The City charged a monitoring fee and ran an appeal window against an order that named only the placeholder codes B31 "Other" and B59 "Permits Required" — and a Correction List that said the inspection was not complete.
The City initiated a recurring monitoring fee and a 30-day appeal window based on an order that explicitly stated the inspection of the property was not yet complete. The April 12, 2023, Notice and Order packet included a Correction List that identified only two generic categories: B31 "Other" and B59 "Permits Required." Although the list admitted that neither the interior nor exterior had been fully inspected, the City immediately imposed a $305 fee for every future inspection and required a $400 payment to file an appeal. These enforcement mechanisms typically require a defined set of violations to re-inspect or contest, yet the City’s own records show the list was labeled non-final when these financial and legal deadlines began. This placeholder status remained in the case file until the owner’s representative obtained the full production of records and identified the language acknowledging the unfinished inspection.
The Correction List inside the 04/12/2023 Notice and Order packet listed two entries: B31 "Other" and B59 "8.100.190 — Permits Required" SCC § 8.100.190 M125. Its own comment field stated that this "is not a complete Violation List of building code violations," that "neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected," and that further violations "may be identified upon further inspection" M125. The same packet then activated two City functions that each need a fixed object: the cover letter imposed a $305 monitoring fee for each subsequent inspection M123, and the Order gave a 30-day window to appeal to the Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board M124. Both ran against an order whose own attached list said the inspection was unfinished and named no completed condition assessment — the B31 entry is literally "Other," and even the B59 "Permits Required" entry states only that unpermitted work "must be removed or properly Permitted," on a list the City called non-final.
When a city declares a building substandard, it is supposed to attach a list of what is actually wrong — because that list is the thing the owner pays to have re-checked and the thing the owner can argue against on appeal. Here the City's order arrived with a list that named only two generic boxes — one literally labeled "Other," the other just "a permit is required" — and the very same page said in writing that the inspection was not finished and more problems "may be identified upon further inspection." On that footing the City still started charging a $305 fee for each future inspection and started a 30-day clock to appeal, and it charged a separate $400 just to file that appeal. Both of those steps only make sense if there is a defined problem to re-inspect or to contest, and the City's own attached list said there was not one yet. This all sits in the file the City closed as complete; the specific page showing the unfinished-inspection language on the same sheet as the two placeholder codes only became clear once the owner's representative obtained the full production from the records system and read the order packet page by page.
The 04/12/2023 packet defined no completed violation assessment — the categories B31 "Other" and B59 "Permits Required" (the latter asserting only that unpermitted work must be removed or permitted), paired on the same page with the City's written statement that the inspection was not complete M125. The Order recites the duty in the abstract — the structure is "sub-standard and/or dangerous" under "Chapter 8.96 and/or Chapter 8.100" M124 C02.
The cover letter imposes a $305 fee "for each subsequent inspection related to this case" M123; the fee provision recovers re-inspections of identified conditions SCC § 8.100.720. With the list's own comment field calling it non-complete and B31 left as "Other," the only identified item (unpermitted work, B59) is itself flagged "partial" and subject to conditions that "may become apparent during further inspections."
A monitoring fee recovers re-inspections of identified conditions SCC § 8.100.720; an appeal contests the requirements of a Notice and Order M123. Both need a defined object. The 04/12/2023 order supplied only the categories B31 "Other" and B59 "Permits Required," on a Correction List its own comment field called not complete M125. So on the City's own record both functions ran against placeholder codes the list said were non-final.
Anticipated City defense: The City's strongest realistic response is that the codes are standard, and that the fee and appeal mechanisms apply to any open enforcement case regardless of how specific the violation list is.
Answer: The cover letter ties the fee to inspections "related to this case" M123 and the appeal contests "the requirements of the Notice and Order" M123; the City's own attached list states the inspection was not complete and lists only "Other" (B31) plus a generic permit-required finding the City itself labels "partial" (B59) M125. A fee that recovers re-inspections of identified conditions SCC § 8.100.720 and an appeal that contests described requirements both presuppose a defined object the order's own list withheld.
The appeal-fee authorities tied to that same undefined object are SCC § 8.96.170 and SCC § 8.100.760. ---