The order’s two stated reasons — “lack of contact” and an “HDB permit” — do not rest on documented inspection findings, and the “lack of contact” recital sits in tension with the City’s own 04/04 email exchange.
A city can’t order a building fixed and start charging fees on reasons it can’t back up with its own paperwork. SCC §8.100.720(A)(2) HSC §17980(c)(1) Here the inspector wrote that he issued the order for two reasons: that the owner never made contact, and that the owner failed to get an “HDB permit.” M024 But the city’s own activity log shows the owner’s representative emailed days earlier and the inspector emailed back M024 E.2 — so contact is right there in the file. And “HDB” is the name of the city division that handles housing and dangerous buildings, not a kind of permit a person can apply for; HDB Division the city’s own permit records for this property list ordinary “minor / housing” permits, never an “HDB permit.” D.2 When the owner’s representative wrote three separate times asking exactly what work or permit was at issue, S.1 S.2 S.3 the produced records show only replies about scheduling — never a straight answer. S.4 S.5 That gap only became visible after the owner’s side pushed the city, through public-records requests, to hand over the full activity log and the email thread, which put the “no contact” claim and the reply side by side on the same page. R.25-3549 R.26-1549
Bottom line: the order rests on two stated reasons — no contact and a missing “HDB permit” — and the city’s own records show contact did happen and no such permit exists, with no specific answer ever given to the owner who asked three times.The Case Activity Log entry that records issuance gives two reasons in one sentence: “Due to lack of contact from the Owner and failure to obtain an HDB permit I issued the Notice and Order.” M024 The same log records an inbound email and the inspector’s own reply seven days earlier M024 E.2. The City’s permit framework contains no classification called an “HDB permit” HDB Division D.2. When the owner’s representative asked in writing for the factual basis three times across eleven days, the produced file shows no property-specific answer. S.1 S.2 S.3
A city cannot order a building fixed and begin charging fees on reasons it cannot support with its own paperwork. The order’s own authority — Chapter 8.96 and/or Chapter 8.100 M124 — and SCC §8.100.720(A)(2) together require an enforcement 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.” Property-specific conditions are the predicate of the enforcement. On the City’s own record, neither stated reason is supported, and the specificity the code requires was never provided. M125
The same Case Activity Log, dated 04/04/2023 — seven days before the order — records an inbound email and the inspector’s reply: “I replied back to e-mail stating…” M024 The email he replied to named owner Jackie Baritell, copied her, stated she “has a plethora of personal and medical issues that are occupying her at the moment,” and asked the City to relay through email and keep her copied. E.2 The file thus records the City’s own reply to inbound contact on 04/04, and an order reciting “lack of contact from the Owner” issued 04/11. M024
The same log’s 04/07/2023 entry — “Since there was no reply back to e-mail, I contacted the complaining party” M024 — records that the owner side did not further reply to the 04/04 outbound; but the contact defect is independent of whether the owner sent a further reply. The City replied to a designated owner channel on 04/04 (a two-way exchange the file preserves), yet recited “lack of contact from the Owner” on 04/11. The 04/04 reply is also preserved as a standalone exhibit. E.2
“HDB” denotes the City’s Housing and Dangerous Buildings division HDB Division — in the City’s own usage a fee and monitoring label, not a permit class. Sacramento permits issue as Title 15 building/electrical/plumbing/mechanical permits and, in the City’s own permit records for this property, as “Residential Housing-Minor / HSG#” permits D.2; there is no “HDB permit” classification. The served Correction List recites only the generic “Permits Required” category under SCC §8.100.190 M125 and names no structure, work item, or permit.
On 04/14/2023 at 8:00 AM, the representative sent the first written request for the factual basis of the alleged violations: “Request for Clarification Regarding Inspection and Alleged Violations.” S.1 At 2:50 PM the same day, the second request challenged the order for “not pointing out what ‘work performed’ is.” S.2 On 04/25/2023, a third written request asked for “Appointment and Inspection Details.” S.3 The inspector’s scheduling replies, preserved in the produced thread, confirm the 04/26/2023 inspection time without naming any structure, work item, location, or code section. S.4 S.5 The produced file contains no property-specific response and no amended Correction List before the arranged 04/26/2023 inspection.
The order’s own authority — Chapter 8.96 and/or Chapter 8.100 M124 — and SCC §8.100.720(A)(2) together require an enforcement 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 served Correction List names a generic permit code and “Other” M125 — no specific work item, no structure, no permit. Property-specific conditions are the predicate of the enforcement, and the three written demands confirmed the owner did not know what those conditions were. S.1 S.2 S.3
The issuance log gives two reasons. M024 However, the City’s own 04/04 reply log records the contact that the “lack of contact” reason denies M024 E.2. The City’s own permit records for this property show “Residential Housing-Minor / HSG#” permits and no “HDB permit” D.2, and the served list names no permit at all. M125 When the owner asked three times in writing for the factual basis S.1 S.2 S.3, the produced file shows no property-specific answer. On the City’s own record, neither stated reason is supported, and the specificity the code requires was never provided. SCC §8.100.720(A)(2) HSC §17980(c)(1)
The strongest realistic City response: “Lack of contact” meant lack of the owner’s own contact; “HDB permit” was shorthand the owner could clarify by asking. The answer fails on its own terms. The 04/04 reply in the City’s own log is to the owner’s representative writing on the owner’s behalf and copying the owner M024 E.2; the order recites “lack of contact from the Owner” against that record. M024 And when the owner asked three times for the specific permit and basis S.1 S.2 S.3, the produced file shows no property-specific answer — the shorthand was never resolved into a real, named permit on the City’s own record. Card 47
