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 directed an owner to remove newly installed siding before the city had formally identified a specific violation or defined the necessary permit. Following an unannounced stop at the property in October 2025, the inspector emailed the owner’s attorney stating that the siding would need to be taken off once a permit was issued to verify the underlying building paper. This direction was never added to the formal enforcement order served to the owner. At the time of the email, the only recorded violation was a generic code for missing permits that was not specifically linked to the siding work. Because the permit was not yet issued or defined, the owner was instructed to remove completed work based on requirements that did not yet appear in the official case record.
Both acts are documented in the City's own record. The inspector's 10/22/2025 re-inspection note M010 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. 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 produced as E.3. Its operative passage conditions a future siding-removal on a permit that had not yet issued and was itself undefined C32, while the underlying violation on the served Correction List remained the generic "Permits Required" code — SCC § 8.100.190 on M118 — never tied in any served record to the fireplace-area work C03. The other specifically coded violations the City had opened by that date named none of that siding either.
The demand was delivered through the owner's attorney — off the served enforcement order C29 — and it only surfaced once the records were obtained through CPRA. Before naming a specific violation or even defining the permit, the inspector told the owner, through her lawyer, that finished siding would have to come back off, and that demand never appeared on any served order.
The inspector's 10/22/2025 re-inspection note M010, 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.
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 M036 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 instruction conditions the siding-removal on a permit that, "[o]nce … issued," had not yet issued and was itself undefined C32. The underlying violation on the served Correction List remained the "Permits Required" code M118 SCC § 8.100.190, never tied in the served record to the fireplace-area work C03. 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 C29. The 10/23/2025 continuation note M037 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." The same window is the contractor walk-off C32.
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 M036, making it an official City record entry. Cards C47 and C48 supply the production-completeness backstop that forecloses a "there's more in the file" escape. The record is the inspector's own words, reproduced in his own case note, produced through a closed-as-complete CPRA production — and those words conditioned a destructive-rework cost on a permit that was undefined and a violation that was never served. Risk: MEDIUM because the email can be characterized as informal guidance. Punch: 8/10 because the characterization runs directly into the inspector's own words in his own case note.
Anticipated City defense: The strongest realistic City response is that the inspector was acting in the owner's interest — giving early notice that building paper must be inspected before it is permanently covered — and that flagging mismatched siding is routine guidance, not a penalty.
Answer: Early notice is legitimate when it points 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 C32, while the underlying violation was still the "Permits Required" code M118 SCC § 8.100.190 never tied to that work C03, 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 C29, is a substantive enforcement demand kept off the formal case file.
---