on that particular project um check left again and I go to the next drawing so this right here is the um that is the back property um that's existing it has a four twelve pitch roof where we're gonna uh make it into four units put dormers over each one of them but the thing of it you know an SB9 you're not really required to have parking anymore and I think that that's gonna be a major problem here in Sacramento but we've designed this so that each apartment has its own parking and we want to be able to accommodate that so that's the second second phase of of that but again um let me go one more I guess that's yeah that's it okay it's just the two pages so um what I'm what I'm trying to do I work with the city on um dangers housing buildings um clients come to me and I put together a set of plans and get them approved so that they can get you know uh those penalties and things off I'm also part of the um small developers uh thing and we have in the city um which um district two and and district four um we're working with the uh city council to create this these housing and we're gonna use this forplex as a cookie cutter but like right now I just want to share with you the overall vision of what we have and what we see with the city because you know collectively we have to work together the city needs the developers the small developers to do the in fields and this that and the other and a lot of time we inherit a lot of problems and if you can recognize you can see that there has been time um bit put into these drawings and we're constantly we draw in house so anytime that there's a correction notice we address it and then we we send it back out the least path of resistance now the church in my opinion the fastest is to demolish it that would be the the best but as I went to go to get a demolition permit I had to go to historical they signed off on it they gave me everything I need and then I went down and they told me well I have to remove the foundation so now you know you're talking that's another 30, 40 thousand dollars if we remove the foundation when we're gonna build five units why can't we keep the foundation well the rules say that you have to demolish it down to the dirt I'm saying well okay well, what other provisions can be made so that we don't have to remove it.

So now we're talking about remodeling an existing building that we're gonna turn around and remodel it again to make it four plex five units because we don't want to lose the foundation.

The foundation, whoever built it, the foundation is almost 20 25 inches thick.

You know, it's not going anywhere, and it's an ideal situation to be able to to use it.

Um and I'm working with um Roger Dickinson.

I'm working with um Katie, and I want to create these cookie cutters and to be able to help solve the problems.

And only thing I'm asking is that we gotta stop the bleeding.

Do I get approval to demolish it and be able to keep the um foundation?

Or do I submit I submitted a set of plans today, and um they know me, so I got a correction notice already today.

Um they want to see, you know, are we gonna have sprinklers?

No, the building didn't have sprinklers, but our new units will have sprinklers.

You know, we're gonna meet all the requirements, and this is a good situation for the city for us to be able to increase 20 doors in um the Del Paso Heights area with basically new construction.

So um, you know, uh Matt has been great.

He's uh we walked the building together.

Um, you know, I went out there and they knew who I was when I went to the city because I took my caterpillar out there and those motor homes, I grabbed them by the ass, and we started pulling them closer to the front of the property so we could get them, and we were able to get everything off of there in one day or two days to put up a fence, and now we've had I don't know um have you been out there uh lately or uh about a month ago?

Was there did you see any?

It was two cases, one is a housing case and one was a uh a code violation.

So they cleared the code by violation because we couldn't, but we still have to deal with the um the houses.

So anyway, that's my story pretty much, and I'm gonna stick to it.

Does the board have any questions?

Yes, I have a couple.

Um, so you stated toward the end of your presentation that you submitted your uh application for permit recently.

Um today, I believe you said your you submitted your application for your permits was today, and then you've already received a no no, I wish it was that's why that I heard we submitted and these are corrections.

So we submitted set of plans, building permit for review, and then when was that?

Um probably maybe 30 days ago.

Okay, and that's the that was the first submitted um application for your permit.

No, when was the first one?

The demolition was probably about 80 days ago, nine ninety days ago, but we abandoned that one because I'm with you though.

Let me ask.

Where I'm going with this is this started June thirteenth, 2022.

I wasn't.

With the first with the first inspection.

I have that correct, right?

Right.

And now we're June 2026.

So that's why I was asking in regards to when the first application um for permits was submitted in as to your statement somewhere around 80 days ago.

Correct.

Okay, so that's three years, 10 months, three years, nine months, somewhere roughly in there after the first inspection of this property.

You said you weren't involved.

You're when was the date that you became involved as owner of this property?

Not the owner.

You're just submitting, yeah.

I mean you're speaking for the we're our organization is in the process of purchasing the property.

