john rahaim and i call for any public comment -- >> not yet. >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> do you have -- there is a report i think of the staff and a recommendation. >> [inaudible] >> is mr. ringel here? is there someone from planning here ? >> all right. want to be heard? >> [inaudible] >> five minutes please. >> [inaudible] >> 10 minutes, yes. >> sorry. >> there was no communication from mr. ringel as to his

appearance? >> my understanding was that he was going to be here. >> he was going to be here? >> yes. >> commissioners, i am with the planning department. i am the director of commission affairs and custodian of record on the planning department. i am here on behalf of john rahaim. i won't need the 10 minutes afforded but i am here to respond to any questions you have. we conquer with the recommendation and respectfully find that john ion didn't will fully violate the ordinance. >> mr. ringel. >> all right. >> the matter has been called but you haveue want to be heard

on it? >> may i ask a question? >> i thought maybe -- because the order we would have gone is let the complainant make his statement and -- you about i agree with you. okay. >> members of the commission hello. i apologize for being a little late. i first began interest in this case because the planning department was building -- they were approving a project across the street from my house so i was hold by a land use attorney to specifically request the entire case file, not just the documents that were made available in the public case file, and she specifically said to ask for all communications. she said it's very important

including emails, so i made a request, not knowing what the sunshine ordinance was for all documentation that they had for the project including correspondence. don louis formerly employed by the planning department because both planners have been let go. he replied and i went in to see the case file. it contains minimal correspondence and i was surprised to find that correspondence from my own family was missing from the case file so -- >> what did the case file contain? give me an approximation of the volume of paper was? >> sure. it contained maps, architectural plans, technical reports like shutter studies. it contained technical reports. it contained like -- [inaudible] and so then i waited 10 days

and i hadn't heard back from the other planner and then [inaudible] and i emailed him again said second request to see your case file, and ben fu's response was if you're making request under the sunshine ordinance you need to do so with lou wong. if you would like to see my case file it will be at the front desk tomorrow so i went in the next day to go view that case file thinking that maybe the emails i sent were in his case file. i didn't realize that the planning department segregates their files as a riewlt. that's just how they do it. there is one case file and another case file and stand for different parts of the environmental review or project review process so my emails weren't there either and what was stranger his grachics folder

was empty, the correspondence folder was empty and i took a picture because i thought it was interesting and not knowing what to do i researched the sunshine ordinance and i made a where with lul you fong and in charge of the sunshine request and what began this ongoing series of emails different how it's stated in the report to you it states that i was eventually given these documents although timely but there are dozens upon dozens of letters and emails excluded from the report but i talked to the planning department saying i need the files we're coming to hearing. so i was given limited correspondence and most was

given right back to them that i gave them and meanwhile i am waiting for the planning commission hearing. because the sunshine ordinance task force had a delay in hearing cases because there was a bag log because they didn't have enough members to make a quorum when my case finally came to be heard they had already -- the planning department had already pushed forward the project to the planning commission and the planning commission at the first hearing wouldn't approve this project. immediately prior to that i had gone to the planning commission and during public comment requested their help to help me get these case files because since then i learned there is an exclamation point file and a kay case file and that is important because it's the shadow case file because i was repeatedly told i was given all of the information related

to the project and that was completely not true several times. i was given access to the k case file on june 6. immediately before a hearing was scheduled on june 20 that later had to be postponed for other reasons because the developer didn't give proper notice but when i got access of that file i opened it up and there is a failed shadow study performed by the planning department for this file and they had sent a letter to the developer stating we cannot approve this projected because it will cast shadows on franklin square park. this building will be the secondest highest on the avenue and near the hospital and we're talking about a sizable building as it is but the fact that the planning department issued a negative declaration of the

compliance with the california environmental quality act and only referencing this shadow study that was given access to, so then an order of determination is issued and out of vote of majority of the sunshine ordinance that was there at the first hearing just immediately prior to issuing a motion of determination that the planning department was to comply -- excuse me, just let me catch my breath for a second. thank you. the project has been approved by the second -- like a week away from the second planning commission hearing where they actually approve the project so there was still time had they given me the information i needed at that time but by the time the issue was ordered it went through to the commission so that left me and my neighborhood group no other choice but to appeal to the board of supervisors. the

determination at the planning commission and to the board of appeals which we did unsuccessfully. in between that was the second sunshine ordinance task force hearing on the matter with the amendments and compliance committee. at that hearing they were told to -- don louis was there to that hearing. he said -- he was told by a city attorney he didn't need to comply with the sunshine ordinance requests for any materials after -- before i had requested only post, so that's why he was only supplying me with mail mails basically of my own because what i was interested in the information up to 2011, 2012 when this file started opening, and so i can kind of cut my story short. i

