The order's two stated reasons - "lack of contact" and an "HDB permit" - do not rest on documented inspection findings, and the "lack of contact" recital sits in tension with the City's own 04/04 email exchange.
The City issued an enforcement order on April 11, 2023, based on a "lack of contact" from the owner and a failure to obtain an "HDB permit," yet the City’s own records do not support either claim. Although the order cited a lack of contact, the case activity log shows the inspector engaged in a two-way email exchange with the owner's representative seven days earlier. Additionally, "HDB" is the name of a City division and not a permit class, and no "HDB permit" exists in the City's official records or the permit framework for this property. The owner’s representative requested the factual basis for the alleged violations three times in writing, but the City’s files show no property-specific answers were provided before the next inspection. This lack of specificity is inconsistent with legal requirements that an enforcement order must describe the actual conditions that render a building substandard.
The Case Activity Log entry that records issuance gives two reasons in one sentence: "Due to lack of contact from the Owner and failure to obtain an HDB permit I issued the Notice and Order" M024. The same log records an inbound email and the inspector’s own reply seven days earlier M024 E.2. The City’s permit framework contains no classification called an “HDB permit” CITY.2 D.2. When the owner’s representative asked in writing for the factual basis three times across eleven days, the produced file shows no property-specific answer S.1 S.2 S.3 S.4 S.5.
A city cannot order a building fixed and begin charging fees on reasons it cannot support with its own paperwork.
The same Case Activity Log, dated 04/04/2023 - seven days before the order - records an inbound email and the inspector's reply: "I replied back to e-mail stating..." M024. The email he replied to named owner Jackie Baritell, copied her, stated she "has a plethora of personal and medical issues that are occupying her at the moment," and asked the City to relay through email and keep her copied M024 E.2. The file thus records the City's own reply to inbound contact on 04/04, and an order reciting "lack of contact from the Owner" issued 04/11 M024. The same log's 04/07/2023 entry - "Since there was no reply back to e-mail, I contacted the complaining party" M024 - records that the owner side did not further reply to the 04/04 outbound; but the contact defect is independent of whether the owner sent a further reply. The point is not that no email ever arrived: the City replied to a designated owner channel on 04/04 (a two-way exchange the file preserves), yet recited "lack of contact from the Owner" on 04/11.
"HDB" denotes the City's Housing and Dangerous Buildings division CITY.2 - in the City's own usage a fee and monitoring label, not a permit class. Sacramento permits issue as Title 15 building/electrical/plumbing/mechanical permits and, in the City's own permit records for this property, as "Residential Housing-Minor / HSG#" permits D.2; there is no "HDB permit" classification. The served Correction List recites only the generic "Permits Required" category under SCC § 8.100.190 M125 and names no structure, work item, or permit.
On 04/14/2023 at 8:00 AM, again 04/14/2023 at 2:50 PM, and again 04/25/2023, the representative sent the inspector three written requests for the factual basis of the alleged violations S.1 S.2 S.3. The inspector's scheduling replies, preserved in the produced thread S.4 S.5, confirm the 04/26/2023 inspection time without naming any structure, work item, location, or code section. The produced file contains no property-specific response and no amended Correction List before that arranged 04/26/2023 inspection.
The order's own authority - Chapter 8.96 and/or Chapter 8.100 M124 - and SCC § 8.100.720(A)(2)(a)(2) together require an enforcement order to contain a "brief and concise description of the conditions found to render the building substandard." HSC § 17980(c)(1) conditions abatement on the agency having "inspected ... and ... determined that the building is a substandard building." Property-specific conditions are the predicate of the enforcement.
The issuance log gives two reasons M024. However, the City's own 04/04 reply log records the contact that the 'lack of contact' reason denies M024 E.2. Furthermore, the City's own permit records for this property show "Residential Housing-Minor / HSG#" permits and no "HDB permit" D.2, and the served list names no permit at all M125. When the owner asked three times in writing for the factual basis S.1 S.2 S.3, the produced file shows no property-specific answer. On the City's own record, neither stated reason is supported, and the specificity the code requires SCC § 8.100.720(A)(2)(a)(2) HSC § 17980(c)(1) was never provided.
Anticipated City defense: "Lack of contact" meant lack of the owner's own contact; "HDB permit" was shorthand the owner could clarify by asking.
Answer: The 04/04 reply in the City's own log is to the owner's representative writing on the owner's behalf and copying the owner M024 E.2; the order recites "lack of contact from the Owner" against that record M024. And when the owner asked three times for the specific permit and basis S.1 S.2 S.3, the produced file shows no property-specific answer - the shorthand was never resolved into a real, named permit on the City's own record.
---