The two photographs the enforcement rested on sit in the City's file, never described or attributed to the owner.
The City’s enforcement case relies on two photographs of a garage addition that were never described or provided to the property owner in the official notice. These images, taken from a neighbor’s yard in April 2023, provide the only photographic proof of the unpermitted work. Although these photos are central to the case, the formal Notice and Order served to the owner listed only generic permit codes and "Other" instead of describing the specific conditions or including the images. The only formal declarations identifying these photographs were created more than two years later for the City’s internal penalty records rather than as a disclosure to the owner. These foundational records were only discovered after the owner’s representative obtained the complete case file through public records requests. City code requires every enforcement order to include a brief and concise description of the conditions found, a standard not met by the vague descriptions in the served documents.
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 C05. 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" — 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.
Before a city fines someone over a building, it is supposed to tell the owner, in writing, exactly what is wrong. 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." Those two photos are the only thing in the record that actually shows the addition the city says was built without a permit. But the binding order the city served listed only a generic "Permits Required" code — no picture, no description of what the photos show. 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. 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; 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. 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."
The City's later textual finding "B45: 8.96.110(L) ... Added square footage at detached garage to be permitted" (M012, Open Date 08/29/2025) and the 08/25/2025 photograph-declaration set (M055, spanning pp.54-60) describe the addition in general terms but do not transmit or attribute these two 04/10/2023 frames to the owner C05.
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 City's photograph-declaration bundle M055 is dated 08/25/2025 — assembled for the penalty machinery, more than two years after the order, and not produced as a disclosure to the owner.
The two photographs that supply the only verification of the garage addition are present in the City's file M013; the served order M123–M132 names a permit code with no image and no condition; and the only photograph declarations the City prepared M055 are dated 08/25/2025 and built for its own penalty record. On the City's own production, the images the enforcement rested on were never described or attributed to the party it ran against.
Anticipated City defense: The photographs were part of a case file the owner could request; formal transmittal was not required, and the owner was sent hearing packets.
Answer: The hearing packets the City mailed were delinquency-and-lien notices keyed to unpaid invoices, not a description of these photographs. The City's own code requires the order itself to carry "a brief and concise description of the conditions found" SCC § 8.100.720(A)(2)(a)(2) SCC § 8.96.130; the served order M123–M132 carried a permit code and no image. The owner was never shown what the two head-of-file photographs depict or told they were the basis of the action.
---