Remarks by John Trasviña
308 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 6 of 13
- Play at 5:34:37
“But I think that... Well, then I think your motion is still alive.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 5:35:07
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 5:35:20
“If I could comment on the motion, I don't believe what I have heard my colleagues say. is the basis for the motion appears to be in conflict with what the city attorney's advice is about what a vendor is legally responsible for. And on that basis, I would vote no.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 5:36:06
“Well, my objection isn't to the form of the motion. My objection is to A conclusion based upon what we've already discussed. You can't undo what you've said or what we've all said. We can't undo what we've said about why we want to bring this action. So taking it out of the motion doesn't really cure that concern that the city attorney has raised. Commissioner Lopez.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 5:38:14
“And I would agree it is an uncomfortable outcome. But when you have a commission who holds the vendors to the syllable of the code, no looking at intent, absolutely, it's right here. They've made that very, very clear. Now to say, well, we've got to get them on something. And sure enough, it's bad stuff. The remedy is for the code to address that point and then bring those charges. Otherwise, it is, as I said earlier, it's kind of like the Al Capone solution. Got to get them on something. And I agree. I join all of you in sharing. seeing expressing shock, dismay, opposition to what we saw in…”
Board of Appeals · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 5:40:31
“Thank you all for a very long evening, but I appreciate everyone's participation, especially my colleagues. We stand adjourned.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 16, 2026
- Play at 7:08
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 10:11
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 11:11
“No, I just want for anyone to look back at this to know that to clarify that the language here is correct. We did oppose the legislation as it relates to the elimination of the board's review, but we did not oppose the legislation itself. So with that explanation, I'm not seeking an amendment to the motion.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 19:48
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 20:57
“Thank you. Okay, thank you. Vice President Soroyan.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 23:25
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 23:55
“Thank you. I see my question or your answer has attracted the attention of Commissioner Lopez and Commissioner Wong, who now also have questions. Commissioner Lopez. Thank you.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 44:12
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 44:34
“Just the pictures, OK. You've described the arborist report on the tree. Yes. But it wasn't presented to us. It's not referenced in the underlying hearing by the underlying hearing officer. So is there a report?”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 45:51
“So I guess as you come in new, you review what's there, I would encourage you to consider what is the member of the public going to know or not know in order to not only make their case, but also to feel comfortable with the department's decision about the disposition of a tree one way or the other. Because for right now, You've described a report by an arborist. You haven't seen the tree itself. You're going on what's in the record somewhere, which we don't have.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 46:51
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 47:41
“And can you describe the impact this tree has on The house, the block, the neighborhood?”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 48:50
“I don't know what you're asking of me. As part of, as I read the department's case, the department says, we have a really small canopy in San Francisco. And we've got this grand plan to increase the canopy. And I'm trying to get a sense as to what part of. The city's canopy. Does this tree involve and what is the benefit? Of this tree. 2. The homeowner. Passers by on the block. The neighbors. Yeah.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 49:44
“Okay. All right. Well, I am taking that from the brief and from what we've heard about the city's plan to increase, recognizing that we have a small canopy, and presumably we need a larger one, and we need a larger one for certain advantages and certain needs. But you've answered what I need to know about this particular tree. And... I'll yield to Commissioner Wong.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 59:26
“And Vice President Shroyan, if you would yield, I think one answer to your question may be that in the definition of hazard tree includes the tree obstructs or damages a street, sidewalk, or other existing structure. So at least according to the appellant, there is the damage to the wall.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 1:04:16
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 1:04:35
“So there are findings from the arborist?”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 1:05:15
“I realize that. Well, what I'm asking for is, is there a finding by the Bureau or by the arborist that the tree will not have a catastrophic impact on the wall?”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 1:05:47
“I'm sorry. Did you say palms or all trees? Palms.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026