Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board Meeting – June 10, 2026
Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board Meeting – June 10, 2026
The Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board met on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, at 5:30 PM in the Historic City Hall Hearing Room, 915 I Street, Sacramento. The board considered the approval of minutes, a notice and order appeal, two contested cost recovery cases, and a blanket uncontested cost recovery item. Three members were present (Chair Brandon Fisher and Member Krista Bunting absent; Member Barry Boyd arrived at 5:34 PM). All votes were unanimous 3-0.
Consent Calendar
- Item 1 – Approval of Minutes (May 13, 2026): Approved unanimously (moved by consent, vote 3-0).
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public comments were made on agenda items. During the public comment period for matters not on the agenda, it was announced that the July 22, 2026 hearing has been cancelled.
Discussion Items
- Item 2 – Notice & Order Appeal (2117 3rd St, District 4): Building Inspector Elijah Prok presented that the property had unpermitted construction of two additional dwelling units (converted basement and detached garage) with violations of Housing and Dangerous Buildings Codes (SCC 8.96 and 8.100). Appellant Anthony De Barros stated he purchased the property with a clear title showing a duplex, has been actively cooperating, and is pursuing legalization under California AB 2533. He noted that tenants vacated after receiving vacate notices despite his ongoing compliance efforts. The board acknowledged the violations but recognized the owner's progress. A motion was made to uphold the Notice & Order, ordering the owner to obtain permits within 45 days (with an acceptable submittal for the second unit) and waiving fees during that period. Motion carried 3-0 (moved by Antablian, seconded by Boyd).
- Item 3 – Contested Cost Recovery (2104 9th St, District 4): Case No. 25-002876 (invoice CDDCHC24218, $410.40). The appellant withdrew the appeal.
- Item 4 – Contested Cost Recovery (1445 Nogales St, District 2): Building Inspector Matthew Sartain presented that the property, owned by Community Church of God in Christ Number One, had been in violation since June 2022, with 20 monitoring fees and 18 administrative penalties assessed. Appellant Ardell Harrison, acting as contractor/developer, showed a cleanup video and presented redevelopment plans to create 22 housing units. He requested waiver of the $410.40 monitoring fee, noting that the property had been cleaned up and permits were being pursued. The board acknowledged the four-year history but noted recent progress and that the inspector was no longer charging additional fees. A motion to reduce the fee to $0 was carried 3-0 (moved by Antablian, seconded by Boyd).
- Item 5 – Uncontested Cost Recovery (Citywide): Staff recommended approval of 91 lines of charges for enforcement costs. Motion to approve lines 1–91 carried unanimously 3-0 (moved by Taylor, seconded by Boyd).
Key Outcomes
- Uphold Notice & Order for 2117 3rd St with 45-day compliance period and no additional fees.
- Reduction of monitoring fee for 1445 Nogales St from $410.40 to $0.
- Approved blanket uncontested cost recovery for 91 properties.
- Meeting adjourned at 6:47 PM.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com