The inspector’s own email calls the violation list amendable and attaches a $1,400 fee-bearing new order as the consequence of amending it — while the same email offers a fee-free path: the owner correcting the violations and the City closing the case.
A city inspector emailed the property owner’s helper about fixing the list of problems on the house. S.6 In that email he said he could change the list of violations — but if he did, the city would issue a brand-new official order, and that order comes with a $1,400 charge. S.6 In the same message he wrote that the city was hoping the problems just get fixed so it can close the case. S.6 So by the city’s own words, getting the record corrected meant paying for a new order. That matters because a violation list the city says it can still change is not a settled, final list — yet the city’s later fees and the owner’s right to appeal both depend on the violations being fixed and final. SCC §8.100.720 Card 8 This email is a scanned picture rather than typed text, so it does not show up when you search the case file by keyword; it only surfaces when you open the actual image the city produced. R.26-1965
Bottom line: the inspector’s own email treats the violation list as still changeable and puts a $1,400 price tag on changing it S.6 — a record the city describes as not yet final, with a fee to correct it.In an email to the property owner’s representative, Inspector Lovato wrote: S.6
“I can amend the violations on the property, but what that will trigger is another notice & order to be sent out with the new violations on it and the Notice & Order comes with a fee of $1,400. We were just hoping the violations are corrected so we can close out the case.” S.6 — Inspector Lovato email to Karin Owens, subject “Re: Inspection at 4800 T ST”
The email’s subject line carries the City’s own address typo — “Re: Inspection at 4800 T ST” — quoted verbatim. The email is a scanned image; it does not appear in the text-searchable extraction.
The activity log records a 04/14/2025 call from Karin (“Karen”) Owens, the property owner’s representative: “Received call from PO’s friend, Karen Owens … she is trying to help the Property Owner, Jacqueline Baritell with the appeal process.” M033 The inspector’s email was addressed to that same representative while she was working to understand and correct the case scope.
Two points follow. First, the City treats the violation list as something it can still change — hard to square with the fixed, defined violation that a monitoring fee and an appeal both require. Card 8 Second, the path to a corrected record runs through a fee-bearing new order, not a simple correction of the standing one.
One caveat: the $1,400 figure does not match any amount in the City’s fee schedule ($1,075/$400/$560/$380). The September 2, 2025 reissued Notice and Order cover letter states “the current Notice and Order does not assess any additional fees.” M552 The card’s point is not that amending always costs exactly $1,400; it is that the inspector described a fee-bearing new order as the direct consequence of amending the violation list, while simultaneously describing that list as still changeable. SCC §8.100.720
“I can amend the violations on the property” characterizes the list as something the City can still change, not a fixed, defined set of findings. The City frames this change as triggering a new order, so the reading that the current list is unsettled is the card’s inference, not a textual certainty.
The same sentence ties the amendment to “another notice & order … with a fee of $1,400.”
Inspector Lovato’s own email treats the violation list as amendable (“I can amend the violations on the property”) and states that amending it will trigger another Notice and Order carrying a $1,400 fee. S.6 On the City’s own record the violation list was treated as something still open to change — in tension with the fixed, defined violation that a monitoring fee and an appeal require. Card 8 The September 2, 2025 reissued Notice and Order cover letter demonstrates the City knows how to issue an order without adding fees M552 — consistent with the inspector’s email overstating the fee consequence.
The strongest City response is that the $1,400 is the standard Notice-and-Order fee that attaches to any new order. The answer is the email’s own grammar: it ties the fee to amending the existing violation list. S.6 Absent a showing that the City would have corrected this violation list without a new fee-bearing order, contradiction requires records outside the closed-as-complete production. R.25-3549 R.26-1549 Card 47 Card 48
