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

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 we

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

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

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