Attorney for 4124 T Street owners says notice was ineffective; board finds code violations and extends compliance to 60 days

The Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board on May 13 found that the property at 4124 T Street violated Sacramento City Code but extended the time to comply to 60 days.

Inspector Paul Lovado told the board the case opened Oct. 27, 2025 after an inspection that identified an attic converted to a bedroom accessed by a spiral staircase and multiple alleged code violations, including overcrowding, inadequate ventilation and floor support issues. Lovado said the city posted a notice and order, recorded a cloud on title and served the notice by process service on Dec. 4, 2025. Staff recommended the board adopt a decision finding the owner in violation and ordering corrective permits or demolition.

Amy Chaffen Cassoon, attorney for property owners Elizabeth Tenborg and Oscar Vasquez, urged the board to vacate the notice and the cloud on title. "This is my 'no good deed goes unpunished' case," she told the panel, describing her clients' purchase of the house in January 2025 to host family receiving care at UC Davis Medical Center. Cassoon argued certified and first-class mailings had been returned undeliverable and that the owners first learned of the posted notice on Jan. 1, 2026, after which they had no 30-day period to cure as required under Sacramento Municipal Code 15.04.060. She also said the staff report did not contain the necessary finding that the second-floor work post-dated the adoption of the city's housing code and urged the board to "grandfather" the structure as historic.

Board members pressed staff and the parties on the narrow legal question before them: whether service and notice complied with Sacramento City Code and whether the notice and order itself was supported by substantial evidence. Legal counsel to the board noted the panel's role is limited to interpreting and applying city code; constitutional remedies or broader due-process claims, the counsel said, would be for a court to decide.

Inspectors and other board members pointed to photos and permit records (or the absence of permits) as support for the city's findings. Principal building inspector Daniel Lother and others noted that evidence such as modern electrical outlets or a bathroom installation can indicate post-construction work that normally requires permits.

Rather than vacating the notice, the board voted to adopt staff's recommendation that the owners had violated chapter 8.96 and/or title 8/15 provisions of the Sacramento City Code but softened the deadline: the board ordered the owners to obtain permits to correct the dangerous conditions or demolish the structure within 60 days of the decision, instead of the standard 30 days. The motion to adopt the decision with a 60-day compliance timeframe passed with board members voting in favor (Chair Fischer recorded a yes; other voting members recorded yes votes). The board's written decision will be mailed to the parties and the case record will be forwarded to city council as part of the process.

The board and parties were explicit that the hearing did not resolve any separate legal claims about due process or state and federal constitutional issues; several board members advised the owners they could seek judicial review if they believed constitutional notice rights were violated.

What happens next: the owners must either begin permit work within the 60-day period or face city repair, securing or demolition actions and potential lien or special assessment on the property. The board's written decision will set the compliance deadlines and be sent by mail.

Sources: testimony and documents presented at the May 13, 2026 Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board hearing, Inspector Paul Lovado; attorney Amy Chaffen Cassoon.