was given several d.v.d.s and each one had different information on it and the planning department performed searches the right way with the department of technology. the closest they got was the d.v.d. i was given 10 days after the board of appeals hearing which was the last possibility for administrative review without seeking judicial review. that's how it is with the california environmental quality act. after the board of appeals makes their determination you have 10 days to file rehearing requests. the planning department complied substantially with the request 12 days after meaning they pushed the project forward while holding back the information i needed because the information on that cd i was given at that time and one of the members of the sunshine ordinance task force we have a computer let's stick it in and see what's on there and in the middle of the

hearing i am seeing emails that have to do with this study so everything i was saying to the the board of supervisors, the board of appeals the planning department was rooting for the project pushing it forward while saying they didn't have -- so they were pushing it forward while not having the information. why is john rahaim here on charges from the sunshine ordinance? i can sum that up -- he is in charge of the planning department. he knew about this. i have been since given another cd as part of discovery if you will, ceqa's review of the attorney in charge of the case and i have emails here i have never seen before. i brought copies for you. i don't know if you're interested for them. i didn't know that the sfmta reviewed this project and i was told i was begin of everything there was. there

are things from the shadow study where -- long story short the planning department never complied with the request and when they were supposed to before the referral to you, the ethics commission, the senator terms i -- the search terms and from that staff and i found out about it last time and there was minimal files on there. what happened jonah for the fourth time for department of technology and decided to ask for the right search terms but only the deleted emails and not everything that i asked for but only the deleted ones and i found that out from the report to you. the planning department has minimally complied with these requests repeatedly and they kept saying you have

everything there is. >> what is the volumes of documents you received from them all total? >> the volume of documents? >> yeah, what are we talking about? >> they were all cds. for instance the one i received last time the last file was cut off so i never got anything there. there's only so much room on a cd rom and you can't open up the file so bill wikos and last name started with a "w" and they all had a part in the project and the stado consultant i am just getting those emails and a bunch of stuff not related but what i got from the city attorney and

there are six of them that clearly say "i need to talk to you about this project" and there is an email "lower the height we're going to have for other plans i put the negative declaration on my supervisor's desk and she's out for the week" and these are the projects we needed. >> i think you exz seeded your time. i don't know if any of the commissioners want to ask a question at this point. >> i don't have any questions but i will want to hear the response from the planning representative. >> thank you. >> i will separate them. thank you. you. >> want to -- planning department want to come forward and give any response to the

sequence of events that he described? >> johnace [inaudible] for the planning department. our responses are contained in the report. we concur with the chronology and the events as the investigator laid them out before you. what i can say is that over the course of several years now we have tried to comply with every request that mr. ringel has made as a result of attending the sunshine ordinance task force we went to dt, which isn't the common practice and request emails no longer in our possession. we did that twice. the first time wasn't satisfactory to mr. ringel and the sunshine ordinance. we did that a second time with specific terms and planners that work with the planning department to search

their deleted files and provided him with that information basically transfer cd provided to us from dt. again i'm just really here for any questions. >> [inaudible] >> just a question on the deleted files. how often do you delete files or how quickly do you delete files since there seems to be quite a few deleted files that you both referred to? >> the planning department's practice is to retain substantive correspondence so if it's non substantive they're deleted and not retained in the record. >> they're immediately deleted -- >> well, -- >> shortly after. or when the planner gets around to it.

there is no standard. >> so there is no standard system to when they're deleted and up to the discretion of the individual planner. is that what you're saying? >> it is but only non substantive correspondence gets deleteed. >> thank you. >> sorry. i didn't get your name sir. >> jonas i ownace. >> what is your passion. . >> >> what is your position? >>i work with the department and my position has been the custodian of records since then. >> have you had any supervisory duty of those talked about in the report that the gentleman said he dealt with and had problems getting the various documents he was asked for and they dribbled out documents to

him over various points of time? are you the supervisor at the time? >> not at the time he made the official request. that was transferred to me from tom de santo. >> okay. he was a supervisor -- >> he was the custodian of record at that time. >> who did he report to? >> director ram. >> so above him was director john ram. >> that's correct. >> i take it to regard to any things done in violation of any rules or regulation by these individuals who were named in the report that at some point mr. ram would have been informed of that if the supervisor knew of it and that he would have taken some disciplinary steps?

>> he would have informed if they felt the department wasn't in compliance or the planners weren't responding in a timely fashion and to my understanding there was no knowledge of that of the supervisor at that time so in other words we felt they responded in a timely fashion and responding mr. ringel of all of the emails in possession of the planning department. >> you said you agreed with the report of our staff and in relation to the chronology and how this happened. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> in the report it does mention a number of times the gentleman asked for various records he was entitled to under the sunshine ordinance act and under the open records act, and was not given them and was

given them later than the period he asked for them. you're aware of that? >> yes. >> okay. so what you're saying when you agree with your report you are agreeing that in regard to your department your department did then violate the particular rules relating to the obligation to turn over these materials at the time they should have been turned over? >> yes. we will contend those will not willfully done in that manner. >> but they were violations and you accept the fact that your department violated those regulations whether willful or non willful. the materials that are referenced in the report that should have been turned over weren't turned over in a timely fashion. they may have been turned over later but at

