The Contractor's Written Withdrawal

RECORD CHAIN

1. The served-record posture changed, but not enough to define the October permit. The 04/12/2023 Notice and Order M124 and its Correction List M125 carried only the generic B59 "Permits Required" placeholder (SCC.8.100.190; see Card 1). The 09/02/2025 re-issued Notice and Order M543-M544 itemized multiple conditions, including the permit-related comments B45 "Added square footage at detached garage to be permitted" and P08 "Added gas line for dryer in backyard requires permits" M544. The October instruction in the Saakian thread remained a "minimal permit," and Saakian described the inspector printouts as based on the Notice and Order but "not the actual new Notice and Order" E4.
2. The contractor was asked to file the permit. Through Saakian, the request was for Popov to "coordinate the minimal permit with the inspectors" E4 and to "address and correct the violations" E4.
3. Popov refused in writing. On 10/20/2025 he wrote to Saakian E4:

"Sorry Mark, I am am [sic] not placing myself into this. It is talking too much of my time. All the listed items are done. I do not feel comfortable pulling permit for anything they ask and be stuck with this misc items. I am out"

"All the listed items are done" is the contractor's representation, as of 10/20/2025, that the listed work had been completed. The City's 09/16/2025 on-site note M036, written more than a month earlier, had recorded that the handyman had taken care of only "some of the violations" and that "the contractor was still needed to complete the work." His phrase "pulling permit for anything they ask" describes the request as open-ended rather than tied to a specific citation, and "this misc items" describes a requested scope not enumerated in any formally served document.

4. The City's case notes recorded the walk-off twice. The inspector's 10/20/2025 phone-call note records that "the contractor who is was going to help them has backed out of the project" [sic] M036. Three days later, the City logged Saakian telling the inspector that the permit-application "delay stems from the contractor's refusal to participate in the process" M037. No amended Notice and Order naming the items the contractor was asked to permit was served before 10/20/2025.

After the withdrawal, the owner pulled the permit herself: the application was emailed on 10/20 M036, the permit was processed on 11/21 M037, and it issued by 12/02 M037. On 12/02/2025 — six weeks after the walk-off — the inspector set out the work in an itemized inspection list M037, not in any served Notice and Order.

FULL CIRCLE

The expected City response is that Popov exercised his own business judgment and that the order's "all required permits" language, together with the 09/02/2025 permit-related comments, already gave enough notice M124 M543 M544. That response would be stronger if the reviewed file showed a served document, before 10/20/2025, tying the October "minimal permit" relay to the specific permit category Popov was being asked to pull.

The reviewed file does not show that link. It shows the "minimal permit" instruction in the Saakian thread, Popov's written refusal, and two City notes recording that the contractor backed out or refused to participate E4 M036 M037. The original order's generic B59 language is treated at Card 1; the September walkthrough and the absence of a post-walkthrough served order at Card 31. This card records the contractor's response to the October demand: a written withdrawal describing the requested permit as open-ended.

The City closed the underlying CPRA productions as complete R.25-3549 R.26-1549 R.26-1965; the production-completeness baseline is set out at Card 4 and the email-specific completeness exemplar at Card 46. On the produced record reviewed here, the October permit track remained undefined at the moment the contractor withdrew.