Board mostly upholds city enforcement; several fees reduced or confirmed

At its May 13 meeting the Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board confirmed a series of code-enforcement notices and related charges and in some cases reduced billed amounts.

Votes at a glance: the board confirmed staff recommendations in most contested fee-review items, with a few reductions: - 4124 T Street (case 25-041319): Board found code violations and ordered permits or demolition within 60 days (see separate coverage). - 4455 71st Street (case 24-004168): Board reduced total charges from $635.40 to $445.40 after discussion about fence rental invoicing and escrow timing. - 6975 Mesa Grande Court (case 2547998): Board confirmed total charge of $1,468.80 for costs associated with a hazardous water heater and subsequent securement/administrative work. - 4561 10th Avenue (cases 25-035583): Board reduced the notice-and-order/cloud/title invoice by $500 (reduced to $1,097.50) and confirmed monitoring/technology fees ($410.40) after finding the owner had attempted to add a property-manager contact but the change post-dated notices. - 3439 23rd Street (cases 25-042313): Board confirmed charges totaling $1,597.50 for unpermitted remodeling work and an additional monitoring/technology invoice of $410.40. - 4301 Marysville Boulevard (case 25-005987): Board confirmed costs of $1,725.30 tied to unlawful occupied makeshift structures with illegal electrical/plumbing service connections.

Board members repeatedly told appellants that the panel's authority is to apply Sacramento City Code and that constitutional claims (for example due-process arguments about notice) are matters for the courts. Inspectors explained that many enforcement actions started after complaints or safety reports (for example, PG&E identifying carbon monoxide at one property), and that the city's remedies can include repair, securing or demolition by the city and placing a lien or special assessment for costs.

Several board members encouraged owners to work with building inspectors to seek permits when possible, noting that pulling a permit typically pauses enforcement timelines and provides a path to legalize work. Appellants who wish to contest constitutional or other legal claims were advised to seek judicial review.

The board's written decisions will be mailed to the parties and, where applicable, forwarded to City Council for confirmation that the hearing complied with city code.

Sources: testimony and documents presented at the May 13, 2026 Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board hearing (agenda items 2 —1).