The City took seventy-seven days and five rolling extensions for the assigned inspector's own notes, while a same-class request for five other officers closed in eight days.
The City took seventy-seven days and five extensions to produce one inspector’s notes, even though it processed a request for five other officers’ records of the same type in only eight days. The longer request involved an inspector who had previously documented that the property representative was sending complaints to City Council, the mayor, and other officials. While the City cited a high volume of materials as the reason for the seventy-seven-day timeline, the record shows it completed the similar request for five officers during an eight-day window in March 2026. The requester challenged the repeated delays, citing state rules that require a response within ten days and limit extensions. The City has not yet provided a search log or specific review record that explains why one set of notes required significantly more time than the other.
Two CPRA requests from the same City Clerk's office asked for raw code-enforcement note/log exports. R.26-71 sought the assigned inspector's 2025 notes and took seventy-seven elapsed days, from January 8 to March 26, 2026. R.26-1061 sought the same kind of raw note/log export for five other officers, with the same minimum fields, and closed in eight elapsed days, from March 17 to March 25, 2026.
The longer request drew five rolling "volume of materials" extension notices R.26-71. The requester challenged that rolling-extension practice on the record, citing the ten-day determination rule and fourteen-day unusual-circumstances cap GC § 7922.535. The City's next action was another extension notice before production began R.26-71.
This card keeps the comparison fair. The two requests were not identical: one inspector for all of 2025 versus five officers for November and December 2025 R.26-71 R.26-1061. But the comparator still matters because it shows the City's own processing speed for the same record class. The slow request was also the one involving the inspector who had already documented that the property representative had sent complaints up the City chain S.10.
The City claimed it needed repeated extra time to search and review one inspector’s notes, yet produced five other officers’ notes from the same class of system in eight days. The record as produced does not tie the scope difference to the seventy-seven-day processing time or the five rolling extensions.
GC § 7922.535 requires a determination within ten days and caps unusual-circumstances extensions; GC § 7922.500 bars using the CPRA to delay inspection or copying.
R.26-71 opened January 8, 2026 and closed March 26, 2026, with five extension notices dated January 20, February 17, March 3 twice, and March 18.
On March 17, the requester objected in writing to the sequence of notices and cited GC § 7922.535 and (b) R.26-71.
R.26-1061 opened March 17, 2026 and closed March 25, 2026 with five redacted XLSX officer files and no equivalent volume-based delay.
Public PORTAL.Accela and PORTAL.Citizenserve records show that per-case activity and documents are directly addressable by case number. For redaction-heavy note exports not available through self-service, the eight-day comparator R.26-1061 remains the City’s own benchmark for this record class.
Months before either request, Lovato wrote that the representative had sent complaints to City Council, Councilmember Guerra, the mayor, the chief, and others, and copied his supervisor S.10.
Anticipated City defense: the requests differed in scope: one inspector for a full year versus five officers for two months.
Answer: That distinction is real and this card does not hide it R.26-71 R.26-1061. The problem is that the produced record does not connect that distinction to five rolling extension notices and a seventy-seven-day closure, especially when the same office processed five other officers' same-class note exports in eight days. The card therefore asks for the missing neutral explanation: a search log, determination record, exemption-review record, or other contemporaneous basis for the delay. Without that, the produced record shows a seventy-seven-day delay for the inspector already aware of complaints up the chain, compared with an eight-day same-class comparator S.10 R.26-1061.
The CPRA framework for the extension pattern is anchored in GC § 7920.000. ---