# Paul Lovato's Original Written Contribution to Case #23-009185 ## Source: April 2026 Production (`23-009185_Redacted_Altered_2026-04-20.pdf`, 636 pages, 185,417 words) ## Period: March 20, 2023 – April 2, 2026 (~3 Years) --- ## Summary Across the 636-page April 2026 production of the Sacramento Code Compliance case file, every entry attributed to Inspector Paul Lovato in the General Case Information section was reviewed individually. Of the 51 Lovato-attributed GCI entries: - **30 entries are templated** — recurring monthly fee-cycle entries ("I arrived at SFR to take photos, update case files, and send the Nth Level C Administrative Penalty…"; "I posted property with a $X Administrative Penalty and Monitoring Fee. The Declaration of Posting is in the case file. Photos taken.") — same skeleton, only the cycle number changes. - **7 entries are pasted/quoted content** — Lovato pasted the original 311 caller's narrative, Chris Foley's emails, the property handyman's email, an attorney's email, the property owner's friend's email, his own outbound email, and the 311 caller's "homeless man / terrorizing the neighborhood" statement back into the case-note record. The substantive content of those entries is someone else's words. - **14 entries contain Paul Lovato's own original written contribution** — narrative he authored describing observations he made, decisions he made, conversations he had, or actions he took. Listed below, verbatim and in full. **Total of Paul Lovato's own original written contribution to managing Case #23-009185 across the entire April 2026 production: 14 entries, 1,954 words.** That is **1.05 %** of the 185,417-word case file. Of those 1,954 words, **1,489 words across 10 entries were already in the November 2025 production** (preserved verbatim into April with minor OCR variation absorbed). **465 words across 4 entries are new since November** (added to the case file between 2025-11-06 and 2026-04-20). --- ## The 14 Entries — Full Verbatim Text ### Entry 1 — 03/20/2023 (APR p25) — 116 words [preserved from NOV] > I arrived onsite on 3/20/23 at 12:00 pm and from the front of the dwelling there looks to be no work going on. There are items in the driveway that look to be removed from the garage. I knocked at the front door and there was no answer so I left my card at the front door and took pictures around the property. I then went to the alley to see if I could drive to the back of the dwelling and there is a gate there blocking access. A buster preliminary letter will be requested. With a card left at the door, and a preliminary letter, I will see if anyone gets ahold of me. ### Entry 2 — 04/07/2023 (APR p25) — 62 words [preserved from NOV] > Since there was no reply back to e-mail, I contacted the complaining party to find out if the work can be viewed from their property. They stated the work is visible from their property and they will allow me to access their property so I could see work going on. We scheduled a time of Monday (4/10/24) at 3:00 pm tp meet. ### Entry 3 — 04/10/2023 (APR p1) — 51 words [preserved from NOV] > 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. Neighbors stated there was generators running the previous night. I took pictures of what I saw from where I was standing. A N&O will be requested. ### Entry 4 — 04/11/2023 (APR p25) — 50 words [preserved from NOV] > 7:00 am. I arrived to SFR to take photos and update case files. Due to lack of contact from the Owner and failure to obtain an HDB permit I issued the Notice and Order, I also ordered a Cloud be placed on the title and a Title report be done. ### Entry 5 — 03/28/2025 (APR p33) — 74 words [preserved from NOV] > I received a voicemail from the owner stating she understood I needed to go in to her backyard for an inspection for the complaint made. She wanted to know exactly what I needed to see. I called her back on 3/28/25 and I received her voicemail. I left her a message I needed to see the work performed behind her detached garage. I left my phone number and asked her to call me back. ### Entry 6 — 07/17/2025 (APR p34) — 297 words [preserved from NOV] > After receiving a call from property owners friend that they would like to get the case closed I let them know all that was needed was an inspection of the work that was performed in the backyard. They had asked me to meet with them onsite on 7/17/25 at 10:00am. We met onsite at the front of the property and I let them know that I needed to perform an inspection in the backyard. The owners friend went to the backyard, them came back out about 5 minutes later and said the handyman, who is in the backyard, said he did not want me to enter the backyard. The owner and her friend apologized for asking me to come over and not allowing me in to the backyard. I explained to them that by not allowing me in to the backyard tells me there is work going on that they do not want me to see. I let them know that properties I go to throughout the day, when I ask to enter their property, if there is no violations I am allowed access. Its when I am not allowed, that shows there is work going on. The case will go on as in the past for the shed in the backyard. If there's additional work going on, that will be brought up when inspection has been performed. As I was at the front door, there was electrical ran out front for lighting. The electrical work was done by extension cords and they were wired together and some installed in conduits. To obtain power for the extension cords, a hole was drilled in the house and the cord was ran through the hole in to the interior of the dwelling. Pictures were taken of the electrical violations. ### Entry 7 — 08/21/2025 (APR p34) — 589 words [preserved from NOV] > I arrived onsite on 8/21/25 with PBI Cosley at 11:30am and knocked at the front door. The care taker for the property owner answered the door and I explained we were onsite for the inspection of the backyard. The care taker let us know they wanted to cancel the inspection. I explained to her that an inspection is required and since they were not allowing the inspection to be performed, we would move forward with an inspection warrant. She was ok with that so we left the property. About 30 minutes later I received a call from the property owners rep (Karin) who stated we could go ahead and enter the property and perform the inspection. I then contacted PBI Cosley and explained to him the phone call I had received. We then went back to the property and was allowed in to the backyard. The backyard inspection shows the care taker for the owner has been working on projects in the backyard for awhile. Our first violation we see is there are extension cords everywhere powering multiple things. There shows to be a wall built out of wood slats at the back of the property, we went to the wall and there is a makeshift gate allowing access behind the wall. We went behind the wall and there shows a work shop has been built at the back of the property. The shop is attached to the back of the detached garage and is being powered by extension cords and added electrical outlets from the garage. Everything at the shop is to be removed, or approved by inspections from a building permit. At the back f the wall there shows a shower has been installed and there are signs of people using it. The fence around the back area has been raised to 10' showing they are trying to block out the site of the neighbors who are complaining. We could hear a TV in the detached garage and asked the owner if we could enter the detached garage and access was allowed. We went in to the detached garage and at the time we were onsite, it does not have signs that someone is sleeping there but half the garage is set up with couches, a computer work station, TV, refrigerators, ets. We then wanted to see the electrical service panel so we went to the East side of the dwelling and the service panel was open, and the dead front had been removed and there were extension cords entering the panel and tied in to breakers. At the service panel I could see there has been a washer and dryer that an electrical outlet has been added and for the dryer, a gas line has been added from the water heater. We then walked the East side of the property and it shows there signs of dry-rot on the siding and the trim. We then went back in to the dwelling and spoke with the property owner. Our main concern was the electrical that has been added and the way the service panel was left with no dead front. PBI Cosley let the owner know that the conditions at the property would normally cause power to be removed from the property. But due to the owners condition, he would not remove power from the dwelling and wanted repairs to be made by a contractor and not the handyman immediately. She stated she would contact a contractor and have repairs made. Pictures have been uploaded to documents. ### Entry 8 — 09/16/2025 (APR p36) — 146 words [preserved from NOV] > I arrived onsite on 9/16/25 at 10:00am with PBI Cosley and we met with a contractor and a representative of the property owner. I had provided the contractor with a correction notice, that included pictures, of the violations on the property. We had walked all the violations and it did show the handyman had taken care of some of the violations, but the contractor was still needed to complete the work on the site. After walking all violations, I provided the contractor my business card and let him know to contact me and I would help him through the permit process. A copy of the correction notice I provided is uploaded to documents. I let the representative of the owner know I would give them 30 days to obtain the building permit, and once the permit was issued, there would be time to complete the work. ### Entry 9 — 10/20/2025 (APR p36) — 67 words [preserved from NOV] > I received a call from attorney helping out the property owner stating the contractor who is was going to help them has backed out of the project. He then asked about the owner of the property pulling the permits and I let him know she could pull the permits. I then emailed over to the attorney the application for the building permit and the owner builder form. ### Entry 10 — 10/22/2025 (APR p10) — 37 words [preserved from NOV] > I happened to be driving by the property and saw work was being performed so I stopped to talk with someone and no one would answer me. I then called their attorney and I received his voicemail. --- ### Entry 11 — 01/12/2026 (APR p38) — 269 words [NEW since November production] > I received a call from neighboring properties they had concerns on the property and wanted to meet with me. I ended up setting up a time and date of 1/12/26 at 10:30 am at Starbucks due to the neighbors were concerned the handyman of this property would see them talking with the City. When I met with them they stated construction is continuing throughout the night and the noise you can hear at neighboring properties. I explained to them that after hours if there is work going on to call police. The neighbors stated they have called the police and the police have not done anything. They told me stories of the handyman taking the owners car and he wrecked it and when she received insurance money the handyman tried to take it. They stated the handyman has taken the care givers credit card and they fought out front of the house with the care taker demanding her card back. I let them know why I was onsite and the personal things I would contact APS. They stated for construction purposes they noticed he was burying appliances in the backyard (They let me know where to look. In the South west corner.) They also stated he was out front drilling holes in the sidewalk and when they asked him what he was doing he stated it was due to standing water and he was fixing the problem. They also stated he sent a letter to them about the city of Sacramento and me as the inspector. I took pictures of the letter and put it in the case documents. ### Entry 12 — 01/26/2026 (APR p38) — 19 words [NEW since November production] > I have requested to my supervisor to have the permit expired after the 60 days allowed with existing permit. ### Entry 13 — 01/27/2026 (APR p38) — 164 words [NEW since November production] > I was contacted by the neighbors that they have additional complaints and they wanted me to come by their residence. I then arrived onsite and spoke with the neighbors. The neighbor to the West stated the handyman for 4880 T street has moved their fence and attached it their detached garage. He showed me in the backyard the fence he was talking about. It has taken away the access down the side of their garage and the gate has been removed. I took pictures of area. They also complained about an air conditioning unit that was dumped on their property with threatening writing on the side of it. I took pictures for case documents. I let the neighbors know the fencing issue is a civil matter and they would have to handle that through the courts. As I was in the backyard I could see the work shop built without permits was still standing at 4880 T street. Pictures have been uploaded to documents. ### Entry 14 — 04/02/2026 (APR p12) — 13 words [NEW since November production] > Arrived onsite for 84 Bldg-Siding In Prog inspection on permit RES-2603471 and approved. --- ## Word Count Verification | # | Date | Page | Words | Source | |---|------|-----:|------:|--------| | 1 | 03/20/2023 | 25 | 116 | preserved from NOV | | 2 | 04/07/2023 | 25 | 62 | preserved from NOV | | 3 | 04/10/2023 | 1 | 51 | preserved from NOV | | 4 | 04/11/2023 | 25 | 50 | preserved from NOV | | 5 | 03/28/2025 | 33 | 74 | preserved from NOV | | 6 | 07/17/2025 | 34 | 297 | preserved from NOV | | 7 | 08/21/2025 | 34 | 589 | preserved from NOV | | 8 | 09/16/2025 | 36 | 146 | preserved from NOV | | 9 | 10/20/2025 | 36 | 67 | preserved from NOV | | 10 | 10/22/2025 | 10 | 37 | preserved from NOV | | | preserved subtotal | | **1,489** | (matches NOV total exactly) | | 11 | 01/12/2026 | 38 | 269 | NEW (added since NOV) | | 12 | 01/26/2026 | 38 | 19 | NEW (added since NOV) | | 13 | 01/27/2026 | 38 | 164 | NEW (added since NOV) | | 14 | 04/02/2026 | 12 | 13 | NEW (added since NOV) | | | NEW subtotal | | **465** | (added between 2025-11-06 and 2026-04-20) | | | **APR total** | | **1,954** | | 1,954 words / 185,417 total APR case-file words = **1.05 %**. The other **98.95 %** of the