The Missing Determination

Case 23-009185 | Card 2 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

Sacramento City Code puts an inspection and a determination before a substandard-building order: the building official inspects the building and determines its condition (SCC.8.100.700). The April 12, 2023 Notice and Order [M124] recites that the Chief Building Official had caused the building at 4880 T Street to be inspected and had determined it substandard and/or dangerous [M124], and sets the conditions on the attached list. That list [M125] says of itself that neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected [M125] and asks the owner to provide access for complete inspection [M125] — the inspection announced on one page and asked for on the next. The order says an inspection was done. It does not say what was done — which parts of the building were inspected, on what date, or from where — and neither page says what remained to be inspected: the list's inspection sentences are the same words on the list sent with the March 21, 2023 letter [M118], twenty-two days earlier. The packet was posted on the front door on April 13, 2023 [M001]; from May 2023 the City billed against the order, in excess of $30,000 (Card 11: the full ledger, every charge run against the same two placeholder entries).

What the owner's side was told is on the City's own email of April 14, 2023 [E1.5]: prior e-mails about backyard access had no response, he went to neighboring properties, could see there was work performed, pictures were taken, and permits are required or the work is to be removed — where he stood, not what he inspected and not what condition he found. The order [M124] recites that the building was determined substandard and/or dangerous [M124] under Chapter 8.96 and/or 8.100, and the list it points to carries two entries: a placeholder that says of itself neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected [M125], and a permit entry whose comment reads "Work has been done without the benefit of a PERMIT" [M125] — the status of the work, not a condition of the building. Twenty-eight months after the order, the same inspector was at the front door for an inspection of the backyard, telling the owner's helper an inspection was required and that the City would move forward with an inspection warrant [M035]. He is on the property's own recording [V1] saying it: "if she doesn't allow us today, then we are going to move forward with getting the warrant and we just come with everybody [V1.T]."

What inspection of the building at 4880 T Street did the April 12, 2023 order [M124] stand on, and what did it find — when the order recites a determination without saying what was found, the list attached to it [M125] says neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected and names only a missing permit, the inspector's own email two days later [E1.5] describes a look from neighboring properties and no condition, and twenty-eight months on the same inspector was at the door saying an inspection was required [M035] and the City would get a warrant [V1.T]?

IN PLAIN TERMS

Before ordering a building repaired or demolished, the City's building official has to inspect it and determine its condition. The April 12, 2023 order [M124] says that was done. Two days after the order the inspector wrote that he had looked from neighboring properties and taken pictures [E1.5] — where he stood, not what condition he found. The list attached to the order [M125] says neither the inside nor the outside had been completely inspected, and its only entry about the work says it had no permit [M125]. Twenty-eight months later he was at the door — watch it [V1] — saying an inspection was still required [M035] and the City would get a warrant [V1.T]. The question for the City: what inspection did the order stand on, and what did it find?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. March 20, 2023 — the first visit, from the front and the alley.

    The inspector's case note [M024] for that date records that from the front of the dwelling "there looks to be no work going on" [M024], that he knocked, got no answer and left his card, and that he then went to the alley, where a gate blocked access to the back of the dwelling.

    The documents inventory [M013] carries four photographs of that date; the last is captioned "Gate blocking alley access" [M013].

  2. March 21, 2023 — the letter set the inspection as a step still to come.

    The Buster Preliminary letter [M117] required the owner to contact the inspector within ten business days "to schedule an inspection of the property [M117]."

    The Correction List [M118] that came with it already carried the sentence the order's attachment would carry twenty-two days later: "Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected [M118]."

  3. April 4, 2023 — what the inspector recorded as still unverified.

    Replying to an email about the property, the inspector wrote in the case file NOTES page [M024]: "I am a building inspector with the city and I have been assigned the case. I was to go by and verify if work is going on. I have verified there are no permits issued to the property. Whether work is going on, or not, I need to verify." [M024]

    The reply as sent is produced separately in the email exhibits (E1.2); that page is a photographed screenshot with no text layer, so it is cited here by description.

  4. April 7, 2023 — a view arranged from an adjoining property.

    With no reply to the email, the case note [M024] for that date records the inspector arranging to view the work from an adjoining property, after being told the work was visible from it and that he would be allowed onto it, and scheduling a meeting there for the following Monday at 3:00 pm.

  5. April 10, 2023 — the observation, and where it was made from.

    The re-inspection entry in the activities log [M001] for that date reads: "I met with neighbors to access their backyard to verify work performed. I did verify there is an addition to the detached garage going on. Neighbors stated there was generators running the previous night. I took pictures of what I saw from where I was standing. A N&O will be requested." [M001]

    The City's documents inventory [M013] lists five photographs of that date: three from the front of the property ("View of detached garage from front of dwelling" [M013], "Entry to dwelling" [M013], "Card left at site" [M013]) and two captioned "View from neighbors lot of work performed" [M013]. The look the entry records was made from an adjoining lot; what it records is an addition going on, and nothing about the condition of the building; and the order it says will be requested had not yet issued. The same narrative appears a second time in the produced file, in the Notes section, under 04/11/2023 (Card 7: the produced file gives the same garage verification two different dates, and lists no photograph of 4880 T Street from the later one).

  6. April 11, 2023 — access still being sought, the day before the order.

    The activities log [M001] carries a re-inspection entry of that date: "Any contact from owner? Re-visit site. Add condition? if not, call contact to see if I can gain access to see work Buster prelim sent out 2 weeks ago" [M001]

    The reasons the inspector recorded that morning for issuing the order were lack of contact from the owner and failure to obtain an HDB permit (Card 6: neither is a condition of the building, and the City's own records carry no permit class of that name).

  7. April 12, 2023 — the order, and what its attachment asked for.

    The Notice and Order [M124] recites that the Chief Building Official "has caused to be inspected and has determined" [M124] that the building is in sub-standard and/or dangerous condition, and sets the conditions out on the attached list [M125].

    That attachment states "Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected" [M125] and, two sentences later, "Provide access for complete inspection [M125]."

  8. April 13, 2023 — the packet posted.

    The next entry on the activities log [M001] reads: "On 4-13-2023 at 8;32 am I posted Notice and Order Packet on the front door." [M001] That posting is how the order reached the property. The entries above it on the same page are the City's own record of what came before it.

  9. April 14, 2023 — the inspector's own account, two days after the order.

    His 8:09 a.m. email [E1.5] to the owner's representative that morning states that he had asked in prior e-mails about gaining access to the backyard to verify the complaint and had no response; that he then went to neighboring properties; that from them he could see there was work performed; that pictures were taken of the work performed; and that permits are required to legalize the work or it is to be removed. It is the City's account of the April 10 look, given to the owner's side two days after the order: work seen from next door and a permit, and nothing about the condition of the building. The page is a photographed screenshot of the email and is cited by description.

  10. August 21, 2025 — the City says an inspection is still required, and names a warrant as the next step.

    Twenty-eight months after the order, the same inspector's 08/21/2025 case note [M035] records him at the front door with the Principal Building Inspector, there for the inspection of the backyard — where the April 10 look had been aimed — telling the owner's helper 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] (Card 22: the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 holds no warrant application, no issued warrant, and no served warrant).

    The order [M124] had recited the building as inspected on April 12, 2023. This is the City's later word on the inspection, in its own file, with the monitoring cycles billed in between (Card 10: 23 cycles on the placeholder list before the City's first recorded backyard inspection, which followed that day).

  11. May 22, 2026 — the log arrives, on request.

    The activities log carrying the April 10 and April 11 entries is a File Detail Report headed May 18, 2026 [M001]. It came in the case file produced on Request 26-1965, received May 17, 2026 and closed May 22, 2026 [R.26-1965.1] with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1] That is three years and one month after the order.

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is that the April 10 look was the inspection: the log entry [M001], the two photographs from the neighbors' lot [M013], and the inspector's April 14, 2023 email [E1.5] to the owner's representative all record it, and the determination was within the inspector's judgment.

Those pages reached the owner in 2026, in the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1], not in 2023; they answer where he stood and what he saw: an addition to the detached garage going on [M001], and the pictures he took of it. What none of them states is a condition of the building. The order [M124] recites that the building was determined substandard and/or dangerous under Chapter 8.96 and/or 8.100; the list it points to says of the work only "Work has been done without the benefit of a PERMIT" [M125]. A missing permit is the status of the work under SCC.8.100.190, the section that entry cites; it is not a finding about the building, and an addition seen going on from next door is not one either. The same list [M125] says neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected and asks the owner to provide access for a complete inspection — the City asking, on the day of the order, for the access an inspection of the building would need — and its own log [M001] recorded that access as still to be obtained the day before. By the City's own note, an inspection was still required on 08/21/2025 [M035], with a warrant as its stated next step — the City's later word on the inspection the order had recited as done.

The City's second available answer is that the access it asked for was not provided, and that is why the inspection was not complete.

The dates close it. The access step was set on March 21, 2023 [M117], with ten business days to schedule it. Twenty-two days later the order issued [M124], reciting that the inspection had been caused and the determination made. An unmet request for access explains an incomplete inspection; it does not supply the inspection the order recites, and it does not move the order's date.

The City's third available answer is that the conditions were on the attached list. That is Card 1: the code required the order itself to carry a description of the conditions found [SCC.8.100.720(A)(2)], and the list names no structure, no work, and no location.

The authority has the same gap. The order recites the Chief Building Official's determination [M124]; the only pre-order verification in the produced file was made by a Building Inspector III [M124] (Card 5: the order's only signature is an inspector's, not the Chief Building Official's, and the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 holds no delegation for it).

What would defeat this card is a page served with the order, or before the first charge against it, stating what the inspection found at 4880 T Street that rendered the building substandard or dangerous — a condition of the building, beyond an addition seen from next door and a permit not yet obtained. The May 2026 case file, produced through Request 26-1965 and closed with "All responsive records have been provided [R.26-1965.1].", contains none. The recital is unsupported: the page that makes it [M124] and the written determination that the production is complete [R.26-1965.1] are both the City's own. 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.

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES