Housing Code Appeals Board upholds city charges for two properties, waives termination fee in one case

The Sacramento Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board on Jan. 14 confirmed city recovery of enforcement costs for two properties while trimming or waiving portions of the charges and advising property owners to keep contact information current.

Paul Lovato, a city building inspector, told the board that work to repair a second-floor deck and replace stairs at 3108 2nd Avenue prompted a notice and order issued after an inspector visit in June 2025; staff’s itemized costs for that notice and order totaled $1,737.50. The appellant, identified in the hearing as Mr. Navarro, said the property owner had spent roughly $20,000 bringing the structure up to code, and said notices went to an old business address rather than the owner’s current address, delaying response.

Board members questioned whether work began before permits were final. Peter Lemos, chief of code and housing enforcement, replied that the listed figure is the administrative fee for the notice and order—“not a penalty”—and that actual penalties, if assessed, would be set separately by city council and could be much larger. After discussion, a board motion to confirm a reduced total charge was carried. Chair Brandon Fisher announced the board found the city’s fees “reasonable and justified” and the appellant will receive a mailed decision; the board reminded parties to update property contact information.

The board also considered two related items for 3112 Marysville Boulevard, filed to the Hart Family Trust. Lovato said police asked that the property be secured after occupants were removed; contractor Grama Construction installed a deadbolt. Staff listed a securement fee of $626.33 and a termination fee of $190 (a county recording/release charge for the title cloud), for a combined $816.33. Rick Hart, who said he is not the current owner but filed the appeal, argued the city improperly recorded the title cloud after the property had been sold and disputed whether the securement was necessary. He said $626 was paid through escrow and supplied a canceled check.

Board members and staff explained that contractors secure properties at police request and that the city places a cloud on title whenever code-enforcement actions occur; Lemos said the $190 termination fee covers county costs to record and release the notice. The board voted to confirm the $626.33 securement charge and to waive the $190 termination fee. The board will mail written notices of each decision.

Separately, the board adopted staff recommendations for a list of routine enforcement lines presented as Item 5. Members agreed to postpone election of chair and vice chair to the next meeting. Lemos told the board to expect a briefing on a forthcoming “tech fee” that would appear in future appeals.

The board meeting record notes that decisions will be forwarded to city council for final determination of code-process compliance; the board’s role is to verify that the city followed the code and council-approved fee structure. The board adjourned following the scheduled items.