The April 12 Notice and Order certifies a completed inspection, but its attached Correction List says the Violation List was incomplete and the inspection was unfinished.
Before a city can order someone to repair or tear down a building and start charging fees, it has to actually inspect the building and write down what is wrong. HSC §17980(c)(1) SCC §8.100.700 SCC §8.100.720 Here the city’s order says, in print, that the building official inspected the property and determined it was substandard or dangerous. M124 But the violation list stapled to that same order says the opposite: “neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected,” and more problems “may be identified upon further inspection.” M125 That same not-yet-inspected list was simply carried over from an earlier preliminary notice. M118 The only on-site activity the file records is a look from the front, a look down the alley, and a look over the fence from a neighbor’s backyard — and the inspector’s own note about it ends by saying an order “will be requested.” M024 The city’s own appeal materials make validity at issuance the question, City Appeals Process yet the listed items are just “Other” and “Permits Required” with a warning that real violations might be found later — M125 while the appeal is limited to issues “specifically raised” SCC §8.100.780 and the “specific order or action protested.” SCC §8.100.760 These contradictions sit inside the city’s own produced file — the file the city closed the records request on as complete R.26-1965 — which only came into view after the owner’s representative pushed records requests through the city’s public-records portal. R.25-3549 R.26-1549
Bottom line: the order says the building was inspected and judged, while the list attached to it says the inspection was never finished — a certificate that contradicts its own attachment, visible only in the city’s own records.The April 12 Notice and Order face page says the Chief Building Official “has caused to be inspected and has determined” that the building is substandard and/or dangerous under Chapter 8.96 and/or Chapter 8.100, and says the conditions are set forth on the “attached list of violations.” M124 SCC §8.96.105 SCC §8.96.060 SCC §8.100.700 The next page is titled Correction List and says, “This is not a complete Violation List” and “Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected.” M125 The same titled Correction List, with the same incomplete-inspection warning, appears in the earlier Buster Preliminary packet. M118 The order therefore certifies a completed, inspection-based determination while its own attachment says the list and inspection were not complete.
For a reader outside the code, the point is direct: before a city can order someone to repair or tear down a building and start charging fees, it has to inspect the building and write down what is wrong. HSC §17980(c)(1) SCC §8.100.700 Here the order says the building official inspected the property and determined it was substandard or dangerous. M124 The attached Correction List says the opposite: “neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected,” and more problems “may be identified upon further inspection.” M125 That not-yet-complete list was carried over from the Buster Preliminary Correction List. M118 The only pre-order activity the file records is a limited exterior sequence, including a front/alley visit and a later neighbor-yard observation, with the inspector’s own note ending that a Notice and Order “will be requested.” M024 Card 5 The City’s appeal materials treat validity at issuance as the question, yet the listed items are “Other” and “Permits Required” with a warning that more may be identified later. M118 M125 City Appeals Process
Substandard- and dangerous-building enforcement commences only after the agency inspects and determines the building substandard or dangerous. HSC §17980(c)(1) and SCC §8.100.700 supply the substandard-building inspection/determination predicate; SCC §8.100.720 requires a brief and concise description of the conditions found; and SCC §8.96.060 and SCC §8.96.130 supply the dangerous-building parallel.
The order face page recites a completed Chief Building Official-caused inspection and determination, and points to an “attached list of violations” for the conditions that supposedly render the building substandard and/or dangerous. M124 SCC §8.96.105
The attached page is titled Correction List, and the Buster Preliminary page it was carried over from is also titled Correction List. Both state:
“This is not a complete Violation List… Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected. Other building structural, electrical, plumbing or mechanical code violations may be identified upon further inspection.” M125 M118 — N&O Correction List and Buster Preliminary Correction List
The record shows a 03/20/2023 front/alley visit and an 04/11/2023 observation from a neighbor’s backyard. The neighbor-yard note records only what the inspector “saw from where I was standing” and ends that a Notice and Order “will be requested.” M024 Neither entry is a completed interior inspection or a property-specific findings list.
A list that its own text acknowledges is incomplete — one that warns more violations “may be identified upon further inspection” — cannot perform the function the statute assigns to a post-inspection findings document. HSC §17980(c)(1) SCC §8.100.700 SCC §8.100.720 A preliminary list meant to be updated to the inspector’s actual findings before the order issues cannot substitute for the completed, property-specific findings document the code requires.
The City’s Appeals and Hearings Process states an appeal may show that, when the order issued, there were no violations on the property, making the order null and void, and asks whether the cited violations were valid at issuance. That scheme cannot function where the order rests on “Other,” “Permits Required,” and a warning that more may be identified later, M118 M125 while the appeal is limited to issues “specifically raised” SCC §8.100.780 and the “specific order or action protested.” SCC §8.100.760
The statute conditions the order on a completed inspection and determination. HSC §17980(c)(1) SCC §8.100.700 The order certifies exactly that. M124 Its own attached Correction List says the inspection was not completed. M125 The only recorded pre-order activity is a limited exterior sequence the inspector wrote in future-tense order language. M024 Card 5 And the City’s own appeal process measures validity against violations existing at issuance. City Appeals Process On the City’s own record, the order certifies an inspection-based determination the produced file does not contain. M001–M631 R.26-1965
The strongest realistic City response is that “caused to be inspected” includes the exterior observations already made, and that the determination was within the inspector’s judgment. The answer is that the City’s own code requires the determination to rest on conditions found and described; SCC §8.100.720 an attachment that says the inspection was never finished cannot supply that description, M125 and the City’s own appeal process treats an order with no valid violations at issuance as null and void. City Appeals Process
The order swears the building was inspected and judged, while the list attached to it says the inspection was never finished — a contradiction sitting inside the City’s own produced file, which the City closed as complete. R.26-1965 That contradiction became visible only after records requests were pressed through the public-records portal. M124 M125 R.25-3549 R.26-1549