On 09/16/2025, in the City's own voices on the property's own audio, the Principal Building Inspector told the owner's contractor the City did not want a permit pulled on the rear workshop - with the inspector of record present and jointly measuring the structure at the permit-exempt threshold - while the same-day walkthrough set a 30-day permit deadline and the same Principal Building Inspector said on tape "you gotta get a permit anyway," yet the City never named the permit category in any served or amended Notice and Order.
The City failed to name the specific permit category required for the property in any formal order for over two years, while officials gave contradictory verbal instructions on the site. During a recorded 2025 inspection, the Principal Building Inspector told the owner’s contractor that the City did not actually want a permit pulled and agreed the structure was likely small enough to be exempt from one. On the same recording, the inspector admitted he had previously told the owner to start electrical work without a permit, yet the City later reversed its position by demanding a "minimal permit" over the phone through an attorney. Because the City never issued an updated formal notice to carry these changing demands onto the official record, the owner was deprived of a specific written requirement and the legal right to appeal it.
On 09/16/2025, Principal Building Inspector Bo Cosley and the inspector of record Paul Lovato walked 4880 T Street with the owner's licensed contractor Arthur Popov and the property representative M036. On the property's own audio that morning, Cosley told the contractor that pulling a permit on the rear workshop is something the City does not want ("Or, get a permit. We don't want that"), that the City had already let prior work proceed ("I said go ahead and start the work and do it"), that stripped of its electrical and plumbing the structure "is probably gonna be 120, so I don't care about it," and that a roof member "is going to fall… [h]opefully he's not under it… [a]ll we can do is point it out" V.3. The same walkthrough set a 30-day deadline to "obtain the building permit" but named no permit category M036. The permit was later specified off-record by phone and relayed through attorney Mark Saakian; the contractor then refused to file it and walked off E.5 C32. No amended or supplemental Notice and Order appears anywhere in the produced record.
The served 04/12/2023 Notice and Order named no permit category - only the generic B59 "Permits Required" code on the Correction List M124 M125. The representative's three written demands for specifics drew no permit category in writing C07. For thirty months, administrative penalty orders citing the SCC § 1.28.010 catch-all accrued M025–M034 C12. Then the City's own voices on tape contradicted themselves in four distinct ways - and the off-record phone specification that followed never produced an amended order to carry the new position onto the served record E.6.
The City can enforce only the order it served. The served order never named what permit was required. The City acknowledged on tape that it told the owner's representative to go ahead and start the electrical work without one. The structure was jointly measured by both inspectors at the permit-exempt threshold on the same recording. The City said on tape it had a safety concern about a falling roof member - then stated that all it could do was point it out. The phone-specified "minimal permit" that followed this walkthrough was never entered into an amended order with appeal rights attached, which is what SCC § 8.100.720, SCC § 8.96.130, and HSC § 17980(c)(1) all require when a noticed condition is revised or a new requirement is added.
The served Notice and Order M124 and Correction List M125 cited only the B59 "Permits Required" code under SCC § 8.100.190; the representative's three written demands for specifics drew no permit category in writing C07. Lovato's 04/11/2023 internal case log named "failure to obtain an HDB permit" - a characterization never carried to the served record M024 C07. Across the following thirty months, administrative penalty orders signed by Bo Cosley cited the SCC § 1.28.010 D3(c2ii) catch-all rather than entering a permit-required finding for any specific work item M025–M034 C12. The formal record's permit posture toward the listed work was silence.
With the licensed contractor and property representative present, on the property's own recording, the City's own officers stated V.3: - *The permit question - "Or, get a permit. We don't want that."* - clip 01. - *The electrical authorization - "you gotta get a permit anyway because we let them do the electrical to some extent. I told her she's gonna get a head start on the electrical… I said go ahead and start the work and do it - but that work's gonna have to go on the permit once she gets somebody in place… then it becomes legal."* - clip 02. (Transcript per V.3 VERIFIED_bo_permit_transcript, which controls over automated whisper passes for the "she's gonna get a head start" passage.) - *The permit-threshold measurement - "the electrical and plumbing, if you got rid of it, this is probably gonna be 120, so I don't care about it."* - clip 03. Two inspectors together. - *The structural disclaimer - "this piece of wood right here that's holding up that roof… this is going to fall… See the deflection already?… I can tell you right now, this is going to fall. Hopefully he's not under it… All we can do is point it out… otherwise they're gonna be responsible for anything."* - clip 04. (Note: clip 01's machine transcript fragment "over 120" is an auto-transcript artifact and is not relied on; only the clean line "We don't want that" is quoted.)
The same walkthrough also set a 30-day deadline to "obtain the building permit" but named no permit category M036. The four statements above do not appear anywhere in Lovato's 09/16/2025 case note - which records only the walkthrough, a correction notice given to the contractor, and the 30-day permit window M036.
In October 2025, attorney Saakian relayed the City's position after a phone call that morning E.5: "[o]nce the violations are reported, a permit is needed… I understand that most issues are no longer there… coordinate the minimal permit" (10/16/2025). Seven days later Lovato added a pre-installation inspection requirement and a siding-style condition through the same channel M036 E.5 - neither of which appears in any served order. The contractor refused to file the "minimal permit" and walked off C32. The scope language that eventually reached the City's permit list classified the work as a routine "Residential Housing-Minor / Plans not required" permit C31.
From 04/12/2023 to the present the City issued, served, and posted nothing that amended the order to state the permit-triggering condition it began asserting on 10/16/2025. The amended-or-supplemental-notice requirement under Housing Code substandard building SCC § 8.100.720 and Dangerous Buildings SCC § 8.96.130 — enumerated in writing by the property representative at E.6 — was never met. The later permit track lives outside the procedural envelope of the order it is being enforced under.
The produced record shows the following on the points at issue: - The served 04/12/2023 Notice and Order names no permit category - only the generic B59 "Permits Required" code on the Correction List M124 M125 C03. - 09/16/2025 case note, Lovato: "we met with a contractor and a representative of the property owner… [w]e had walked all the violations… I would give them 30 days to obtain the building permit" - with no mention of the four on-tape statements above M036. - 09/16/2025, City officers on the property's audio - four verbatim clips V.3. - October 2025 reversal arrived off-record, by phone, relayed through the owner's attorney: 10/16/2025 "minimal permit" / "most issues are no longer there" relay and 10/23/2025 Lovato additions E.5. - No amended or supplemental Notice and Order appears anywhere in the produced file; no contemporaneous, pre-10/16/2025 written permit-required finding exists for any specific work item M124 M025–M034.
An amended or supplemental Notice and Order, dated between 04/12/2023 and 10/16/2025, served and posted under City Code procedure SCC § 8.100.720 SCC § 8.96.130, that named the specific permit-triggering finding the City began asserting on 10/16/2025 E.5 — or any contemporaneous, pre-10/16/2025 written City record entering a specific permit-required finding for the listed work M036 M025–M034 — would bring that later position inside the formal served record. The productions contain neither. The May 2026 case-file production R.26-1965 was closed by the City as "All responsive records have been provided"; no amended or supplemental order appears in M. Disproving this claim therefore requires the City to contradict its own "all responsive records have been provided" closure of R.25-3549 and R.26-1965 - see C47; the email-bearing completeness exemplar C48 applies to the Saakian-relayed phone-call demand E.5.
Thirty months of formal silence on any permit requirement M124 M125 M025–M034, during which administrative penalty orders accrued C12 C13. Then, on the property and in the City's own voices, the Principal Building Inspector said the City did not want a permit pulled, both inspectors jointly put the structure right at the 120-sq-ft permit-exempt threshold, said the City had already let the electrical work proceed without one, and said the structure was going to fall while disclaiming City responsibility for it V.3. Weeks later, by phone through the owner's attorney, the City specified a "minimal permit" E.5 the same-day order had never named in any category - and never issued an amended order to carry the new position onto the served record.
Either the 2023 "substandard and/or dangerous" recital was sound, in which case the same officials abandoned it when they met an actual unsafe condition; or it was unfounded, in which case the foundational document of the case is defective on its face M124. The on-tape statements and the off-record specification are the City's own; on that record, the served order stated neither the danger the inspectors described on tape nor any permit category, even after the City began naming a "minimal permit" by phone.
Anticipated City defense: The order's general "all required permits" language covers any later-identified permit-triggering condition without a separate amended order; the 09/16/2025 statements were informal walkthrough comments, not adjudicative findings; and the 10/16/2025 demand applied language already in the served order rather than expanding scope.
Answer: Generic catch-all language is exactly what the Housing Code specificity requirement SCC § 8.100.720 and HSC § 17980(c)(1) are written to prevent - a notice should state the condition the City is enforcing. The City's own conduct for thirty months treated the order as not identifying a specific permit-triggering item: no inspection report, no penalty order, and no written communication entered a permit-required finding for any specific item between 04/12/2023 and 10/15/2025 M024 M025–M034 M036; the reading needed to rescue the later demand would make the penalty orders signed in that window hard to reconcile with the current position C12. "Informal comments" is an insufficient defense when the speakers are the Principal Building Inspector and the inspector of record, on the property under official inspection, with a licensed contractor present M036 V.3. The safer conclusion is that the served record never carried the permit category or the later-added conditions, and the City should either withdraw the demand and fees tied to that scope or issue a proper amended order with appeal rights.
---