mr. ringel a question? as you stand here today are there still documents that you believe that the planning department has not delivered to you. >> absolutely. >> what are those -- >> they complied with the lasted search that he mentioned and the fourth cd i was given and after six hearings knowing there was a referral to the ethics commission it was pending and they were warned that it would be that exact same search but not for the deleted emails, all emails, anything held within the custody of the planning department was my request, and i understand -- i'm not a political person. like i only registered to vote which is weird but i never thought my vote mattered and i want to preface this i don't understand the politics but i understand the ethics commission and the relationship with the sunshine ordinance task force. it seems to be strange. because they didn't want to send the case here. i asked them to so there was accountability on behalf of those at the planning department and our faith in government

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 spe

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

mr. ringel a question? as you stand here today are there still documents that you believe that the planning department has

mr. ringel a question? as you stand here today are there still documents that you believe that the planning department has not delivered to you. >> absolutely. >> what are those -- >> they complied with the lasted search that he mentioned and the fourth cd i was given

mr. ringel believes has gotten everything. i was surprised and i spent hours talking to her and pages. these are emails date stamp friday the city and county of san francisco that the project went to the mta. we were told it didn't. that reporters request for information -- i could have contactd that reporter -- i mean this is definitely public information. >> so you're still looking for information that's in the files that can support your argument for your point of view on this project? that's all i am trying to get at? >> there is a projigz in the california environmental quality act, public resources code that says the information dition closure provisions are so central to ceqa that a violation of them is to be considered a violation of ceqa even if a different outcome may not have occurred. >> so -- >> that's important to me. i wanted to come here because i believe you are the ones -- they are reluctant and eight to nine -- which is that group and over the six hearings they changed their mind and the more noncompliance they saw and the order of determination they saw and mr. raha

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

mr. ringel because for going and pushing this rock up this mountain as you have because i think for all of the people like yourself that get to this points there have been probably hundreds that have given up, and haven't -- excuse me, have not been given the information that they're entitled to under the california public records act and under the san francisco sunshine act, and it seems that you're bringing this to the attention of the city as you >> they know what the requirements are and they and i'm going to tell you one thing more about mr. ionin . two years ago i attended a sunshine ordinance task force hearing where he claimed in the hearing that the department handed over everything that was available. they found him in violation because they didn't believe him and i happened to walk out in the hall after the end of the case and heard him say the following to the complainant "i know what documents you want. i know where they are and i'm going to make sure you don't get them." he then turned around and saw me and surreyed off. he's a liar. that's one of the positions he's in the po