The Unsupported Internal Issuance Reasons

Case 23-009185 | Card 6 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

One day before the Notice and Order's 04/12/2023 face date M124, Paul's 04/11/2023 General Case Information note on the Case File NOTES page stated two reasons for issuance: "Due to lack of contact from the Owner and failure to obtain an HDB permit I issued the Notice and Order" M024. The produced record supports neither stated reason. The same NOTES page records an 04/04/2023 email from the owner's representative and Paul's reply to it; the outbound reply is preserved separately in E1.2.

The served Correction List did not name an "HDB permit." It cited B59, SCC.8.100.190, with the generic comment that work had been done without a permit, but it did not identify a structure, work item, or permit type M125. Other cited records use HDB as a program or fee label, not as a permit classification: the City page identifies Housing and Dangerous Buildings as a division/program CITY.2, the Case File uses "HSG HDB Monitoring Fee" as a fee label M002 M009, and the permit-list export for this property lists residential permit types such as Residential Housing-Minor, with no row labeled "HDB permit" D.

When the owner's representative asked in writing for specifics, Paul answered once with a general backyard/neighborhood-view explanation, then sent scheduling replies E1.4 E1.5 E1.6 E1.7 E1.8 E1.9. The cited record does not show that the City amended the served Correction List or identified "HDB permit" as a named permit classification before the 04/26/2023 inspection R.25-3549 R.26-1549 Card 4.

As produced, the file preserves owner-side contact before the 04/11/2023 note and contains no document naming an "HDB permit."

IN PLAIN TERMS

The Notice and Order is dated April 12, 2023. The order itself does not say "lack of contact" or "HDB permit." Those two reasons appear in Paul's internal note from the day before, which says they are why he issued the order. The same file shows an April 4 email exchange with the owner's representative, and no produced record names a permit called an "HDB permit" M024 M124 M125. The order required repair or demolition and warned that monitoring fees and other enforcement consequences could follow M124. The list served with it gave only a generic permits-required entry. When the owner side asked for specifics, Paul did not identify the actual permit class or issue an amended Correction List before the arranged April 26 inspection M125 E1.4 E1.5 E1.6 E1.7 E1.8 E1.9.

RECORD CHAIN

  1. The dated order and the internal issuance note are different records. The Notice and Order is dated 04/12/2023 on its face M124. The "lack of contact from the Owner" and "failure to obtain an HDB permit" language appears in Paul's 04/11/2023 General Case Information note on the Case File NOTES page, not in the body of the dated order M024 M124.
  2. The stated reason of "lack of contact." The same Case File NOTES page records an 04/04/2023 inbound email from the owner's representative and Paul's 04/04 reply: "I replied back to e-mail stating..." M024. The inbound email named Jackie Baritell, copied her, described her medical/personal circumstances, and asked the City to relay through email while keeping her copied M024; Paul's outbound reply is preserved separately in E1.2. The 04/07/2023 entry records "no reply back to e-mail" after Paul's outbound message M024. The file nonetheless preserves owner-side contact and Paul's reply before the internal 04/11 note stated "lack of contact from the Owner" M024.
  3. The stated reason of an "HDB permit." The served Correction List recites B59, SCC.8.100.190, "Permits Required," and comments that work was done without the benefit of a permit M125. It does not identify an "HDB permit," a permit classification, a specific structure, or a specific work item M125. The cited City page identifies Housing and Dangerous Buildings as a City division/program CITY.2; the Case File uses "HSG HDB Monitoring Fee" as a fee label M002 M009; and the permit-list export for this property lists residential record types, including Residential Housing-Minor, rather than a permit type called "HDB permit" D.
  4. The owner's representative asked for the basis three times in writing. On 04/14/2023 at 8:00 AM, the representative requested clarification and said the notices lacked information about the specific structure, building, and infraction E1.4. At 2:50 PM the same day, he wrote that Paul was "not pointing out what 'work performed' is" E1.6. On 04/25/2023, he again asked for the purpose, scope, and details of the inspection E1.8. Paul's 04/14/2023 8:09 AM reply said he sought backyard access, received no response, viewed from neighboring properties, saw work performed, took pictures, and said permits were required or the work must be removed E1.5 Card 9. The 04/17 and 04/25 replies set or confirm inspection timing; they do not name an HDB permit classification, amended Correction List, or specific permit type E1.7 E1.9.
  5. The governing provisions require a description of property-specific conditions. The Notice and Order rests on Chapter 8.96 and/or Chapter 8.100 M124; SCC.8.100.720(A)(2) requires the order to contain a "brief and concise description of the conditions found to render the building substandard." HSC.17980.C.1 conditions abatement on the agency having "inspected ... and ... determined that the building is a substandard building." The inspection predicate for the order is the subject of Card 2.

FULL CIRCLE

Paul's internal 04/11 note gives two reasons for issuing the Notice and Order M024. The first, "lack of contact from the Owner," appears on the same NOTES page as the 04/04 email from the owner's representative and Paul's 04/04 reply M024 E1.2. The second, "failure to obtain an HDB permit," names a permit that appears in neither the 04/12 Notice and Order nor the served Correction List M124 M125.

The City may answer that the 04/07 no-further-reply entry explains "lack of contact," and that "HDB permit" was informal shorthand. The NOTES page nonetheless records owner-side email contact and a City reply before the internal issuance note M024 E1.2. The served Correction List carries only a generic B59 permit entry and names no HDB permit, structure, or work item M125. When the owner side asked for specifics, Paul responded once with a general explanation and then sent scheduling replies; the cited record does not show a pre-04/26 amended Correction List or a written permit classification named "HDB permit" E1.4 E1.5 E1.6 E1.7 E1.8 E1.9 R.25-3549 R.26-1549 Card 4.

The Notice and Order imposed repair or demolition obligations and fee consequences M124, and the two reasons the internal note gives for issuing it do not appear in the served paperwork. Neither the "lack of contact" entry nor the "HDB permit" label supplies the specificity that SCC.8.100.720(A)(2) and HSC.17980.C.1 require.

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES