The Missing Photograph Disclosure

Case 23-009185 | Card 9 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The City wrote that it had taken pictures of the work it was ordering removed, and nothing it served or sent showed the owner one or said what they showed. The City served its Notice and Order [M124] on 04/12/2023 [M123-132]. Two days later the owner's representative wrote to ask what the case was about: "Neither notice provided has any information or clues as to what this infraction is concerning. I would request that in accordance with these alleged violations, specifics be provided clarifying what wrongs have been violated" [E1.4]. Paul Lovato, the Building Inspector III who signed the order [M124], replied at 8:09 that morning: "Pictures were taken of the work performed. Either permits are required to legalize the work, or it is to be removed." [E1.5] The reply did not say what the pictures showed, and it enclosed none. The City had named the complaint once before, on 04/04/2023, ten days before the order: the representative's 04/14/2023 email recalls that "you disclosed that a complaint had been filed against the property regarding an alleged addition to the garage being built and a wood chipper being used" [E1.4], and the case file logs that 04/04/2023 email as relaying what "The City of Sacramento received a complaint on the property stating" [R.26-1965.2], with the inspector's own note, "Whether work is going on, or not, I need to verify" [R.26-1965.2]. That was a neighbor's allegation, sent before the 04/10/2023 look from next door where he "took pictures of what I saw from where I was standing" [R.26-1965.2]; no reply after the pictures were taken says they showed that addition. The list served with the order [M125] named none either: its one stated condition is that work had been done without the benefit of a permit [M125]. What the order itself was required to contain, and what this one carried instead, is Card 1.

The photographs did not go with the papers. The proof of service for 04/12/2023 [M131] itemizes the documents the City mailed that day and declares "under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct" [M131]; no photograph is among them. None of the emails in the April 2023 thread between the owner's representative and the inspector — 04/14/2023 8:00 AM [E1.4], 8:09 AM [E1.5], 2:50 PM [E1.6], 04/17/2023 12:07 PM [E1.7], 04/25/2023 6:29 AM [E1.8], 6:57 AM [E1.9], 04/26/2023 1:12 PM [E1.10] — attaches, names, or transmits one, and the case file the City released in May 2026 [R.26-1965.2] logs no email at all between 04/14/2023 and 04/26/2023. The photographs reached the owner thirty months later, in the September–November 2025 records production [R.25-3549], in which the image files at first did not render and were later re-exported (Card 8). The May 2026 case-file request [R.26-1965.1], closed with the statement that all responsive records had been provided, released the case file [R.26-1965.2]; the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 holds no page showing the photographs, or any description of what they showed, going to the owner.

Where, in the packet the City served [M123-132] or in the replies it sent — 04/14/2023 [E1.5], 04/17/2023 [E1.7], 04/25/2023 [E1.9], 04/26/2023 [E1.10] — did the City produce the pictures it wrote were "taken of the work performed" [E1.5], or tell the owner what those pictures showed?

IN PLAIN TERMS

The owner's side asked, two days after service, what the violation was about. The inspector answered that he had looked from neighboring properties, that pictures were taken of the work performed, and that permits were required or the work was to be removed. He did not say what the pictures showed, and he did not send one. The owner got the pictures thirty months later, through a records request; the file the City produced in May 2026 holds no page showing them going to the owner. The question for the City: where did you ever hand the owner the pictures you said you took, or tell him what those pictures showed?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. April 4 – April 10, 2023 — the complaint relayed, then the pictures taken.

    The case file [R.26-1965.2] logs an "Outlook - Email" [R.26-1965.2] of 04/04/2023 by Paul Lovato: "I replied back to e-mail stating: The City of Sacramento received a complaint on the property stating" [R.26-1965.2], followed by the complaint text — "THEY HAVE BEEN BUILDING AN ADDITION TO THEIR GARAGE THAT USES THE FENCE IN THE ALLEY AS A WALL" [R.26-1965.2] — and his note, "I have verified there are no permits issued to the property. Whether work is going on, or not, I need to verify" [R.26-1965.2]. The representative's 04/14/2023 email confirms receipt: "you disclosed that a complaint had been filed against the property regarding an alleged addition to the garage being built and a wood chipper being used" [E1.4]. The 04/10/2023 log entry then 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." [R.26-1965.2] and "I took pictures of what I saw from where I was standing. A N&O will be requested." [R.26-1965.2] The pictures postdate the 04/04/2023 email; the 04/10/2023 entry does not say they went to the owner.

  2. April 12, 2023 — the order, its list, and the sworn service inventory.

    The Notice and Order [M124] states: "That the conditions which render the building(s) sub-standard and/or dangerous are set forth on the attached list of violations." [M124]

    The attached list [M125] carries two form codes — Code "B31: Other" [M125] and Code "B59: 8.100.190" [M125] with Description "BUILDING - Permits Required" [M125]. Under the permit code the Comments field reads "Work has been done without the benefit of a PERMIT. This work must be removed or properly Permitted and Approved by the City of Sacramento." [M125] The field above it reads "This is not a complete Violation List of building code violations. Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected. Other building structural, electrical, plumbing or mechanical code violations may be identified upon further inspection." [M125] The page carries no image. The description the code required in the order itself — SCC.8.100.720(A)(2) for a substandard building, SCC.8.96.130(B)(2) for a dangerous one — is Card 1; the sequence that produced the order is Card 7, and the signature on it is Card 5.