Okay, we are not the owners of the properties, we are the developers that's trying to unravel the housing situation, and we cannot purchase.

Okay, so and then the owner of the property is is who the community church, one community church.

It's under that name and that in individual have you spoken to the the actual property?

The person uh managing or yes.

Uh um, it's been a while since I spoke to a representative of the ownership.

Um, but uh i believe the owner representative is right in the audience there's a question well let me ask this question to you first so you have you have the the um correct me if i'm saying this wrong the power of attorney to represent this property both here on this appeal and for the the uh submission of of all needed permits i'm yes i am the i don't have power returns first of all i'm the contractor and i've had them given permission that the city requires you to sign certain documents for the owners to be able to give me the right to be able to prep here and to answer any questions that you might have to okay well we're on the same page without using the language of power of attorney that's why I was wondering why you were presenting another the property owner because the hit goes to the owner managing the property you're developing the property you're the sub or the secondary you you're not the owner so my question in a nutshell it would be questions that the person managing the property could answer because you can't and that being it's the first inspection started that's January 13 2022 you weren't involved so you can't answer those questions.

To be clear we're only here to discuss today an inspection that happened on January 12th of 2026.

We're here to hear we're here to hear a reinspection fee on that date and that date there was violations no permits no applications and that's why an inspection fee was charged that day um so the past history and such isn't as much today as we're only hearing the one re-inspection fee.

Gotcha on that what was brought in the presentation was the close to ninety thousand dollars in total penalties I believe you stated we're only here to hear the one day where I was going with this was the totality of what's still to come in a nutshell so we're only able to um comment and or pass judgment or uh vote on make a motion on the one day the one penalty uh penalties associated with that one day bringing forward is the totality of as you stated 90 around 90 thousand dollars of uh penalties accumulated so far that's you know what I'll make this easier I'll stop on that because um like here's where I was going with is how those penalties haven't been brought forward or less those penalties it sounds like they haven't been paid but those aren't being contested so anyway let me stay on with why why why we're here because wow this is that's a lot of money you know what I'm gonna hold my next question if anybody else has one so I'm gonna kind of go back to where I did on the last case so Inspector Sartane Chief Limos uh where do we go from here?

The city is very and entertained that this is going to go forward we we're really hoping this project goes forward um since the approved planning submittal has been was approved um April 11th there have been no charges um to the property so once we had that planning submittal we provided time now to go forward with um permits so they do have a submittal now on May 20th which is um as the appellant uh said there's some uh it's incomplete and there's some corrections so you know, we are excited to hopefully see this project go forward someday.

Um, but as long as they keep going forward, um, the inspector isn't continuing to charge any type of of fees.

Okay, so I will say that's my main goal is I understand that we can only hear the one case today, which is the 400 and some odd dollars.

But I will say I'm very familiar with the property.

I drive by it every month, uh, and I have seen the progress over the last 10 years of that property.

Um I actually have a property on that street right there.

So I've seen the progress of that, so I'm glad to see this is moving forward.

Um, but I will say that uh what Mr.

Boyd said this has been a four-year process since uh, I mean at the end of this week will be four years.

But I think the bigger thing is you've done what you need to do to move forward, and that right now, Inspector Sartane, you have no intent to to continue fining this property, correct?

As long as they continue doing the building inspection.

Correct, with the uh no admin penalty being served.

So I think that's long as they stay in communications, and I always let everybody know uh within 30 days, any kind of update I can get, um, and to CC me on any emails into the building department.

That way I'm informed with that as well.

Okay.

I mean, that's that's the main goal is what it sounds like.

But also, you know, um the goals also is to further the city's agenda, and you guys have been appointed to, you know, move the city's agenda, and I'm trying to help with the agendas.

You know, as um Dr.

Board uh very would say, Well, what happened 90 days ago?

You know, who struck John is a revelant because we can go into that, and that's even in the court case, you know, quiet title action, because people have passed away and died, you know.

So instead of getting into that right there, you know, I don't know how many times you guys have these hearings and people present drawings and renderings on moving the city's agenda forward, you know, to be recognized.

Because from here, you know, like I say, I'm received the information.

I say, Well, let me come here and talk to you guys so that you understand where we're going, because from here, you know, we're going to city council.

I get it.

You know, hold on one more second.

How many this this says that there's been a total of 20 some uh 20 monitoring fees, 18 admin penalties.

Okay, and this is the only one do you know that's been appealed?

Uh there was an appeal, I believe, previously with with the um significant amount of time ago.

Yeah, okay.

So they've they have paid 20 some of these.

I'm I'm open at this point, but I mean, I could be they've done, they've paid the other admin fees that they're required, correct?

Um there's a fair amount of them that have been, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

No, I just they've been assessed, but they have to pay them as they go.

So I get, I mean, there's been 20, and it sounds like work is being done, um, and you've paid them.

So I'm open, um, but I will say I'm this would be yeah, the going forward.

I think your bigger concern is the amount that you don't get fined going forward.

But I will open it up to other board considerations before we move forward.

Thoughts?

You're fine with it?

Are you so do we have any other questions or do we want to?

I'll make a motion.

Yeah, there we go.

Okay.

All right.

Well, in taking into consideration one time, I don't know how many ones when was is this the last penalty?

No, there's no there's uh 319 2026.

Okay, so I will say I'm going to be on this board for at least a few more years.

In my opinion, and the way I'll vote is I will give you one freebie on this one.

I'm fine.

Um to not waste your time on future ones.

You can of course appeal as many as you want, but I do feel like you're doing due diligence, but at that point it has been four years, but you or uh your representative behind you has paid a significant amount.

So I'm fine with doing this one, is what I'm saying.

That's all we can hear today, anyway.

But I'm saying in the totality, it sounds like you or your representatives that you are here.

Let me just make it clear that I understand because the last notice I had had a 400 and administration, it was 2400.

So we're not just talking about that's all you're here.

You've only appealed today, the 400 one.

That's all we can hear.

That's all we're allowed to hear.

So right now it's four hundred and ten dollars and forty cents is what's in front of us today.

So we can't even talk about anything else because we don't work for the city.

We have no access to any additional documents.

It's whatever you appeal.

Okay, but you said this is a freebie, so meaning that I'm gonna go back again and you know I'm just trying to understand what you're what you're saying.

Um, I can let you know I do see you on the calendar uh for next week for our cost recovery um hearing it's gonna be a uh zoom hearing.

Um so the monitoring fees are handled here at the evening.

The um admin penalties are handled at the um cost recovery zoom hearings on Wednesdays.

So you we do have you on the schedule for next next week.

So I'm gonna make a recommendation confirming the total charge of zero dollars for the monitoring fee on the property known as 1445 Nigales Street APN number 251018102900.

So I would say waiving the 410 dollars and forty cents.

Don't make me do math.

Is that right?

Correct.

Okay.

So waiving the 41040 for everything I just said for the property.

I'm not reading it again.

I guess if you said no, I would have read it again.

Taylor, yes, and tablion?

Yes, Boyd.

Thank you.

And I hope this goes forward as well.

I do too.

I'm just, you know, I just want us to all be on the same page because there's a lot of people who can't represent themselves, and you say why they didn't do this, why they didn't do that exactly.

Somebody comes that will indeed work with the other that it gets recognized by the city, so and I'm one of the people who are willing to help.

Well, continue to work with the inspector.

Oh, I would absolutely I'll just share.

I'll just we're gonna put on a lock share.

No, no, you're fine.

Okay.

That's the that's the one thing people don't, they stop talking and then they get more fees, so that's what I'm saying.

I'll take my house and I'll call them.

Thank you for your time today.

Nobody's doing it.

Well, yeah, is it registered?

Thank you.

All right, chair.

Will the board secretary please read the cost recovery uncontested items now?

Yes, I will.

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 afford in the enforcement of the provisions of the housing code and or dangerous buildings code with respect to the property known by the physical address and or parcel number APN as noted within each agenda line for item number five, lines one through 91.

So move.

You're gonna have to try that again.

I'll make a motion.

Taylor, hi and tablion?

Yes, boyd.

Hi, thank you.

All right, moving on to we have any board comments, questions, statements?

Any public comments?

All right.

Yes.

Next one, we'll be canceled.

All right.

Are you gonna still send an official notice.

She has to follow the Brown Act.

All right, and with that, I would like to call this meeting adjourned.

So am I gonna show up in a SAC B article somewhere?