By October 2025 the City had re-issued an appealable Notice and Order on 09/02/2025 that itemized most conditions with an appeal right, but three items — a seven-foot fence-height limit, fascia repair, and the workshop “reduced to 120 Sq Ft” detach condition — remained confined to the off-order 09/16 Correction Notice and the email chain, so those items carried no appeal right.
When a city formally orders a property owner to fix specific things, it has to write those things into the official order — because that order is the only document the owner can challenge through an appeal. SCC §8.100.720 SCC §8.100.730 SCC §8.100.760 The City did issue a dated, appealable Notice and Order in April 2023 M124 and then re-issued an appealable Notice and Order on September 2, 2025 that itemized most of the conditions, each carrying an appeal right. M543 M544 But three demands never landed on any appealable order: a seven-foot fence-height limit, a fascia repair, and a condition that the rear workshop be cut down to 120 square feet or detached. Those three appear only on a separate “correction” list dated September 16, 2025 (captioned “Correction Notice,” not an amended Notice and Order) and in emails relaying what the City’s inspectors had said — never on the one kind of document the owner could appeal. R.25-3549 R.26-1965 The owner’s representative made the point in writing at the time: if the City wants new work or a permit, it has to issue a new order that names the specific violation and cites the code.
Bottom line: the City re-issued an appealable order in September 2025 that itemized most conditions, but three demands — the fence-height limit, the fascia repair, and the workshop “120 square feet” condition — were left only on a side list and in emails and never written into any document the owner could appeal, so those three never carried an appeal right.The served Notice and Order is the instrument that fixes what the owner must do to abate Case 23-009185, and it carries the owner’s appeal right. M123 M124 M125 By October 2025 the compliance path was being enlarged outside that instrument. It moved through a separate eleven-item Correction Notice attributed to the inspector (S.6); through inspector printouts that the owner’s own attorney described as “not the actual new Notice and Order” (E.5); and through a counsel-relayed permit demand in an email thread (E.5). In that thread the attorney relayed on 10/16/2025 that “city inspectors” said a permit was needed and that he had asked the contractor to “coordinate the minimal permit” — and the inspector pressed a siding-removal condition through the same channel. Card 30
The City did re-issue an appealable Notice and Order on 09/02/2025 (Willie Harris, Principal Building Inspector; para 7 appeal right) that itemized most conditions with an appeal right. M543 M544 But three items — the seven-foot fence-height limit, the fascia repair, and the workshop “reduced to 120 Sq Ft” detach condition — appear only on the off-order 09/16 Correction Notice (S.6) and in the email chain (E.5), never on any appealable order. R.25-3549 R.26-1549 R.26-1965
The Notice and Order is the document that defines the abatement obligation and carries the appeal right. The Housing Code requires that order to contain “a brief and concise description of the conditions found to render the building substandard” (SCC §8.100.720(A)(2)), with the dangerous-building parallel at SCC §8.96.130, requires service of the notice and order (SCC §8.100.730), and makes the appeal run within thirty days from the date of service (SCC §8.100.760). A requirement added off the order is a requirement no one can appeal. Card 3
The September 16, 2025 Correction Notice (S.6) is captioned “Correction Notice,” not an amended Notice and Order. It lists eleven items: unpermitted garage electrical and extension cords; an exterior wall “modified to create extra square footage”; dry rot at siding and trim; a fence height limit of seven feet; fascia repair; washer/dryer electrical and gas; the electrical service panel; added plumbing for a shower; added electrical and plumbing at the rear workshop; the workshop “to be detached from garage and reduced to 120 Sq Ft or legalized by obtaining building permits”; and front extension cords. Several items offer permitting as one of two options — “removed or permitted,” “legalized by obtaining building permits” — without stating which permit the work requires; others are stated as repair or removal with no permit alternative. The closing paragraph states: “all paperwork/plans may need to be submitted before a permit can be issued.”
In the October 2025 email thread (E.5 — owner-side Gmail thread, not part of the City’s CPRA production), the attorney reported on 10/16/2025: “I spoke with the city inspectors today. Once the violations are reported, a permit is needed… I asked Arthur to coordinate the minimal permit with the inspectors.” On 10/20/2025 he relayed the City’s position that “The Notice and Order DOES contain requirements to obtain a permit,” and stated the meeting printouts “were not the actual new Notice and Order.” The City’s own note log records the October exchange only as the milder 10/20 phone-call note and 10/23 siding emails — it does not reproduce the “minimal permit,” “DOES contain,” or “no permit requirement” language, which only strengthens the conclusion that the City never wrote these demands into an appealable order. The siding-removal addition through the same channel is documented separately. Card 30 The on-tape permit contradiction from the same 09/16/2025 walkthrough is documented at Card 27.
The City did issue a dated, appealable re-issued Notice and Order on 09/02/2025 (Willie Harris, Principal Building Inspector; para 7 appeal right) whose Correction List enumerated B23, B45, E02, E03, E06, E08, E11, P05, P08, and P09. M543 M544 The items that never appear on any appealable order are the seven-foot fence-height limit, the fascia repair, and the workshop “reduced to 120 Sq Ft” detach condition — conditions appearing solely on the off-order 09/16 Correction Notice (S.6) and in the email chain (E.5). The owner’s representative contemporaneously flagged the defect in the same thread: “there is no permit requirement under the current Notice & Order… If the City now believes a permit is required, they need to issue a new Notice & Order that identifies the specific violation and cites” the code. Card 47 Card 48
The Notice and Order is the instrument that fixes the abatement obligation and carries the appeal right; to enlarge that obligation, the City amends or re-issues the served order. SCC §8.100.720 SCC §8.100.730 M124 The City did re-issue an appealable order on 09/02/2025 that itemized most conditions. M543 M544 But three conditions — the seven-foot fence-height limit, fascia repair, and the workshop “reduced to 120 Sq Ft” detach condition — moved only through the separate 09/16 Correction Notice (S.6) and the email chain (E.5), and never onto any document the owner could appeal. Those requirements encumber a property and drive its penalties while standing outside the noticed, appealable scope.
Generic “all required permits” language is exactly what the specificity requirement forecloses: an order that does not state the condition cannot serve as the appealable authority for it. SCC §8.100.720 The City re-issued an appealable order on 09/02/2025 that itemized most conditions, which only sharpens the point for the items it left out. The contractor withdrawal Card 32 shows the practical consequence: a licensed third party, retained to comply, concluded the demands had moved off the face of the order. Card 3 Card 24 Card 27 Card 30 Card 31 Card 47 Card 48