The Supervisor Note Inside the Owner-Facing Email

Case 23-009185 | Card 20 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The inspector's note to his supervisor about the owner's representative rode inside the email he sent to the owner's side. On July 18, 2025 at 7:28:50 a.m., one email [S4] — subject "Re: 4800 T St." [S4], to the owner's helper, with the owner's address and Supervising Building Inspector Douglas Pierson on copy — opens: "A list will be provided after inspection is performed of the violations on the property." [S4] It names the storage shed and work room in the backyard and the electrical added to the front of the house, asks when the inspection can be performed, and says "I have also added my supervisor to the email" [S4]. Then, in the same message: "Doug, I left paper work on your desk that was provided to me from the handyman on the property for you to look at. The handyman has sent complaints to city council, councilman Guerra, the mayor, the chief, etc." [S4]

The City's strongest page is the day before. Its 07/17/2025 entry logs a site visit at which, in the inspector's words, "the handyman, who is in the backyard, said he did not want me to enter the backyard" [M034], and closes: "The case will go on as in the past for the shed in the backyard." [M034] That entry explains why the email asks for an inspection. It does not put the email in the file. The first sentence of the email is the City's own: twenty-seven months after the April 12, 2023 order [M124] said the conditions were set forth on the attached list — the list the code requires the order itself to carry (SCC.8.100.720(A)(2)) — the inspector wrote the owner's side that a list would be provided after an inspection (Card 1: the description the code required and the order does not carry; Card 2: the inspection the order recited as done). The "handyman" is the owner's representative — the City's own 09/11/2025 entry [M036] logs his email that way, and its 09/16/2025 entry records that he "had taken care of some of the violations" [M036] (Card 19: who the City decided the owner's representative was, and when). The email exists as an owner-side image. The case log the City produced logs the 07/17/2025 visit [M034], an 08/25/2025 email [M035] from the owner's helper, and the 09/11/2025 email [M036] from the representative; the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] holds no entry for July 18, 2025, no copy of this email, and no separate message to the supervisor.

Where in the file the City produced in May 2026 [R.26-1965.1] — a case log that records the 07/17/2025 visit [M034] this email refers to and the 09/11/2025 email [M036] from the same representative — is the July 18, 2025 email [S4] in which the inspector told the owner's side that a list of the violations would be provided after an inspection [S4], twenty-seven months after the order that said the list was attached [M124], and told his supervisor, in the same message, that the representative had sent complaints to the city council, the councilman, the mayor, and the chief [S4]?

IN PLAIN TERMS

The inspector sent one email [S4] to the owner's side in July 2025. It says a list of the violations will be provided after the inspection — two years and three months after the order that said the list was attached. Then it turns to his supervisor, in the same message, calls the owner's representative "the handyman", and lists the complaints he had sent to the city council, the councilman, the mayor, and the chief. The City's log records the site visit the day before and later emails from the owner's side, but not this one. The question for the City: where in the file it produced in May 2026 is the July 18, 2025 email?

RECORD CHAIN

July 17, 2025 — the City's entry for the day before. The 07/17/2025 entry [M034] logs a site visit arranged by "property owners friend" [M034] at which "the handyman, who is in the backyard, said he did not want me to enter the backyard" [M034], notes electrical at the front of the house, and closes: "The case will go on as in the past for the shed in the backyard." [M034]
July 18, 2025 — one message, owner-side recipients. The local S4 scan/screenshot [S4] shows a single email dated July 18, 2025 7:28:50 a.m., subject "Re: 4800 T St.," To the owner's helper, Cc the owner's address / Jackie Baritell and Douglas Pierson; the City's File Detail Report [M001] identifies the owner name as Jackie Baritell Trust.
July 18, 2025 — "A list will be provided after inspection is performed". The message opens: "A list will be provided after inspection is performed of the violations on the property. The main reason for the inspection is due to the storage shed / work room that was constructed in the backyard." [S4] (04/12/2023 → 07/18/2025: twenty-seven months.) The body refers to the meeting "yesterday", the storage shed and work room, the front-of-house electrical added with extension cords, and getting the property permitted or restored [S4].
July 18, 2025 — "I have also added my supervisor to the email". The same message says, in the text addressed to the owner side, "I have also added my supervisor to the email" [S4] — the single send, as composed, put the supervisor on the thread the owner side received.
July 18, 2025 — the note to Doug. Directly after, addressed to "Doug": "I left paper work on your desk that was provided to me from the handyman on the property for you to look at. The handyman has sent complaints to city council, councilman Guerra, the mayor, the chief, etc." [S4] (Card 19).
July 18, 2025 — the note sits inside the owner-side message, and the log skips the day. The "handyman" description of the representative and the complaint list appear in a message addressed to the owner's helper and copied to the owner's address [S4]. The case log the City produced under Request 26-1965 runs from the 07/17/2025 visit [M034] to a 07/21/2025 penalty entry [M034] with no entry for July 18, 2025; the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] holds no copy of the email and no separate supervisor-only version.
August 25 and September 11, 2025 — the log does record owner-side emails. The 08/25/2025 entry is labelled "Outlook - Email" [M035] and logs "an email from owners friend about the violations on the property" [M035]; the 09/11/2025 entry logs the representative's email as one "from property owners handyman" [M036] and the reply that the City "deals directly with the owner of the property, or the owners representative" [M036]. The July 18, 2025 email is the one in this sequence that the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] does not carry.

FULL CIRCLE

The City's strongest answer is the day before. Its 07/17/2025 entry says "the handyman, who is in the backyard, said he did not want me to enter the backyard" [M034] and "The case will go on as in the past for the shed in the backyard." [M034] On that answer the note to the supervisor was about this case: the paperwork of the man who had just refused entry, and a request to the owner's side to schedule the inspection that had been refused.

The card concedes the refusal. It explains the request for an inspection; it does not put the email in the file. The 07/17/2025 entry [M034] logs the visit, the 08/25/2025 entry [M035] logs an owner-side email under the label "Outlook - Email" [M035], and the 09/11/2025 entry [M036] logs the representative's email and the reply; the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] holds no entry for July 18, 2025 and no copy of the message that told the owner's side a list would follow an inspection.

The City's second answer is that the inspector was handling one thread, that the supervisor was a copied recipient who needed the update, and that the combined message was a shortcut.

A shortcut explains the envelope, not the absence. The City's own rule, stated two months later [M036], is that it deals with the owner or the owner's representative; the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] holds no separate message to the supervisor and no written standard for what is said about that representative to a supervisor (Card 19).

The City's third answer is that the first sentence means only that a fresh, itemised list would follow the backyard inspection.

Then the list that ran the fees and the appeals for twenty-seven months was not that list (Card 3 and Card 11), and the City's own words put the itemised one after an inspection the order had recited as already done.

What would defeat this card is a case-log entry or a native copy of the July 18, 2025 message in the produced file, or a page showing the supervisor note as a separate communication. The file the City closed with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1] holds none of these; the email itself is not in it. Card 4 is the completeness baseline (what the file the City produced means, and does not mean).

APPLICABLE LAW

SCC.8.100.720(A)(2): the Notice and Order itself must contain a brief and concise description of the conditions found to render the building substandard — the list the July 18, 2025 email says would be provided after an inspection.

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

S4 — July 18, 2025 email scan/screenshot, Paul Lovato to the owner's helper, cc the owner's address / Jackie Baritell and Douglas Pierson / DPierson, subject "Re: 4800 T St."; includes "I have also added my supervisor to the email" and the embedded "Doug" supervisor note identifying the representative as "the handyman" and listing complaints to city council, councilman Guerra, the mayor, and the chief.
M124 — Notice and Order face page dated 04/12/2023: "the conditions which render the building(s) sub-standard and/or dangerous are set forth on the attached list of violations."
M001 — May production p.1; case header identifying the owner name as Jackie Baritell Trust.
M034 — May production p.34; 07/17/2025 case entry logging the site visit at which "the handyman, who is in the backyard, said he did not want me to enter the backyard" and "The case will go on as in the past for the shed in the backyard."; next entry is the 07/21/2025 penalty entry.
M035 — May production p.35; 08/25/2025 "Outlook - Email" entry logging "an email from owners friend about the violations on the property".
CITY.CodeEnforcementContacts — City of Sacramento Code Enforcement Division Contacts page listing Doug Pierson as Supervising Building Inspector, Housing and Dangerous Buildings; S4 supplies the Douglas Pierson / DPierson cc-line identity
M036 — May production p.36; 09/11/2025 case entry logging the representative's email as one "from property owners handyman" and recording the reply that the City "deals directly with the owner of the property, or the owners representative"; 09/16/2025 entry recording the meeting with "a contractor and a representative of the property owner."
R.26-1965.1 — NextRequest 26-1965 portal/closure page recording the May 2026 production as closed with "All responsive records have been provided."
R.26-1965 — NextRequest May 2026 production provenance for the Case File
Records — the site's "how to get the records" page: which request holds which lane of the record, in what order each production came, and the portal record for each.

CARD REFERENCES

Card 1 — The Missing Required Property-Specific Description: the description the code required in the order, and what the order carried instead.
Card 2 — The Missing Determination: the inspection the order recited as done.
Card 3 — The Placeholder Fee and Appeal Predicate: the list the fees and the appeal attached to.
Card 11 — The $36,020.40 Placeholder Ledger.
Card 19 — No Written Standard for Non-Owner Contacts: who the City decided the owner's representative was, and when.
Card 4 — Fourteen Written CPRA Completeness Determinations: the production-completeness baseline.