The Unanswered April 24 Record-Integrity Notice

RECORD CHAIN

1. Received and closed the same day. The portal record shows the request opened at 5:49 a.m., was auto-acknowledged at 6:05 p.m. with "within 10 days" determination language, and was closed at 6:06 p.m. that evening after a document release R.26-1549.
2. The requester's notice followed four days later. At 11:13 a.m. on April 24, 2026, the requester filed a portal message identifying specific production-integrity defects and making the four requests set out above: a certified searchable export, identification of who authorized the alleged deletion and name removal, identification of the author of the alleged 2025-dated additions, and a stay of the June 10, 2026 hearing until record integrity was addressed R.26-1549.
3. A cost-recovery hearing was scheduled for June 10, 2026. The City's notice packet set a Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board cost-recovery hearing for June 10, 2026 at 5:30 p.m., 915 I Street, Second Floor, on invoice CDDCHC24459. That proceeding could convert an unpaid $410.40 monitoring charge into a special assessment against the property, with the special assessment scheduled for the August 11, 2026 City Council M627-629 M012 M040. The proof of service for this same hearing packet is date-inconsistent Card 50.
4. The named defects are partly independently established. The notice's central technical point, a shift from a text-searchable November export to an image-only April "Print to PDF," is the subject of Card 47. The redaction inconsistency is the subject of Card 48. The notice also alleged added 2025-dated characterizations; this card establishes the unanswered notice, not independent proof of every allegation inside it R.26-1549.
5. The preserved thread contains no answer. The 26-1549 portal record shows no City reply to the April 24 notice R.26-1549.
6. The closure, the notice, and the absence of a reply appear in one preserved thread. The City closed the request within hours of receipt, received the record-integrity notice four days later and before the scheduled hearing, and the thread contains no City reply after the notice.

FULL CIRCLE

The City received Request 26-1549 at 5:49 a.m. and closed it that evening, releasing the April production with standard closure language R.26-1549. On April 24 the requester used the same portal thread to challenge the April production, ask for a certified searchable export, seek responsible-official identification, and request a stay of the June 10 hearing R.26-1549 M627-629. The preserved portal record shows no response after that notice R.26-1549.

The expected City answer is that the request had already been answered in full when closed, that the April 24 message was argument rather than a new records request, and that any reply could have occurred outside the portal or at the hearing. That answer narrows the issue but does not remove the record gap. The CPRA provisions cited here — GC.7920.000, GC.7922.530, GC.7922.535, and GC.7922.540 — supply the procedural framework; this card does not treat the absence of a reply, by itself, as proof of a violation. The April 24 notice raised specific points tied to defects independently established in Card 47 and Card 48, along with further allegations this card does not independently verify, before a hearing that could convert a monitoring charge into a property assessment M627-629. If a response exists outside the portal, the preserved thread in R.26-1549 does not show it.

The thread at R.26-1549 records a same-day closure, the April 24 record-integrity notice, and no preserved City reply after that notice. The related defects in Card 47 and Card 48 supply the notice's significance before the June 10 cost-recovery hearing; this card's finding is narrower: the preserved thread leaves the record-integrity challenge unanswered.