Remarks by John Trasviña
308 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 11 of 13
- Play at 12:50
“And just one other question. Are there any public safety concerns that a delay would implicate?”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 13:47
“Thank you. Colleagues, I am concerned that this matter has taken about 10 years. On the other hand, in the absence of a safety concern, in the absence of the revenue benefit to the party, I think it's I think it's enough of a bona fide request that we should grant it. And ideally, some of the issues that can be addressed can be addressed between the city and the appellant before they come back to us. So I would be inclined to and I would entertain a motion to continue this matter to September the 2nd. Commissioner Wong.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 14:55
“I'm not sure whether we need to put that into our motion, but if that's your intention, I certainly would, I would join you in that sentiment. And is there a motion to continue to September 2nd?”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 16:11
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 18:01
“I move to adopt the July 15, 2026 minutes.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 20:29
“You're entitled to make the request, but if it's on the basis that you just stated, aside from your secondary issue, if we can hear the request, Well, it is true we do not have three board members present. Our practice has been a practice prior to the time I got here, and it's been throughout this time, that if there is a matter that the absence of the other remaining board members would make a potential difference in the vote, then we continue the matter, and we do not decide, but we continue it until they are present. And they are asked at the beginning of the hearing whether they have…”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 24:07
“I'm sorry, could you speak a little bit closer to the microphone? Yeah, I'm sorry. Thank you.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 26:37
“Thank you. And thank you for the request. I'm always happy to entertain. the request. I'm not happy to, I'm obligated to. I am happy to entertain a motion from my colleagues on these matters, but I will not be the one to make a motion to continue, and here is why. First, under our rules, our rules specifically state that The board generally will not reschedule a matter based solely on the fact that fewer than five members are present at the hearing. So that addresses part of the request that we do have, as I explained earlier, we do have a process to make sure that where the votes…”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 29:19
“ABSENT A MOTION TO CONTINUE, WE WILL PROCEED. OKAY.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 30:59
“You can discuss them within the time in which you're making your presentation. You should share them with the city attorney's office. If you are providing the copies to us to facilitate our understanding what you are saying, we can accept them and we can use them to the extent that we do not. To the extent that my colleagues and I need an aid to understand your presentation, they will be helpful. But other than that, they will not be formally part of the record any more than any other document that you would show would be part of the record.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 31:51
“Well, just so we're clear, the purpose of our receiving these documents is to aid in our understanding, not to aid your presentation.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 36:50
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 39:14
“It's all ticking me off. They didn't do that. Let me be more precise. Our rules require matters, facts and circumstances, which if known at the time, would have affected the outcome of the hearing. The matters that you're, so I won't characterize the matters you've already described. but I'm looking for something. If we're going to grant a rehearing, it's based on something we didn't know at the time of the hearing.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 40:39
“So then should we take your presentation here not as stating that there are new facts, but you're hanging your case on that this is to prevent manifest injustice?”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 42:04
“Are you saying that the documents that you received in public records are your evidence of collusion prior to our hearing and had an effect on our hearing?”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 42:19
“Yes, sir. Well put. Thank you. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Thank you.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 45:53
“Thank you for your presentation and addressing the points raised by the appellants. I have a question about these documents. On a Public Records Act request, does the city attorney's office typically review a response to a request?”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 46:37
“So maybe somebody in the city attorney's office routinely sees a response to a records request before it goes out the door, but that doesn't mean you've seen these reports.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 47:11
“OK. Well, so I was hesitant to ask you because I just because your office sees them doesn't mean you do. But if you're familiar with them, then perhaps you can describe or I see a September 24, on the fourth page, September 24 email. It talks about a copy of our public comment card. That's a public comment for the DPH hearing?”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 48:24
“Right. And then later on, there's email. I don't want to say the name of who it's from, because that might be a private person. It looks like their email address is redacted. But their name is there. In any case, it talks about seemingly facilitating testimony for a March 11 hearing. That is our hearing, isn't it? March 11?”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 49:07
“It's a February 21, 2026 email from a person. And it attaches an email from Ivy Phan of DPH.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 49:26
“Oh, no. I'm sorry. It's to DPH. And is, can you, again, I'm hesitant to ask you any details on this because they may not be yours, but I'm just trying to get a sense as to, it seems to be alleged that DPH was coordinating testimony for our hearing by members of the public. And I'm trying to see whether That's a fair reading of what's here on the second page.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 50:18
“Well, it's to Ivy from somebody. I'm not going to say who it is. And then Ivy responds, only a printed copy will be provided to the administrative law judge.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 51:42
“That's that helps me understand what what's here Thank you Okay, thank you.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026
- Play at 54:46
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Aug 12, 2026