At an "arranged" visit the inspector spent about 38 seconds on the porch, placed no call, logged nothing, and announced a response fee while the owner's scope question went unanswered.
A city inspector assessed a "response fee" against a property following an arranged visit that lasted less than three minutes and left no record in the city’s official case log. Before the visit, the owner’s representative had asked for the specific scope of the inspection and offered to meet the inspector on-site, but these questions went unanswered. Security cameras show the inspector spent a total of approximately 38 seconds on the front porch across two brief approaches and did not attempt to call the representative. The inspector then sent an email announcing the fee, yet the city’s produced case file contains no activity entry for that date and no code section authorizing such a fee for this conduct. Camera footage shows the occupant reached the front door 22 minutes after the inspector had already departed, confirming the brief visit was too short to reach the residents.
Before the visit, the owner's representative emailed inspector Paul Lovato S.2 asking him to state what he intended to inspect — "you are making this difficult by not pointing out what 'work performed' is regarding this issue … mentioning what work you saw that warrants this inspection would go a long way" — offered to meet at the property and let him into the backyard, and noted that the owner was in the hospital S.2. Lovato already had an open email channel to the representative from earlier in the month E.2.
The visit occurred April 26, 2023, and Lovato's own email calls it "arranged" S.9. Two property cameras captured it end to end: he reached the porch at 12:58:22, was off the steps by 12:58:29, the porch sat empty, he returned at 12:59:55, was off again by 13:00:00, was tracked across the driveway through 13:00:47, and was off the property by 13:01:14 CCTV.1 — about two minutes fifty-two seconds on property, about 38 seconds on the porch across two approaches, with no phone call. He then emailed: "A response fee will be assessed to the property" S.9, without answering the scope question. The case file the City produced and closed as complete R.25-3549 R.26-1549 contains no activity-log entry for that day M002 and no code section or noticed fee schedule tying a "response fee" to this conduct in the produced file SCC § 8(96) SCC § 8(100).
A city inspector set up a visit to a house where the owner's representative had asked in writing — before the visit — what the inspector intended to inspect, offering to meet and open the backyard. The inspector arrived at the arranged visit, knocked twice, announced himself in the driveway, and was gone inside three minutes. The property's own security cameras clock him on the porch for about 38 seconds across two brief approaches, with no phone call placed CCTV.1. He then emailed that the property would be charged a "response fee" S.9. The same cameras record the occupant first reaching the front door twenty-two minutes after Lovato left — about 38 seconds of knocking was never going to reach her CCTV.2. When the records were pulled through public-records requests R.25-3549 R.26-1549, the City's produced case file contained no log entry for that day at all M002 and nothing in the produced file tying a "response fee" to any code section or posted fee schedule SCC § 8(96) SCC § 8(100). The scope question the representative had asked before the visit was never answered.
The representative emailed Lovato that communicating the matter to a hospitalized owner "without specifics is extremely stressful on her health," asked him to identify what "work performed" the inspection concerned, and offered to meet at the property and let him into the backyard S.2. The scope question was a precondition the City never answered in writing.
Lovato came April 26, 2023 — a visit his own email calls "arranged" S.9. Burned-in timestamps: first porch approach 12:58:22; off the steps 12:58:29; porch empty 12:58:55; second approach 12:59:55; off the steps 13:00:00; tracked across the driveway 13:00:31 through 13:00:47; off property 13:01:14 CCTV.1 V.3 — about two minutes fifty-two seconds on property, about 38 seconds on the porch across two approaches, no phone call placed.
The same cameras the same afternoon record her first reaching the front door at 13:23:15 CCTV.2 — about 22 minutes after Lovato left, and about 24 minutes 53 seconds after his first knock. Two brief porch approaches totaling about 38 seconds, with no call, could not have reached an occupant whose own recorded pace — first reaching the door about 22 minutes after Lovato left — is in the same CCTV record.
Lovato's same-day email states he knocked and announced himself and that "A response fee will be assessed to the property," without answering the scope question S.9. The produced case file contains no activity-log entry for the visit M002, and the produced file cites no code section or noticed fee schedule as authority for this fee SCC § 8(96) SCC § 8(100).
What the City's own record shows — receipts:
- The scope request and the offer to meet S.2: > "You are making this difficult by not pointing out what 'work performed' is regarding this issue. Trying to communicate this to Jackie without specifics is extremely stressful on her health and our relationship. Why don't you come over … I can meet you at the property and let you onto the backyard. And mentioning what work you saw that warrants this inspection would go a long way."
- The earlier email contact channel, before the visit (subject "Notice left at 4880 T st.") E.2.
- Lovato's April 26, 2023 email — the City's only record of the visit S.9: > "Chris, I arrived onsite that was arranged. I knocked at the door twice and there was no answer. I announced myself in the driveway twice in case you were in the backyard. A response fee will be assessed to the property."
- The two-camera CCTV record: Lovato's visit, 12:58:22 → 13:01:14 CCTV.1; the occupant's response, 13:23:15 → 13:32:01 CCTV.2.
- The produced, closed-as-complete case file R.25-3549 R.26-1549 contains no April 26, 2023 activity-log entry M002 and no fee-authority record in the produced file SCC § 8(96) SCC § 8(100).
Three productions are required to answer this card.
The representative asked, before the visit, what the inspector intended to inspect and offered to meet and let him into the backyard S.2; the inspector came to the "arranged" visit, spent about 38 seconds on the porch across two brief approaches and under three minutes on the property, placed no call, left long before the occupant could reach the door CCTV.1 CCTV.2, recorded nothing in the case log M002, and announced a response fee S.9 — the scope question still unanswered. Lovato's own email, the two-camera CCTV record, and the City's empty log for that day are the receipts — together they convert a cooperative appointment into a billed non-event.
Anticipated City defense: the visit was arranged, the inspector knocked and announced himself, no one answered within a reasonable time, and a response fee for a missed inspection is a routine administrative charge; the scope of a code inspection is set by the Notice and Order, not by a pre-visit email.
Answer: an "arranged" visit cuts both ways — the inspector knew he was expected. Two porch approaches totaling about 38 seconds, separated by a minute during which the porch was empty, with no phone call placed and no log entry recorded, is not a reasonable attempt to reach an occupant the cameras show needed about 22 minutes to reach the door CCTV.1 CCTV.2. The fee-authority point is the City's to carry: its produced, closed-as-complete file contains no code section or noticed fee schedule tying a "response fee" to this conduct and no contemporaneous log of the visit at all M002 SCC § 8(96) SCC § 8(100). And the scope question matters because the representative's written request and the inspector's non-answer are the documented record of an owner's side trying to cooperate — the same posture as the "lack of contact" order in C05 and the absence of any interior inspection in C02.
The production-completeness point for the missing response-fee authority is anchored in GC § 7920.000. ---