The Missing Required Property-Specific Description

Case 23-009185 | Card 1 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

On April 12, 2023, the City issued a Notice and Order without the property-specific description the code requires. Sacramento City Code requires the order itself to contain "a brief and concise description of the conditions found to render the building substandard" [SCC.8.100.720(A)(2)]. This order recited that the Chief Building Official had caused the building to be inspected and had determined it substandard and/or dangerous [M124], and said the conditions were "set forth on the attached list of violations" [M124]. What was attached is titled "Correction List" [M125], is the same list already sent, unfilled, three weeks earlier [M118], and says of itself, "This is not a complete Violation List of building code violations. Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected." [M125] Its one stated condition, "Work has been done without the benefit of a PERMIT. This work must be removed or properly Permitted and Approved by the City of Sacramento" [M125], names no structure, no work, and no location; it does not say what permit the work would have needed, and it orders the removal of work it does not identify. The order invokes "Chapter 8.96 and/or Chapter 8.100" [M124] as whole chapters; the only current City Code section cited on either page is SCC.8.100.190, a permit provision, and the dangerous-building section the description must address, Section 8.96.110, appears nowhere. The order prints "Bo Cosley, Principal Building Inspector" [M124] on its date line but was signed by Paul Lovato, Building Inspector III [M124], a title outside the list of officials the code allows to issue it, and the file the City closed as complete holds no delegation of that authority to him (Card 5).

The order gave the owner thirty days to appeal [M124]. It named nothing to appeal: its only cited violation was the permit entry above. What the owner had was that order and that list. The City's own notes for those days reached her three years later, in a file produced under a records request [R.26-1965.1] — and nothing in them is on a served page either. From May 2023 [Card 11] the City billed against the order, in excess of $30,000 [Card 11] in order/title charges, monitoring fees, and administrative penalties. On 06/18/2026 it closed the case with the disposition Work Completed [R.26-2487.2], and it closed its production of the case file with "All responsive records have been provided" [R.26-1965.1]. Neither the order, its list, nor anything in that production supplies the description the code required.

Where in the April 12, 2023 order [M124] or the list served with it [M125] is the condition that put 4880 T Street in "sub-standard and/or dangerous condition" [M124] described, as the code requires [SCC.8.100.720(A)(2)] — when that list says of itself "Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected." [M125], names no structure, no work and no location, and is the same unfilled list the City had sent three weeks earlier [M118]?

IN PLAIN TERMS

In April 2023 the City told this homeowner her building was substandard or dangerous and gave her thirty days to appeal [M124]. The only list attached to the order said work had been done without the benefit of a permit [M125] and that neither the inside nor the outside had been completely inspected [M125]. City code says the order itself has to describe what was found [SCC.8.100.720(A)(2)]. This one named no structure, no work, no place on the property, and no permit, and was not signed by an official the code allows to issue it. The City billed in excess of $30,000 [Card 11] against it, then closed the case. The question for the City: where in the order you served, or the list attached to it, is the condition written down?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. March 21, 2023 — the Buster Preliminary letter and its list.

    The case file's activity log records an "HSG - BUSTER PRELIM" [M001] step on that date, and the letter carries the same code, "BSTRPRELIM/MA" [M117], in its caption.

    The letter stated: "A structure(s) on your property at the above address has been identified as having had work done which requires a permit [M117]." It did not identify the structure, the work, or where it was located. It then required the owner to contact the inspector within ten business days to schedule an inspection: "You must contact me at the phone number listed below within 10 business days to schedule an inspection of the property" [M117].

    The letter also referred to an enclosure: "please see attached Notice [M117]." The next page in the produced case file [R.26-1965.2] is a Correction List [M118]. Four pages on, between that list and the April 12 order, sits a form headed "NOTICE OF PENDING ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING OR ACTION" [M122]: a copy marked "SAMPLE" [M122] with a blank case number, stacked above a copy filled in with the case number, parcel, address, and owner; neither copy is signed or dated. Neither identifies a structure, the work, or a location; each recites that the City "has determined that a substandard and/or dangerous building(s) is present on the real property described below" [M122].

  2. April 4, 2023 — contact within the window.

    Within the ten business days the letter allowed, the owner's representative emailed Paul Lovato about the property [M024], and Paul Lovato replied the same day [M024]. The only list the owner had been sent was the March 21 Correction List [M118]; the order issued eight days later on that same list [M125]. The City's handling of that contact, and of the representative, is Card 19.

  3. April 12, 2023 — the order.

    The Notice and Order is "Dated: 04/12/2023 Bo Cosley, Principal Building Inspector" [M124]. Its attached list [M125] was the March 21 Correction List again, word for word: the same two entries, the same comments, the same statement that neither interior nor exterior had been completely inspected.

    SCC.8.100.720(A)(2) places that description in the order itself; SCC.8.96.130(B)(2) requires the same for a dangerous-building order.

    The reasons recorded for issuing the order are Card 6; who inspected before it issued, and from where, is Card 2; and the fee and appeal machinery the order activated is Card 3.

  4. April 12, 2023 — the appeal the order offered.

    The Appeal Request Form [M130] asks the owner to "submit the following material facts to substantiate action in reversing, modifying or setting aside the action of the City of Sacramento" [M130] and to pay the "Notice and Order Appeal Processing Fee of $400.00" [M130]. The order's attachment identified no violation beyond "Work has been done without the benefit of a PERMIT" [M125].

  5. August 23 – September 7, 2023 — the appeal that was filed.

    The only appeal in the file was received on 08/23/2023 and logged as an appeal of the May monitoring fee, with no appeal fee paid [M025], and was refused on 09/07/2023 as "Appeal Refusal - Monitoring Fee - No Appeal Fee" [M014]. The produced case file [R.26-1965.2] contains no hearing, review, or determination that ever examined what the B31/B59 entries referred to.

  6. August 21, 2025 — the City says an inspection is still required.

    Twenty-eight months after the order, Paul Lovato's 08/21/2025 case note [M035] records him at the front door telling the caretaker that "an inspection is required and since they were not allowing the inspection to be performed, we would move forward with an inspection warrant" [M035]. The exchange is on the property's recording [V1] and in its transcript [V1.T], and is Card 22.

    The order had recited in April 2023 that the building had been inspected and the determination made. By the City's own note, the inspection was still required in August 2025. California law provides an inspection warrant [CCP.1822.50] for that purpose; the produced case file [R.26-1965.2] contains no application for one before the order issued.

    By that date the City had billed in excess of $30,000 [Card 11] against the order. The ledger is Card 11.

  7. August 29 and September 2, 2025 — after the August 21 inspection.

    New violation entries opened on 08/29/2025 [M012] were added on top of the original two. They did not amend the April 12, 2023 order or state what condition had rendered the building substandard when that order was issued.

    On 09/02/2025 the owner's representative emailed the Principal Building Inspector [E3] with an attached statement that the paperwork was boilerplate and lacked a written, property-specific basis [S7].

    Bo Cosley forwarded the email to Paul Lovato and Douglas Pierson [E3]. Paul Lovato replied the same day, addressing the representative by name [E3], but sent the reply to Cosley, Pierson, the owner, and one other address; the representative's address was not among the recipients [E3]. The reply said: "The City of Sacramento deals directly with the owner of the property, or the owners representative." [E3]

    The response addressed who the City deals with, not what the City had found, and it was not sent to the person who asked. The produced case file [R.26-1965.2] contains no later response to the boilerplate and property-specific-basis points the statement raised [Card 29].

  8. June 18, 2026 — what the "Permits Required" entry closed on.

    The list in the March 21, 2023 envelope, served again with the order, carried the code "Permits Required" [M118] and the comment "Work has been done without the benefit of a PERMIT. This work must be removed or properly Permitted and Approved by the City of Sacramento." [M118]; the letter mailed with the order said the recorded notice would be "cleared when permits are finalized and fees, including a $150.00 Termination fee, are paid." [M123] Neither page named the work. The City's file first describes it in the scope of a permit issued 11/25/2025 — "Remove all Illegal construction in/at garage includes electrical and plumbing. Minor Dry rot and Siding Repair, Like for Like, Minor Rough Plumbing Install and repair. Other Minor Non-Structural, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical Repairs(Plans not required)." [R.26-3395.5] — in words the inspector supplied (Card 35). Between 05/19/2023 and 11/25/2025 the same file asks "Any contact from owner? Permits acquired?" [R.26-3395.5] twenty-seven times, each on an entry that sends a fee (Card 11).

    Two permits carrying that scope expired, in the City's words, "due to no inspections within the first 60 days" [R.26-3395.5] (02/12/2026) and "due to no requested inspections for 60+ days" [R.26-3395.5] (06/04/2026). A third was issued at the counter on 06/17/2026; its inspection history for 06/18/2026 is four finals — building, mechanical, plumbing, electrical — each "Approved" [R.26-3395.3], each "No comment available" [R.26-3395.3], and the log reads "Case closed." [R.26-3395.5] The Violations table closes B59 that day with its comment as written, and B31 still reading "Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected." [R.26-3395.5] The permits are Card 38; the closure is Card 39.

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is that B31 and B59 are standard intake codes, that the B59 comment states the condition, work without a permit, and that the specifics follow at inspection.

The code does not allow that order of events. It requires the description of the conditions found to be in the order [SCC.8.100.720(A)(2)], and the order itself recited that the inspection and the determination had already been made [M124]. Specifics that follow at inspection are specifics the order did not have. By the City's own note, an inspection was still required on 08/21/2025 [M035], twenty-eight months later.

The City's second available answer is finality: the owner had thirty days to appeal, and the order therefore stands.

There was nothing defined to appeal. The form asked for material facts about the violations [M130]; the only violation cited named no structure, no work, no location, and no permit [M125].

The authority behind the order has the same gap. The code places the finding and its description with the Chief Building Official [SCC.8.100.720(A)(2)]; the order recites that official's determination, carries only an inspector's signature under a title the code does not list, and the closed file holds no delegation to him (Card 5). The official the code requires to find the conditions is not shown to have found them, and the order does not describe them.

The City's third available answer comes from a file it produced three years later [R.26-1965.1]: a note it dated 04/10/2023 [M001] and an email of 04/04/2023 relaying the complaint [M024]. The owner had neither in 2023, and a page produced in 2026 is not the order served in 2023.

That is what the City knew, not what the order said. The code places the description in the order [SCC.8.100.720(A)(2)]. The sentence the inspector logged appears on neither the order [M124] nor the list served with it [M125]; the 04/04/2023 email relayed a complaint the inspector wrote he still needed to verify, "Whether work is going on, or not, I need to verify." [M024] The order recited the inspection and determination as done while its list said "Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected." [M125] What was seen from the neighbor's yard, and from where, is Card 2.

The City's fourth available answer is the closure: the B59 entry closed on 06/18/2026, the work permitted and approved, as its comment said it must be.

What approved it is on the page: a permit one day old and four finals with no comment [R.26-3395.3], on a scope the inspector wrote himself (Card 35), after two permits carrying that scope had expired, in the City's words, for no requested inspections [R.26-3395.5]. The description the code required in the order appears on none of the pages between the two dates — not the served list, not the permits, not the four lines that closed the entry (Card 38: the closing permit; Card 39: the closure).

What would defeat this card is an amended or supplemental Notice and Order, or a corrected Correction List, served on the owner before the appeal window closed, that describes the conditions found. The file the City produced under Request 26-1965, the May 2026 case file [R.26-1965.2], closed with "All responsive records have been provided" [R.26-1965.1], holds neither. The only descriptions in it that pre-date the order are the complaint text relayed by email on 04/04/2023 [M024] and the inspector's 04/10/2023 log note [M001], and neither the order [M124] nor its list [M125] repeats either. Card 4 is the completeness baseline (what the file the City produced means, and does not mean).

Request 26-2487 [R.26-2487.5] asked for "The inspection report(s) underlying the determination recited in the April 12, 2023 Notice and Order" [R.26-2487.5]. The request was closed the same day it was filed with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-2487.5] The release carried no such report.

On 08/25/2026, Request 26-3538, with a local rendering [R.26-3538.1], asked for the remaining records: the Notice the March 21, 2023 letter said was attached, as sent, with its mailing record; the City's written standard for the description required by code; any amendment served before the appeal window closed; the August 2023 appeal and its refusal, including proof of service and any fee-waiver consideration; and any hearing, review, or determination that ever examined the B31/B59 entries.

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES