On October 22, 2025, the inspector made an unannounced stop during active exterior work; the next day he emailed the owner’s attorney directing that newly installed siding come back off once a permit issued — before any served record specified the violation or defined the permit.
A city inspector drove past the property, saw work happening, and tried to talk to the people doing it; no one answered, so he left a voicemail for the owner’s lawyer. M010 The next day he emailed the lawyer and said that once a permit was issued, the newly installed siding would have to be pulled back off so the city could check the paper underneath. M036 At that point the city had not pointed to any specified violation tied to the fireplace-area siding it was telling her to remove, SCC §8.100.190 M118 and the permit it kept referring to had not been issued and was not even defined. M012 So the owner was being told to undo finished work to satisfy a requirement the city had never put in writing on the official order she could actually appeal. R.25-3549 R.26-1965 This whole exchange happened in emails and internal notes routed through the owner’s lawyer rather than on the formal enforcement record, and it only became visible after the owner’s side forced the city to hand over its files through public-records requests.
Bottom line: before naming a specific violation or even defining the permit, a city inspector told the owner — through her lawyer, off the official record — that finished siding would have to come back off, and that demand only surfaced once the records were pried loose.Both acts are documented in the City’s own record. The inspector’s 10/22/2025 re-inspection note records, in his own words, that he was driving past 4880 T Street, saw work being performed, stopped to speak with someone, received no answer, and called the owner’s attorney and reached voicemail. No appointment and no prior notice are recorded. M010 The following morning he emailed the attorney, and that email is reproduced verbatim in the City’s own 10/23/2025 General Case Information note M036 and carried in the eight-message Saakian email thread (E.3).
The operative passage conditions a future siding-removal on a permit that had not yet issued and was itself undefined, Card 32 while the underlying violation on the served Correction List remained the generic “Permits Required” code SCC §8.100.190 at M118 — never tied in any served record to the fireplace-area work. Card 3 The other specifically coded violations the City had opened by that date named none of that siding either. M012 The demand was delivered through the owner’s attorney — off the served enforcement order Card 29 — and surfaced only once the records were obtained through CPRA. R.25-3549 R.26-1549 R.26-1965
The inspector’s 10/22/2025 re-inspection note, in his own words: “I happened to be driving by the property and saw work was being performed so I stopped to talk with someone and no one would answer me. I then called their attorney and I received his voicemail.” No appointment and no advance notice are recorded — a drive-by stop during active work. M010
Having received no call back, the inspector emailed the owner’s attorney the next day. The email is reproduced in full in the City’s own 10/23/2025 General Case Information note and forwarded verbatim in the Saakian thread (E.3). The inspector recounts that he “could see the siding is being replaced at the fireplace area,” then states the operative demand:
“So, I want to let you know if the building paper is covered up, once the permit is issued, the siding will need to be removed in order to verify the paper is installed correctly. Also, the siding that is being installed is not the same siding as the rest of the house.”
The email-to-case-note reproduction eliminates any argument that the demand was informal or off-record: the inspector chose to enter the full text of his own email into the CitizenServe case note, making it an official City record entry. M036
The instruction conditions the siding-removal on a permit that, “[o]nce … issued,” had not yet issued and was itself undefined. Card 32 The underlying violation on the served Correction List remained the “Permits Required” code (SCC §8.100.190; comment text at M118), never tied in the served record to the fireplace-area work. Card 3 The other specifically coded violations the City had opened by that date — including B23, East-side dry-rot at siding and trim, opened 08/29/2025 M012 — named none of the fireplace-area siding the 10/23 email demanded be removed. No served order required the work to come off; no specified violation named the fireplace-area work the demand targeted.
The stop and the demand reached the owner through her attorney and the case note — not as an amended requirement on the served enforcement order. Card 29 The 10/23/2025 continuation note also records the attorney’s reply that “the delay stems from the contractor’s refusal to participate in the process,” and the inspector’s own follow-up reply directing that “work is not to be performed on the property unless a permit is issued to the property.” M037 The same window is the contractor walk-off. Card 32
The City’s own BATCH_27 inspector-correspondence scans (S.6; S.7) carry the same October 2025 siding exchange — a City-produced correspondence batch confirming the email content independently of the CitizenServe case note. These are image-sourced BATCH_27 scans from the City’s own produced records; local exhibits not linked to a CPRA numbered PDF.
The record shows two acts a day apart, both in the inspector’s own words: an unannounced stop during active work M010 and an email the next day directing that newly installed siding come back off once a permit issued, so the building paper beneath it could be re-inspected. M036 The demand was stated before any served record specified the violation, before the permit was defined, Card 32 and through the owner’s attorney rather than on the served order. Card 29
Early notice would be legitimate if it pointed to a specified violation and a defined permit; this email did neither. “Inspect the paper before it is covered” is reasonable. “The finished siding will have to come back off” is a destructive-rework cost — conditioned on a permit that had not issued and was itself undefined, Card 32 while the underlying violation was still the generic code M118 never tied to that work, Card 3 and while the other specifically coded violations the City did open named none of the fireplace-area siding the email demanded be removed. M012 A demand that an owner tear off completed exterior work, stated ahead of any specified appealable requirement and delivered through counsel rather than on the served order, is a substantive enforcement demand kept off the formal case file. Card 3 Card 29 Card 31 Card 32 Card 47 Card 48