The Contractor's Written Withdrawal

Case 23-009185 | Card 36 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The licensed contractor brought in to pull the permit walked off in writing rather than pull a permit "for anything they ask". On September 16, 2025 the City met him on the property and gave the owner's side "30 days to obtain the building permit" [M036], naming none (Card 31: what the officers said on the property's recording that day). On October 16 the owner's attorney wrote, after speaking with City inspectors, that he had asked the contractor to "coordinate the minimal permit with the inspectors" [E4]. On October 20 the contractor answered: "Sorry Mark, I am am not placing myself into this. It is talking too much of my time. All the listed items are done. I do not feel comfortable pulling permit for anything they ask and be stuck with this misc items. I am out" [E4].

The City's own notes recorded it twice: on 10/20/2025, "the contractor who is was going to help them has backed out of the project" [M036]; on 10/23/2025, the attorney telling the inspector that "the delay stems from the contractor's refusal to participate in the process" [M037]. What the served record offered a contractor to permit was the April 2023 entry "Permits Required" [M125] (Card 1) and, from 09/02/2025, coded items including B45, added square footage at the detached garage "to be permitted" [M544]; the code the City cites requires "a separate building permit for each such building or structure" [M125]. The owner applied herself; the permit was processed on 11/21/2025 [M037] and issued on 11/25/2025 as 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) [M010]. It was expired due to no inspections within the first 60 days [M011], and on a Thursday in February 2026 the City's inspector wrote the owner's helper the words for the successor's scope box: "in the box for the scope of the work you need to list: To clear up expired permit RES-2524445 Remove all Illegal construction in/at garage includes electrical and plumbing" [S6] (Card 35). The same words, in the City's own hand; the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 holds no application page [R.26-1965.1] showing who typed them the first time.

Which served page stated the category and scope of the permit the owner's side had "30 days to obtain" [M036] — when the licensed contractor would not pull one "for anything they ask" [E4], the served pages said "Permits Required" [M125] and "to be permitted" [M544] and nothing more, the permit the owner pulled instead was classed Housing-Minor / No Plans [R.26-2487.4], and the words in its scope box were the City's inspector's own [S6] (Card 35)?

IN PLAIN TERMS

The City gave the owner's side thirty days to get "the building permit" [M036] and did not say which. A licensed contractor was brought in to pull it. He declined in writing [E4]: the listed items were done, he would not pull a permit "for anything they ask", he was out. The City's own notes recorded his refusal [M037]. The owner applied herself; the permit the City issued was a minor, no-plans permit, and the words in its scope box were the inspector's own [S6] (Card 35). The question for the City: which served page stated the category and scope of that permit?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. April 12, 2023 and September 2, 2025 — what the served record offered a contractor to permit. The 2023 list: "Permits Required" [M125], over a page that says neither interior nor exterior had been completely inspected (Card 1). The 09/02/2025 re-issued list: coded items including B45 "Added square footage at detached garage to be permitted" [M544] and P08, an added gas line that "requires permits" [M544]. The code printed on the list: "a separate building permit for each such building or structure" [M125].
  2. September 16, 2025 — thirty days to obtain "the building permit". The City "met with a contractor and a representative of the property owner" [M036], walked the violations, handed the contractor a correction notice, and gave "30 days to obtain the building permit" [M036] — no category, no scope (Card 31).
  3. October 16, 2025 — "the minimal permit", the attorney's phrase after speaking with City inspectors. "I understand that most issues are no longer there. I asked Arthur to coordinate the minimal permit with the inspectors, have it filed" [E4]. On October 20 the attorney relayed the City's position that "The Notice and Order DOES contain requirements to obtain a permit" [E4], with excerpts, and described the meeting printouts as "not the actual new Notice and Order" [E4].
  4. October 20, 2025 — the contractor declines, in writing. "All the listed items are done. I do not feel comfortable pulling permit for anything they ask and be stuck with this misc items. I am out" [E4]. The City's 09/16 note had recorded that "the handyman had taken care of some of the violations, but the contractor was still needed to complete the work" [M036].
  5. October 20 – 23, 2025 — the City records the walk-off twice. "the contractor who is was going to help them has backed out of the project" [M036]; "the delay stems from the contractor's refusal to participate in the process" [M037].
  6. November 21, 2025 – February 2026 — the owner applies; the scope is in the City's words. "Permit processed and invoice emailed to po and applicant on 11/21" [M037]; the permit issued on 11/25/2025 as "Minor Dry rot and Siding Repair, Like for Like" [M010] with "Plans not required" [M010]; on 12/02/2025 the inspector emailed an eleven-item inspection list under it (Card 33); on 02/12/2026 the City recorded that the permit "was expired due to no inspections within the first 60 days" [M011]; on a Thursday in February 2026 he wrote the owner's helper the words for the successor's scope box, "To clear up expired permit RES-2524445" [S6] (Card 35), and the successor issued 02/27/2026 as "Permit to complete work commenced under expired permit#RES-2524445" [R.26-2487.4].

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is that the contractor exercised his own business judgment, and that the served orders — "all required permits for repair shall be secured" [M124], B45 "to be permitted" [M544] — gave enough notice of what to permit.

A licensed contractor is the person whose judgment about a permit the City relies on, and his judgment was that what he was being asked to pull was "anything they ask" [E4]. The served pages he could have read carried an entry, "Permits Required" [M125], and an item, "to be permitted" [M544]; the code on the same page requires "a separate building permit for each such building or structure" [M125]. Neither page states a permit category or a scope. The scope arrived later and from the City: the City's own inspector e-mailed an eleven-item inspection list on 12/02/2025 under the first permit (Card 33), and in February 2026 wrote the scope of its successor — a permit the City's system classed "Housing-Minor / No Plans" [R.26-2487.4] whose stated purpose was to "complete work commenced under expired permit#RES-2524445" [R.26-2487.4] (Card 35).

The City's third available answer is that the owner obtained the permit five weeks later from the same served list — "Permit processed and invoice emailed to po and applicant on 11/21" [M037] — so the permit was identifiable all along.

What the owner obtained is on the City's ledger: a permit issued 11/25/2025 for "Minor Dry rot and Siding Repair, Like for Like" [M010] with "Plans not required" [M010], which the City then "expired due to no inspections within the first 60 days" [M011], and a successor whose scope-box words came from the inspector's own e-mail, "in the box for the scope of the work you need to list" [S6]. Those words sit on neither the served order of 04/12/2023 [M124] nor the re-issued list of 09/02/2025 [M544]; the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 holds no application page [R.26-1965.1] showing who typed them the first time. A permit whose scope the City supplied after the walk-off is not a permit the served record had stated.

The City's second available answer is that "the minimal permit" was the attorney's phrase, not the City's.

It was — written after the attorney spoke with the City's inspectors, and the card says so. What the City itself put in writing before the walk-off was "the building permit", unnamed; what it put in writing after was the scope, in its own words, in February.

What would defeat this card is a served page, dated before October 20, 2025, stating the permit category and scope the owner's side was to obtain, or an application page showing the scope words came from the owner's side rather than the City's inspector. The file the City produced in May 2026 under Request 26-1965 and closed with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1] holds neither. Card 4 is the completeness baseline (what the file the City produced means, and does not mean).

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES