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.
The April 12, 2023 Notice and Order against 4880 T Street states that the Chief Building Official had the building inspected and determined it to be substandard and/or dangerous, and points to an "attached list of violations" for the conditions. The page attached to it, titled "Correction List," says the opposite: "This is not a complete Violation List" and "Neither interior nor exterior has been completely inspected," with a warning that more violations "may be identified upon further inspection." That same Correction List, carrying the same incomplete-inspection warning, had already appeared in the earlier Buster Preliminary packet, and its only listed items were "Other" and "Permits Required." The only pre-order activity the file records is a limited set of exterior observations — a March 20, 2023 front/alley visit and an April 11, 2023 observation from a neighbor's backyard, where the note records only what the inspector "saw from where I was standing" and ends that a Notice and Order "will be requested." The City's own Appeals and Hearings Process measures whether an order was valid when it issued, by asking whether there were violations on the property at that time. Both pages sit inside the same City records production, which the City closed as complete.
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 M124 M125 M118.
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. 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 earlier 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 C05. 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 real violations might be found later M118 M125 CITY.AppealsHearingsProcess.
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.
The record shows a 03/20/2023 front/alley visit and an 04/11/2023 observation from a neighbor's backyard M024 C05. 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 M118 M125 C03.
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 CITY.AppealsHearingsProcess. That scheme cannot function where the order rests on "Other," "Permits Required," and a warning that more may be identified later, while the appeal is limited to issues "specifically raised" and the "specific order or action protested" M118 M125 SCC § 8.100.780 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 C05. And the City's own appeal process measures validity against violations existing at issuance CITY.AppealsHearingsProcess. 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 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.
Anticipated City defense: "caused to be inspected" includes the exterior observations already made, and that the determination was within the inspector's judgment.
Answer: 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, and the City's own appeal process treats an order with no valid violations at issuance as null and void SCC § 8.100.720 CITY.AppealsHearingsProcess.
---