The two photographs the enforcement rested on sit in the City’s file, never described or attributed to the owner.
Before a city fines someone over a building, it is supposed to tell the owner, in writing, exactly what is wrong. SCC §8.100.720(A)(2) SCC §8.96.130 Here the whole case turns on two photographs a city inspector took from a neighbor’s yard, labeled in the file as “view from neighbors lot of work performed.” M013 Those two photos are the only thing in the record that actually shows the addition the city says was built without a permit. Card 5 But the binding order the city served just listed a generic “permits required” code — no picture, no description of what the photos show. M123–M132 SCC §8.100.190 The only sworn statements the city ever wrote about those photos were prepared more than two years later, for the city’s own fine paperwork, and were never sent to the owner as an explanation. M055 All of this is visible only because the owner’s representative kept pushing the city to hand over the complete file through public-records requests; R.25-3549 R.26-1549 R.26-1965 once the file came out, the two photographs the whole case rests on were sitting inside it, never once described or pointed out to the owner.
Bottom line: the city built its case on two backyard photographs it kept in its own file and never described or attributed to the owner — a fact that surfaced only after the owner’s representative forced the complete records out.Two photographs sit at the head of the City’s own documents index M013, entered 04/10/2023 and captioned “View from neighbors lot of work performed” — the same two frames that supply the only photographic verification of the garage addition. Card 5 They are present in every production the City has made. On the reviewed record, no produced order, notice, or hearing packet transmits those two photographs to the property owner or her representative with any description or attribution. The served Notice and Order M123–M132 carried a Correction List that named “Permits Required” and “Other” SCC §8.100.190 — no structure, no condition, no image. When the City later assembled a photograph-declaration bundle for its penalty machinery, it dated those declarations 08/25/2025 M055 — more than two years after the order and built for the City’s own use, not sent to the owner as a description of what the head-of-file photographs depict.
The City’s own code requires the order to carry “a brief and concise description of the conditions found to render the building substandard.” SCC §8.100.720(A)(2) SCC §8.96.130 The served order carried a permit code and no image. M123–M132 The city built its case on two backyard photographs it kept in its own file and never described or attributed to the owner — a fact that surfaced only after the owner’s representative forced the complete records out. R.25-3549 R.26-1549 R.26-1965
The City’s documents index M013 lists “IMG_1492 (1).jpg” and “IMG_1493.jpg,” dated 04/10/2023, captioned “View from neighbors lot of work performed.” These photographs are present in the City’s produced file. They are the same two frames that are the only photographic verification of the garage addition. Card 5
The City’s later textual finding “B45: 8.96.110(L) … Added square footage at detached garage to be permitted” M012 and the 08/25/2025 photograph-declaration set M055 describe the addition in general terms but do not transmit or attribute these two 04/10/2023 frames to the owner. The 08/25/2025 declarations were assembled for the City’s penalty machinery, more than two years after the order. The only pre-order photographic record is the two frames already in the file. Card 5
The Notice and Order M123–M132 recites “Chapter 8.96 and/or Chapter 8.100” SCC §8.96.130 SCC §8.100.190 and attaches a Correction List reading “Permits Required” and “Other” — no structure, work item, location, condition, or image. Nothing in the served packet tells the owner what the two photographs depict. The code requires the order to contain “a brief and concise description of the conditions found.” SCC §8.100.720(A)(2) The served Correction List does not approach that standard.
Across the November 2025 R.25-3549 and April 2026 R.26-1549 productions, the reviewed record does not identify any order, notice, or hearing packet transmitting IMG_1492(1) and IMG_1493 to the property owner or her representative with description or attribution. The hearing packets the City mailed were delinquency-and-lien notices keyed to unpaid invoices, not a description of these photographs. The two frames that are the basis of the enforcement remained inside the City’s own file throughout. R.26-1965 Card 47
The City’s photograph-declaration bundle M055 is dated 08/25/2025 — assembled for the penalty machinery, more than two years after the order issued. M123–M132 The declarations are not produced as a disclosure to the owner; they are an internal City document describing photographs the owner was never shown. The gap between the order date (April 2023) and the declaration date (August 2025) is more than two years during which penalties accrued without the owner ever being shown a description of the photographs the enforcement rested on.
The two photographs that supply the only verification of the garage addition are present in the City’s file M013; the served order names a permit code with no image and no condition M123–M132; and the only photograph declarations the City prepared are dated 08/25/2025 and built for its own penalty record. M055 On the City’s own production, the images the enforcement rested on were never described or attributed to the party it ran against.
The strongest realistic City response is that the photographs were part of a case file the owner could request, and that formal transmittal was not required. That answer does not satisfy the code. SCC §8.100.720(A)(2) requires the order itself to carry “a brief and concise description of the conditions found”; the served order carried a permit code and no image. M123–M132 And the owner should not have been required to submit CPRA requests R.25-3549 R.26-1549 R.26-1965 to learn what photographs the enforcement rested on. The owner was never shown what the two head-of-file photographs depict or told they were the basis of the action — a completeness defect the closed-as-complete productions confirm was never cured. Card 47 Card 48