    The packet's proof of service [M131], sworn the same day, states: "On 04/12/2023, I served the following document: Notice and Order Packet which includes Letter, Notice and Order to Repair or Demolish Sub-Standard Building, Attachment A (legal property description), Warning Statement, Notice of Change of Owner(s) Address or Sale of Property, Three Day Notice of Cal. Health and Safety Code 17980.7 Receivership, Appeal Request Form, Correction List and Proof of Service by Certified Mail" [M131], and closes, "I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed at Sacramento, California, on 04/12/2023." [M131] No photograph is named.

  3. April 14, 2023 — what was asked, and what was answered.

    At 8:00 AM the owner's representative wrote: "Neither notice provided has any information or clues as to what this infraction is concerning. I would request that in accordance with these alleged violations, specifics be provided clarifying what wrongs have been violated" [E1.4].

    At 8:09 AM Paul Lovato replied: "I then went to neighboring properties since there was no response about verifying complaint. As I was in neighboring properties, I could see there was work performed." [E1.5] and "Pictures were taken of the work performed. Either permits are required to legalize the work, or it is to be removed." [E1.5]

    At 2:50 PM the representative wrote back: “You are making this difficult by not pointing out what "work performed" is regarding this issue.” [E1.6] He offered to meet at the property and let the inspector into the backyard [E1.6], and added that "mentioning what work you saw that warrants this inspection would go a long way" [E1.6].

  4. April 17 – April 26, 2023 — what the replies carried.

    On 04/17/2023 Paul Lovato wrote, "Yes, Lets set up a time to meet onsite. I am Monday - Friday. 8:00am - 2:00 pm" [E1.7]. On 04/25/2023 at 6:29 AM the representative asked for "details regarding the purpose and objectives of the inspection" [E1.8]; at 6:57 AM Paul Lovato set the meeting time [E1.9]. On 04/26/2023 he wrote, "I arrived onsite that was arranged. I knocked at the door twice and there was no answer." [E1.10] and that "A response fee will be assessed to the property." [E1.10]

  5. September 29 – November 7, 2025 — the photographs are produced.

    Request 25-3549, filed 09/29/2025 and closed 11/07/2025, was where the photographs first reached the owner — thirty months after the order. What that production did to the image files is Card 8.

  6. May 22, 2026 — the file the City produced under Request 26-1965.

    Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] released the case file [R.26-1965.2] and was closed with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1] The file the City produced under Request 26-1965 holds no page showing the photographs, or any description of what they showed, going to the owner, and logs no email between 04/14/2023 and 04/26/2023. Card 4 is the completeness baseline (what the file the City produced means, and does not mean).

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is that the photographs were the inspector's own work product, and that nothing required it to mail them: the order [M124] told the owner the conditions were set out on the attached list. That list [M125] states one condition, that work had been done without the benefit of a permit, and it names no structure and no location. The reply that said pictures had been taken [E1.5] does not say what they showed. The City's own sworn inventory of what it served that day [M131] names no photograph.

The City's second available answer is access. Paul Lovato's 04/14/2023 reply opens: "I had asked in prior e-mails about gaining access to the backyard to verify complaint made and there was no response. I then went to neighboring properties since there was no response about verifying complaint." [E1.5] That sentence explains where the pictures were taken from; it does not explain why the pictures, once taken, went unsent and undescribed in every reply linked here. A meeting was then offered: on 04/17/2023 Paul Lovato wrote "Yes, Lets set up a time to meet onsite. I am Monday - Friday. 8:00am - 2:00 pm" [E1.7], a time was set [E1.9], and on 04/26/2023 he wrote "I arrived onsite that was arranged. I knocked at the door twice and there was no answer." [E1.10] Access was offered from the owner's side too, on 04/14/2023: at 8:00 AM the representative wrote that access to the backyard could be arranged [E1.4], and at 2:50 PM that he could meet at the property and let the inspector into the backyard [E1.6]. What the correspondence asked for was what the violation concerned [E1.4], what the inspector had seen [E1.6], and what the inspection was for [E1.8]. The file itself reached the owner through the September–November 2025 records production [R.25-3549], and the case file the City released in May 2026 [R.26-1965.2] contains no page showing the photographs, or any description of what they showed, going to the owner; the City's written completeness determinations [Card 4] are its own measure of that file.

The City's third available answer is that the work was named on 04/04/2023, when the inspector emailed the complaint — the representative's reply recalls "an alleged addition to the garage being built and a wood chipper being used" [E1.4], and the case file [R.26-1965.2] logs the email with the note "Whether work is going on, or not, I need to verify" [R.26-1965.2]. That email relayed a neighbor's allegation; it went out before the 04/10/2023 inspection and before any picture was taken, and neither the 04/14/2023 reply [E1.5] nor any [E1.7] later [E1.9] one [E1.10] says the pictures showed that addition.

What would defeat this card is a page showing the photographs, or a description of what they showed, sent to the owner; the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] holds none. 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