The 38-Second Billed Visit

Case 23-009185 | Card 25 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

On April 26, 2023, inspector Paul made two front-door approaches at 4880 T Street totaling about 38 seconds, then announced a response fee; the produced case file does not log the visit and cites no authority for the fee. Before the visit, the owner's representative had asked Paul to identify the specific "work performed" that warranted inspection, had offered to meet at the property and open the backyard, and had noted that the owner was in the hospital E1.6. Paul had an existing email channel with the representative E1.2, but the cited chain shows the scope question went unanswered before the visit E1.6 E10.

Paul's same-day email describes the visit as "arranged" and states that a response fee would be assessed E10. The property cameras record two front-door approaches between 12:58:22 and 13:00:00, with Paul off the property by 13:01:14 CCTV1 — about two minutes fifty-two seconds on the property, about 38 seconds of it at the front door, and no phone call visible in the cited still sequence. The same cameras show the occupant first reaching the front door about twenty-two minutes after Paul left CCTV2. The produced case file contains no April 26 activity-log entry M002 and no code section or noticed fee schedule tying this "response fee" to this conduct R.25-3549 R.26-1549.

IN PLAIN TERMS

The owner side asked what the inspector intended to inspect and offered to meet him at the property. The inspector came, went to the front door twice for about 38 seconds in total, and left within three minutes. The same day he announced a response fee. The City's produced file does not log the visit and does not show the authority for that fee.

RECORD CHAIN

  1. The owner's representative asked for the inspection's scope before the visit. The representative emailed Paul that communicating the matter to a hospitalized owner "without specifics is extremely stressful on her health," asked him to identify what "work performed" the inspection concerned, and offered to meet at the property and let him into the backyard E1.6. The cited email chain shows the visit was scheduled and confirmed without an answer to that scope question E1.6 E10.
  2. The property cameras recorded the arranged visit. Paul came on April 26, 2023 — a visit his own email calls "arranged" E10. The burned-in timestamps show: first porch approach 12:58:22; off the steps 12:58:29; porch empty 12:58:55; second approach 12:59:55; off the steps 13:00:00; tracked across the driveway 13:00:31 through 13:00:47; off property 13:01:14 CCTV1. The two front-door approaches total about 38 seconds within about two minutes fifty-two seconds on the property. No phone call is visible in the cited still sequence.
  3. The same cameras recorded the occupant's response. The cameras record the occupant first reaching the front door that afternoon at 13:23:15 CCTV2 — about 22 minutes after Paul left, and about 24 minutes 53 seconds after his first knock.
  4. The produced file contains no log entry for the visit and no authority for the fee. Paul's same-day email states he knocked and announced himself and that "A response fee will be assessed to the property"; it does not answer the scope question E10. The produced case file contains no activity-log entry for the visit M002 and cites no code section or noticed fee schedule as authority for the fee. SCC.8.100.720 governs Notice-and-Order and monitoring-fee authority; the produced file does not show that it authorizes this response fee.

The cited records, in relevant part:

"…You are making this difficult by not pointing out what 'work performed' is regarding this issue. Trying to communicate this to Jackie without specifics is extremely stressful on her health and our relationship. Why don't you come over … I can meet you at the property and let you into the backyard. And mentioning what work you saw that warrants this inspection would go a long way."

> "Chris, I arrived onsite that was arranged. I knocked at the door twice and there was no answer. I announced myself in the driveway twice incase [sic] you were in the backyard. A response fee will be assessed to the property."

FULL CIRCLE

The City may argue: the visit was arranged, the inspector knocked and announced himself, no one answered within a reasonable time, and a response fee for a missed inspection is a routine administrative charge; the scope of a code inspection is set by the Notice and Order, not by a pre-visit email.

The record answers each point. The visit was arranged through an email exchange in which the owner's side had offered to meet and open the backyard. The cameras record two front-door approaches totaling about 38 seconds, no phone call visible in the cited stills, and the occupant first reaching the door about 22 minutes after Paul left CCTV1 CCTV2. On the fee itself, the produced file contains no activity-log entry for the visit and no code section or noticed fee schedule tying a "response fee" to this conduct; SCC.8.100.720 governs Notice-and-Order and monitoring-fee authority, and the produced file does not show that it authorizes this charge.

The later penalty, fee-ledger, and walkthrough records are addressed elsewhere in the deck Card 15 Card 11 Card 31. This card's finding is limited to the April 26, 2023 visit: an arranged visit ended in a response-fee announcement, and the produced file shows a brief recorded encounter, no log entry, and no authority for the fee.

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES