The Buster Preliminary Correction List is a placeholder list tied to an inspection demand, and the April 12th, 2023 Notice and Order is a separate document that should rest on completed findings; the produced record shows no signed consent, no inspection warrant, no completed inspection report, and no condition-specific findings before that order issued.
A city cannot declare a building substandard and start charging the owner until it has actually inspected the property and documented the specific violations. HSC §17980(c)(1) SCC §8.100.700 SCC §8.100.720 Yet here, the City of Sacramento issued a binding, fee-bearing Notice and Order M123–M132 M124 without a completed inspection, owner consent, an inspection warrant, or a single documented building condition. R.26-1965 M001–M631 The City's own initial letter ordered the owner to schedule a future inspection M117, admitting no inspection had occurred. But before the ten-day response window even closed, the inspector bypassed the process and signed the final order. The inspector's notes reveal the order was issued not for physical building defects, but for “lack of contact” and failure to obtain a non-existent “HDB permit” M024—neither of which is a lawful substandard finding.
To escalate enforcement, City staff fabricated the timeline in internal emails, claiming thirty days had passed since a warning was left E.1.3 when official logs prove it was only fifteen. M024 M013 The day before signing the order, the City also quietly locked the property's permit files. M001 M124 When legally forced to disclose the reason for this block, the City produced a single, uninformative word: “Added.” M001 These details—the rushed timeline, the arbitrary permit lock, and the lack of a real inspection report—were completely omitted from the active file. They were only uncovered because the owner's representative filed repeated, hard-fought public records requests. R.25-3549 R.26-1549 R.26-1965
Bottom line: The City rushed out a binding, fee-bearing order without a lawful inspection, a warrant, or a single written building violation—and then locked the property's permit files and buried the evidence.The Buster Preliminary letter M117 is the City’s inspection-demand letter, not the final order. Its attached Correction List says “Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected” M125, so it is a placeholder list awaiting inspection rather than a final violation list. The April 12th, 2023 Notice and Order M123–M132 is a separate document; its face page recites inspection and determination, but the produced record does not show the completed predicate record that would make that recital true. The inspector issued the order for “lack of contact from the Owner and failure to obtain an HDB permit” M024, not for condition-specific findings — and “HDB permit” is not a permit class; HDB is the Housing and Dangerous Buildings division, not a permit category. The preliminary Correction List is a pre-inspection placeholder; the final Violation List is the completed, property-specific version that should replace it in the Notice and Order.
A city cannot declare a building substandard and begin charging the owner until it has actually inspected the property and documented the specific violations. The City’s inspection-demand letter told the owner to call and schedule an inspection M117. The separate Notice and Order moved forward without the produced record showing consent, a warrant, a completed inspection report, or any specific written building violation M123–M132 M001–M631 R.26-1965. The order instead cites lack of contact and failure to obtain an “HDB permit” M024 — neither of which is a condition found in the building, and “HDB permit” is not a recognized permit class (Card 7). The April 4 penalty email claimed “30 days” had passed since a March 20 card-left visit, yet the record shows only fifteen days E.1.3 M024 M013. The City also placed an internal enforcement lock on the permit file the day before the order issued, and responded to a request for the condition text with only the word “Added” M001. The order became binding before the produced file shows inspection, lawful entry, or any specific written violation.
Two production-integrity points sharpen the same predicate gap. First, the April 4 and April 14, 2023 Lovato emails refer to predicate events and photographs not produced as a complete standalone inspection, access, findings, or photo-transmittal package E.1.3 E.1.5. Second, Accela shows an enforcement condition added on April 11, 2023 — one day before the order face date — yet the City’s CPRA response produced only the word “Added” as the condition text M001. The produced record does not show a lawful, completed inspection-and-findings predicate before the binding order started fees and enforcement consequences.
California and Sacramento law condition this kind of order on an inspection-based determination, lawful access when entry is not consensual, and an order that states the conditions found. HSC §17980(c)(1) and SCC §8.100.700 supply the inspection/determination predicate; SCC §8.100.720 requires a “brief and concise description of the conditions found”; SCC §8.96.130 is the dangerous-building parallel; and after non-consent, administrative inspection entry requires the warrant path in CCP 1822.50, CCP 1822.51, and CCP 1822.54, with Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 and See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 supplying the constitutional baseline.
The Buster Preliminary letter dated March 21, 2023 ordered the owner to contact the inspector within ten business days “to schedule an inspection of the property.” Its attached Correction List stated in plain terms:
“This is not a complete Violation List of building code violations. Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected.” M125 — Buster Preliminary Correction List, 03/21/2023
That is the placeholder list, not the final violation list.
The pre-order file contains no signed consent, no judge-signed inspection warrant, no completed inspection report, no condition-specific findings document, and no order attachment carrying actual found conditions and code subsections. This gap spans the full produced record. M001–M631 R.26-1965 R.26-1549 R.25-3549
The neighbor-verification narrative appears as a 04/10/2023 Activities-log entry and as a 04/11/2023 Notes entry. The inspector met with neighbors to access their backyard, saw an addition to the detached garage, and took pictures from where he was standing. That is an exterior observation from an adjacent lot — not a completed inspection and not a condition-specific findings record.
The Notes page states:
“Due to lack of contact from the Owner and failure to obtain an HDB permit I issued the Notice and Order.” M024 — Inspector case notes, 04/11/2023
Lack of contact is not a building condition, and “HDB permit” is not a permit class. The Notice and Order face page certifies that the Chief Building Official “has caused to be inspected and has determined” the property substandard and/or dangerous M124. Its own attached Correction List still says the inspection was incomplete M125. The produced file does not contain the completed determination that recital assumes.
Lovato’s April 4 and April 14, 2023 emails refer to a prior property visit, a card left, an outbound letter, penalty-assessment escalation, backyard-access communications, and photos from neighboring properties. The document index carries a March 20 card-left photograph entry M013, but the produced record set does not supply them as a standalone lawful-access, inspection, findings, and owner-facing photo-transmittal package. That is a reviewed-production gap, not proof that no City system anywhere could hold another file.
The April 4 email claims the inspector “visited the property a month ago and left my card then,” that “30 days have passed,” and that “they are asking if penalties should be assessed.” The case record dates the card-left visit to March 20, 2023 M024 M013. March 20 to April 4 is fifteen days — about half of the “month” or “30 days” represented.
This card does not depend on claiming that the City could never act on an exterior observation or could never investigate unpermitted work M001 M024 Card 5. The narrower record problem is that the Buster Preliminary letter and its attached Correction List show inspection was incomplete M117 M125, the produced record lacks consent, warrant, completed inspection, and findings records M001–M631 R.25-3549 R.26-1549 R.26-1965, the only pre-order observation is a neighbor-yard exterior entry logged under two dates M001 M024, and the Notice and Order was issued for lack of contact and an “HDB permit” rather than for stated found conditions M024 M124 M125.
The strongest City answer is that the neighbor-yard view of a garage addition, plus owner non-response, was enough to justify the order. That answer does not supply the missing predicate. The order itself recites a completed inspection and determination M124; the code requires found conditions HSC §17980(c)(1) SCC §8.100.700 SCC §8.100.720; and the produced record does not show the lawful access, completed inspection, findings, or full Accela condition text that would bridge the gap M001–M631 M001. The corrective question is direct: produce the pre-order predicate record or correct the enforcement consequences that depend on it.