Remarks by Rebecca Saroyan
90 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 4
- Play at 37:31
“But this doesn't seem to imply that it has to be one of those categories in order to, I mean, it says or likely to fall or poses any other significant hazard or potential hazard. So it doesn't equate your definition of fair with the definition of hazard tree is my point.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 37:59
“So the arborist has said that the tree is in fair condition? Yes. Understood. However, I don't think that our code definition of hazard tree contains a definition that encompasses whether there's a determination if the tree is in fair or great condition. It seems to focus on other things, like poses any other significant hazard or potential hazard. That's what I'm saying.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 40:11
“So the arborist did take into account the definition of hazard.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 40:25
“Yes, that's what I'm saying. I mean, you could argue that this tree poses a significant hazard or potential hazard to the residents of the block if it were to fall over. That's my point.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 40:51
“Could they fall on pedestrians? The fronds? Correct.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 41:17
“Okay, thank you so much. But I do think it would be interesting to have an engineer from DPW go out.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 58:42
“Thank you. That's the same definition I was using.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 58:45
“But my question is, does that even apply to this particular circumstance? You may not be able to answer it.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 59:10
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 1:08:02
“So I think there's three things I'm thinking about. To be honest with you, if we were to deny the appeal, I don't think I have enough information. I think that if we were to grant the appeal, I might have enough information. But I don't think I'm ready to deny the appeal. I've focused on the engineering report, potentially that. I also like, I mean, I think Commissioner Wong, your question about if the tree is removed and the property owner has agreed to pay for a replacement tree, that could be a solution that doesn't seem to have been explored, analyzed, looked into by the city. And…”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 1:32:11
“I want to recognize, President Trasvinia, your motion to grant the appeal. But what I'm hearing collectively from my colleagues is that perhaps we're not quite there yet. So I would make an opposite motion. I don't know if we need to vote on President Trasvinia's motion first, but I would move for a continuance on the matter.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 1:33:35
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 1:36:34
“I mean, I think it's appropriate to give the department time to answer the question. I think he's equivocated because he doesn't know the answer. I'm happy to give him some time to find out if that's feasible or not. And then if not, we can reconvene this matter and make our decision. Okay. I mean, if the... if they're not able to provide it then that's okay i mean at a minimum he could provide the arborist notes yeah he could provide the arborist notes and if we don't have an engineering report because the city won't provide it or isn't able to that's uh that's fine so mr murphy she's she…”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 1:54:27
“Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. D. It'll just take a second. So if the appellant has filed for an application to comply with the notice of violation, does that make the appeal moot?”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 2:05:38
“Thank you. So in the notice of NOV penalty decision, enforcement fee says $5,476 and some change. So that's what you mean?”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 2:06:26
“I see that. So the $5,000 and change would be owed, but then what you're saying is if they continue the process, there won't be up to $1,000 a day penalty. Correct. OK, thank you.”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 2:13:15
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 2:14:36
“Yes. Okay, so on that motion, Commissioner Lopez?”
Board of Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Play at 13:06
“Good afternoon. Thank you for the picture. So which of the trees do they want to remove?”
Board of Appeals · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 13:15
“On the right. And so I don't really understand. So the crosswalk they're saying is right at the edge of the garage?”
Board of Appeals · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 13:30
“Can you point on the screen? I mean, I know you shouldn't be doing this, but OK. Sure.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 13:50
“Yeah. OK. OK, no, I got you. But it would be on like, I mean, the garage is here, and then the crosswalk would be there?”
Board of Appeals · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 14:09
“Oh, that's better. Huh. OK. All right. And where are you? Can you show me in the picture where you're proposing alternatives?”
Board of Appeals · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 15:23
“So let's just play this out. If somebody had a wheelchair and they needed to have a curb cut, would the downslope be potentially problematic for someone in a wheelchair if it goes forward as proposed?”
Board of Appeals · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 16:02
“I see your point. But what you're saying is if it goes the other direction, the likelihood of having an impediment to somebody in a motorized wheelchair or something like that is not as much because it's flatter.”
Board of Appeals · Aug 26, 2026