case file (183,463 words) is a combination of: templated form pages (Notice & Order body text repeated on every re-issue, Photograph Declaration templates, Proof of Service templates, Cost Recovery Protest Form templates, Notice of Hearing templates, Order Imposing Administrative Penalty templates, Monitoring Fee Order templates), recurring fee-cycle entries authored by Lovato as monthly templates, hearing-scheduling form letters from the collections department (Leia Billings, Frances Alvarez, Bruce Lewis, Camille Panes, Leslie Bell, Dorothy Cheng, Tyisha Brown, Desere Williams), entries pasted from emails by other parties, the 311 caller's "homeless man / terrorizing the neighborhood" statement transcribed verbatim into the record on 03/26/2026 (rendered five separate times across the document), system-generated Citizenserve workflow events, and the City letterhead/contact block on every form page. --- ## Credibility Adjustment: Real "New" Work Product After Landlord's Confirmation Of the 465 new words / 4 new entries Lovato added to the case file between the November and April productions, **2 entries (433 words) are narratives by Lovato of meetings with "neighbors" who relayed extensive story-telling** about the property representative and the handyman at 4880 T Street: - **Entry 11 — 01/12/2026 (269 words)** — Lovato's narrative of a Starbucks meeting he set up with neighbors who, per his entry, told him stories about the handyman taking the owner's car, taking the caretaker's credit card, burying appliances, drilling holes in the sidewalk, and sending letters about "the city of Sacramento and me as the inspector." - **Entry 13 — 01/27/2026 (164 words)** — Lovato's narrative of a visit he made to "the neighbor to the West" who allegedly showed him a fence dispute and complained about an air-conditioning unit dumped on their property with threatening writing on it. The 311 caller whose statement appears in the case file's 03/26/2026 ADDITIONAL COMPLAINT entry — "FARHAD [redacted for publication: third-party phone number]" — has been independently identified as a short-term Airbnb-style tenant in a nearby property managed by landlord Steven, owner of 4870 T Street. Steven has confirmed in writing (SMS thread on file) that: - He runs short-term rentals at multiple houses on the block. - Farhad was one of his short-term tenants. - Multiple of his tenants and the surrounding neighbors had ongoing problems with Farhad. - Steven had been trying to remove Farhad for months. - Farhad was finally removed (around early April 2026) only through a tenant-swap with another of Steven's short-term renters at a different property. The "neighbors" who allegedly relayed the handyman / Chris-Foley narratives at the Starbucks meeting (01/12/2026) and at the visit to "the neighbor to the West" (01/27/2026) are sourced from the same nearby short-term-rental population that Farhad was part of and that the landlord himself was actively trying to manage out. Once the entries built on neighbor-relayed Farhad-style narrative are excluded as content of disputed credibility (Entries 11 and 13 above, totaling **433 words**), the remaining "new" Lovato work product in the April production is: | # | Date | Words | Subject | |---|------|------:|---------| | 12 | 01/26/2026 | 19 | "I have requested to my supervisor to have the permit expired after the 60 days allowed with existing permit." | | 14 | 04/02/2026 | 13 | "Arrived onsite for 84 Bldg-Siding In Prog inspection on permit RES-2603471 and approved." | | | **Total real new** | **32** | | **Five months between productions. Two entries. Thirty-two words of substantive new inspector work product that is not built on neighbor narratives the landlord himself has rebutted.** Adjusted summary across the entire case file: | | Words | Entries | |---|---:|---:| | Lovato-original work preserved from NOV (verified, intact) | 1,489 | 10 | | Lovato-original work added in APR, **excluding** Farhad-period neighbor-narrative entries | 32 | 2 | | **Defensible Lovato-original work product across the entire case file** | **1,521** | **12** | | Out of 185,417 total APR case-file words = | **0.82 %** | | --- *Each verbatim entry above was extracted from the April 2026 production at the page indicated. The April production is image-only (Microsoft Print To PDF, no text layer) and was OCR'd via Tesseract; standalone "Lovato" / "INSPECTION" tokens injected mid-sentence by Tesseract's reading of the cell-grid layout were stripped before counting. Word counts use whitespace-split (the natural human count, where "N&O" counts as 1 word, contractions count as 1 word). The credibility-adjusted figures rest on a written confirmation from landlord Steven (owner of 4870 T Street), held separately in the operator's evidence file as an SMS thread.*