At an “arranged” visit the inspector spent about 38 seconds on the porch, placed no call, logged nothing, and announced a response fee while the owner’s scope question went unanswered.
A city inspector set up a visit to a house, and the property owner’s representative had asked him in writing beforehand to spell out what exactly he wanted to inspect, even offering to meet him and let him into the backyard. SCC §8.100.720 The inspector showed up to the arranged visit, knocked, and was gone in under three minutes — the property’s own security cameras clock him on the porch for only about 38 seconds across two quick tries, with no phone call. R.26-1965 He then emailed that the property would be charged a “response fee.” R.25-3549 The cameras also show the owner taking about 22 minutes to get to the door that same afternoon, so a 38-second knock was never going to reach her. When the records were later pulled through public-records requests, the city’s own complete case file turned out to have no log entry for that day at all, M002 and nothing in it points to any rule or posted fee schedule that lets the city charge a “response fee” for this. SCC Ch. 8.96 SCC Ch. 8.100 The inspector also never answered the simple question the owner’s side had asked before the visit: what are you here to inspect? R.26-1549
Bottom line: the inspector billed a “response fee” for an arranged visit he left in under three minutes, never logged it, never pointed to any authority for the fee, and never answered what he came to inspect — and the empty log only came to light once the owner’s side forced the records out.Before the visit, the owner’s representative emailed inspector Paul Lovato asking him to state what he intended to inspect — “you are making this difficult by not pointing out what ‘work performed’ is regarding this issue… mentioning what work you saw that warrants this inspection would go a long way” — offered to meet at the property and let him into the backyard, and noted that the owner was in the hospital. Lovato already had an open email channel to the representative from earlier in the month.
The visit occurred April 26, 2023, and Lovato’s own email calls it “arranged.” Two property cameras captured it end to end: he reached the porch at 12:58:22, was off the steps by 12:58:29, the porch sat empty, he returned at 12:59:55, was off again by 13:00:00, was tracked across the driveway through 13:00:47, and was off the property by 13:01:14 — about two minutes fifty-two seconds on property, about 38 seconds on the porch across two approaches, with no phone call. He then emailed: “A response fee will be assessed to the property,” without answering the scope question. R.25-3549 R.26-1549 The case file the City produced and closed as complete contains no activity-log entry for that day M002 and no code section or noticed fee schedule tying a “response fee” to this conduct. SCC Ch. 8.96 SCC Ch. 8.100 The same cameras the same afternoon record the occupant first reaching the front door at 13:23:15 — about 22 minutes after Lovato left, and about 24 minutes 53 seconds after his first knock. Govt Code §7920.000
The representative emailed Lovato that communicating the matter to a hospitalized owner “without specifics is extremely stressful on her health,” asked him to identify what “work performed” the inspection concerned, and offered to meet at the property and let him into the backyard. The scope question was a precondition the City never answered in writing. Lovato already had an open email channel to the representative from earlier in the month (subject “Notice left at 4880 T st.”). SCC §8.100.720
Lovato came April 26, 2023 — a visit his own email calls “arranged.” Burned-in timestamps: first porch approach 12:58:22; off the steps 12:58:29; porch empty 12:58:55; second approach 12:59:55; off the steps 13:00:00; tracked across the driveway 13:00:31 through 13:00:47; off property 13:01:14 — about two minutes fifty-two seconds on property, about 38 seconds on the porch across two approaches, no phone call placed. M002
The same cameras the same afternoon record the occupant first reaching the front door at 13:23:15 — about 22 minutes after Lovato left, and about 24 minutes 53 seconds after his first knock. Two brief porch approaches totaling about 38 seconds, with no call, could not have reached an occupant whose own recorded pace placed her at the door 22 minutes after Lovato left.
Lovato’s same-day email states he knocked and announced himself and that “A response fee will be assessed to the property,” without answering the scope question. The produced case file contains no activity-log entry for the visit — the log jumps directly from 04/24/2023 to 05/19/2023 — M002 and the produced file cites no code section or noticed fee schedule as authority for this fee. SCC Ch. 8.96 SCC Ch. 8.100 R.25-3549 R.26-1549
The representative asked, before the visit, what the inspector intended to inspect and offered to meet and let him into the backyard; the inspector came to the “arranged” visit, spent about 38 seconds on the porch across two brief approaches and under three minutes on the property, placed no call, left long before the occupant could reach the door, M002 recorded nothing in the case log, and announced a response fee — the scope question still unanswered. Lovato’s own email, the two-camera CCTV record, and the City’s empty log for that day are the receipts — together they convert a cooperative appointment into a billed non-event. R.25-3549 R.26-1549 R.26-1965
The City’s strongest response is that the visit was arranged, the inspector knocked and announced himself, no one answered within a reasonable time, and a response fee for a missed inspection is a routine administrative charge. An “arranged” visit cuts both ways — the inspector knew he was expected. Two porch approaches totaling about 38 seconds, separated by a minute during which the porch was empty, with no phone call placed and no log entry recorded, is not a reasonable attempt to reach an occupant the cameras show needed about 22 minutes to reach the door. M002 SCC Ch. 8.96 SCC Ch. 8.100 Card 2 Card 5 Card 47 Card 48