The re-issued order's own cover letter states that the prior fees survive the re-issuance — yet when the property representative asked that exact question in writing the same day, the City's produced reply sent him to "the owner" and gave him none of the answer the City had already written into its own order.
The City re-issued its 29-month-old Notice and Order for the property at 4880 T Street but did not provide the representative with the answers it had already put in writing. While the re-issued order’s cover letter stated that prior penalties remained payable and no new fees were being assessed, the City’s response to a written inquiry about those exact fees failed to include this information. Instead, the City redirected the representative to the property owner without addressing whether the prior order was voided or how it affected existing fines. The City’s reply was also addressed to several other individuals but omitted the specific email address that had submitted the question earlier that day. Despite holding the answer in its own re-issued documents, the City did not provide it to the person seeking clarification.
Twenty-nine months into the case, the City re-issued and re-posted its foundational Notice and Order M009 M022 M541 M542. The re-issued order's cover letter answered, on its face, the question the re-issuance raised: it "does not assess any additional fees," its purpose is to "restate" the compliance requirements, and the recorded Declaration "will be cleared when permits are finalized and all outstanding fees assessed under the previous Notice and Order have been paid" M541. So the re-issuance carried the prior penalties forward; the cover letter says so in plain terms. That same day, the property representative asked the City that exact question in writing — whether the new order voided the prior one "along with any fines or fees attached to it, with all future enforcement based only on the new notice" E.3. The City's produced reply E.3 redirected him to "the owner of the property" and addressed neither the voiding question nor the status of the prior penalties. The produced copy of that reply's To-line listed the inspector's supervisors plus the owner (baritelljm@gmail.com) and the owner's representative (kowensfoley@gmail.com), but not the exact address — christophertf@gmail.com — that had written the City that morning C25. The City held the answer in its own re-issued order and did not put it in front of the person who asked.
The April 12, 2023 Notice and Order is the instrument the entire case — and every penalty cycle — runs on M541.
The activity log records "HSG - RE-ISSUE N AND O" (Monica Atkins, 09/02/2025) and a same-day posting by Arrion Gildersleeve ("I posted the property with Notice and Order. The Declaration of Posting is in the case file. Photos taken."); the green card returned 09/10/2025 entry ("GREEN CARD RECVD — Re-Issue Notice & Order," Paul Lovato) is on the same page M009. The documents index shows the merge document "HSG - Re-Issue N&O.htm" (08/29/2025) and the produced order "rn23-009185.pdf" (09/02/2025) with the label "Re-Issue Notice & Order"; green cards MA23009185LOVATOREISSNO1/2.PDF (09/10/2025) are indexed on the same page M022. The re-issued order itself is produced M542.
The cover letter recites that the current order "does not assess any additional fees," that its purpose is to "restate what is required to bring the property into compliance," and that the recorded Declaration "will be cleared when permits are finalized and all outstanding fees assessed under the previous Notice and Order have been paid"; charges imposed "pursuant to Chapters 8.96 and/or 8.100 of the Sacramento City Code" M541.
His 09/02/2025 email asked whether the new order voided the prior one "along with any fines or fees attached to it, with all future enforcement based only on the new notice" E.3.
The reply redirected him to "the owner of the property" E.3 and addressed neither the voiding question nor the penalty status. The produced copy of that reply's To-line lists the inspector's supervisors plus the owner (baritelljm@gmail.com) and the owner's representative (kowensfoley@gmail.com), but not the exact address — christophertf@gmail.com — that had written the City that morning C25.
The City re-issued its 29-month-old foundational order and posted it anew. The re-issued order itself answers the question the re-issuance raises: it adds no new fees, it restates the existing requirements, and the prior penalties remain payable until cleared M541. The representative asked that exact question in writing the same day E.3. The produced reply E.3 sent him to "the owner" and stated none of it, and the produced copy shows its To-line listed the inspector's supervisors plus the owner (baritelljm@gmail.com) and the owner's representative (kowensfoley@gmail.com), but not the exact address — christophertf@gmail.com — that had written the City that morning C25. The answer existed in the City's own re-issued order; the City did not provide it to the one person who asked.
Anticipated City defense: the re-issued order's cover letter already states the effect — no additional fees, prior fees carried forward — so the City did record the answer and merely routed the representative to "the owner" as a standing-and-authority reply.
Answer: the cover letter does state the effect, and that is the point. The City possessed the one-sentence answer in its own re-issued order M541, yet when the representative asked that exact question in writing the same day E.3, the produced reply gave him none of it and sent him to "the owner." The irregularity is not that the effect is unrecorded; it is that the City held the recorded answer and did not provide it in response to the standing written request. A produced reply, to the representative, that states what the re-issued order already states would close it. The production R.25-3549 R.26-1549 R.26-1965 contains none. Surfacing such a reply now would have the City introduce a record outside the production it has already closed as complete — the completeness trap C47 C48.
The reissued-order procedure is anchored in SCC § 8.100.720, with the dangerous-building parallel in SCC § 8.96.130. ---