the time they were supposed to be. >> that's correct. >> and you're aware that's a violation of the sunshine ordinance and also the public records ordinance in regard to a city department having an obligation to turn those matters over timely. is that correct? >> we are. in fact -- >> so just to sum up then your -- you are stating to us that the planning department violated those sections referenced in the report of our staff? >> we did not provide some of those materials in a timely fashion, yes. >> which was a violation of the rules as reflected in the materials that are put forth in the report of our staff? you've already said you agree with it? >> that's correct. >> okay. i don't have anything

further. others? >> thank you for your recounting and commissioner keane that helped me. i was going to come at this differently. would you treat this request the same way? how would you treat the request that came from mr. ringel? how would the department treat the request today? >> it's treaty similarly but since i have been appointed we made procedurally changes and added staff in my department to specifically target these types of public record -- well, all record requests really, and so we have a better procedure in place to identify those planner who is are involved with processing materials so in fact -- for example ben fu and don louis were not the only two planners working on the case but

the primary respondents to the records request so as part of that some of the records other than not provided to him because they were not in their possession but of other planners. >> so you're developing the pot cols but seems there are changes you're making in the department. >> there are draftic changes we're making. i am changing the metric policies and it will be brought to the planning commission for their approval and then forward to you for yours. >> questions? >> if i could follow up. when you say mr. louis and mr. fu were the principle planners but there were others involved. when they got the document requests was it your department's policy that they only produce what they have and nothing else? >> no. >> what is the policy?

>> every public officer within the city and county of san francisco is actually a custodian of records so when a request is made to an individual that individual should be pursuing that to make sure that the request is satisfied. >> you say in this case you conceded to the extent it was produced much of it was not timely? >>i wouldn't say much of it. some of it wasn't timely. >> and you understood the request was in connection with a challenge that some resident was making to the project? ; right? >> yes. >> and did you do anything to slow down the approval of the project until you complied with the request? >> myself? no. >> well, does your -- does the department have any policy about when a citizen makes a request

for documents that would support or at least they believe would support their challenge to the process that until it's been fully complied with no decision should be made? >> our policy is to respond to record requests in a timely fashion, and at that time the people who were responsible for the record request felt they had responded to mr. ringel's request. >> now, is it unusual there is nothing in the correspondence file? >> not necessarily. depends when the file is provided to the person. clearly at the beginning of a case there will be nothing or minimal number of correspondences in a particular file and depending on the complexity of the case whether anything is in the correspondence at the end closer to the hearing. >> what kind of materials should be placed in the correspondence file? >> any hard copy

correspondence and emails as well. >> so correspondence from the developer, correspondence from any -- >> any substantive correspondence. >> but it didn't surprise you to learn i think it was mr. fu said he had nothing in his file? >> i don't believe he said he had nothing in the file. when i spoke to mr. fu prior to his departer and for clarity they weren't let go by the planning department and left by their own accord and he had emails and was in the correspondence folder and is a surprise to me mr. ringel didn't find anything in the folder. >> anybody have any further questions? >>i just wanted to be clear and i don't want to put words in

your mouth. are you saying there could have been correspondence in the file and mr. ringel missed them? you said you were surprised to find out. >>i was surprised to find out mr. ringel found an empty correspondence file. i can't speak to why that is. all i can speak to what i got from the planner himself and when he gets a request he prints out the substantive emails with that case and files electronically and has a folder and puts them in the correspondence file. >> and so i just want to go back to then the definition of what is substantive and if that is a definition that has been generally shared with your planners and other personnel at

the planning department because it seems to me that if that is subject to each individual planner's perspective then you may find a wide array of what people consider or don't consider substantive so some standardization of that throughout the department certainly sounds as if it's important. are you doing anything about that definition at this time? you said you were going under changes. >> thank you for that. as part of our retention policy we are trying to provide clearer definitions to what we consider substantive, but it has been conveyed to staff and non substantive emails are things that don't pertain to the project itself; right? if someone is requesting to see a docket we're not going to

retain that request; right? if someone is asking what time the hearing starts we're not going to retain that email; right? but if they're commenting on the project that email does get retained. >> i know that we offer online training in terms of the sunshine ordinance task force and i assume all of your folks at the planning department have taken that training. i don't know if you have checked that or not, but i guess my question beyond that would be addressed to the sunshine ordinance task force as to whether or not the task force ever does in person training or meetings with different departments? i mean some departments in a way are more important than others. the planning department clearly is a very important department in

the city. gets a lot of attention, a lot of scrutiny so it might behoove either -- the sunshine ordinance task force perhaps to really sit down with you and some members of your staff to discuss what is -- some of the issues you're faced with particularly when you have requests for information and for documents, so i don't know if that's something you want to approach the sunshine ordinance task force or perhaps during public comment if there is someone here from the task force that would like to comment on that, but i think these things can get a little murky depending on definitions or how the rules are interpreted by employees of a particular department. >> currently we're consulting with staff within the