The City said it withheld complainant identity, then released the same identifier inconsistently: redacted on one page and visible on another page of the same April production.
When you call a city complaint line, the city promises it will not hand your name and phone number to the person you complained about. City 311 FAQ City PRA Procedure Here the city sent the property owner a records package and, in its own closing letter, said it had taken the complainant’s name out. R.26-1549 But the package it released in April 2026 actually printed the complainant’s first name and phone number on several pages, A010 A038 and pointed to a cooperating neighbor just by saying “the neighbor to the West.” M039 The plainest sign that the package was put together carelessly is one complaint entry that the city blacked out on one page and then left wide open — name and phone showing — on a later page of the very same file. A011 A039 The same entry also carried a rough, untested description of a named resident, left sitting in the public record like everything else. M040 None of this is a matter of interpretation: it is one file treating the same private detail two different ways. M011 This only became visible because the owner’s representative compared the city’s productions page by page and forced the differences into the open. R.26-1965
Bottom line: the city said it had removed the complainant’s identity, then released a package that showed it — blacking out one complaint entry on one page and publishing the same entry, name and number intact, on the next.The City’s public materials tell complainants that their identifying information is protected, and the City’s April 2026 records-response letter says complainant identification was withheld. City 311 FAQ City PRA Procedure R.26-1549 But the April production itself exposes the complainant’s first name and telephone number on multiple pages, identifies a cooperating neighbor by direction, and handles the same March 26, 2026 additional-complaint entry two ways: redacted on one page and visible on a later page of the same file. A010 A011 A038 A039
This card is about production handling, not the truth of the complaint. The May source-of-record production later redacts the same name in the corresponding context. M011 M040 That makes the April production’s internal inconsistency sharper: the same identifier appears protected in one place and exposed in another inside a file the City closed with a letter saying complainant identification had been withheld. R.26-1549
The City’s 311 materials tell the public their contact information is shared only with the working department. The City’s records-request procedure names “names of complainants” and personal phone numbers as information to redact. The privacy-balancing authorities the City invokes are Government Code sections cited in its own closing letter. Govt Code §7922.000 Govt Code §7930.100
The closing letter on the April request recites that “Identification of complainants … and victims” was “specifically exempted from disclosure” under Government Code sections 7922.000 and 7930.100. R.26-1549 Govt Code §7922.000 Govt Code §7930.100
The 03/26/2026 “ADDITIONAL COMPLAINT” entry is rendered with a redaction box over the complainant’s name on page 11 of the April production and with the name and phone number fully visible — “FARHAD (916) 743-4583” — on page 39 of the same file. A011 A039 The May source-of-record production redacts the same name throughout. M011 M040
The case-note record follows no documented convention. The 03/26/2026 entry is duplicated character-for-character five times; an “e-mil” typo sits uncorrected in a 2023 entry; and entries for the same date open under different headings. M011 M040 M024 The production supplies nothing against which its own redaction inconsistency can be reconciled as anything but inconsistent.
The strongest City answer is that case notes must record what complainants and neighbors report, and production-pipeline artifacts can create page differences. That does not resolve this record. The issue is not whether the City could record a complaint; it is whether the City could tell the requester complainant identity had been withheld while releasing a file that exposed the same identifier in multiple places and redacted it in another. R.26-1549 A010 A011 A038 A039 The May context does not cure the April production’s internal inconsistency. M011 M040 The corrective question is straightforward: produce the redaction/export explanation or issue a corrected production. Govt Code §7922.000 Govt Code §7930.100