San Francisco
Menu

John Trasviña

President, San Francisco Board of Appeals

Runs the Board of Appeals’ meetings; we identified Trasviña’s voice at all 23 transcribed.

23 of 23transcribed meetings with their voice identified
23 of 23present at roll calls, from the clerk

Presides over the Board of Appeals

See all

Next Board of Appeals meeting: Wed, Nov 4, 5:00 pm · Clerk’s calendar

One clip, newest first

  • John Trasviña · Member · Board of Appeals · Mar 11, 2026 · 56:50

    “I’m reading in— again, we’re getting the issue that was of concern to me, and I think has been expressed throughout this, is what notice does the vendor have? A vendor or vendors collectively? As I understand it, the notice of violation, which you put up on the screen, needs to follow Section 5.9–11, notice of violation.”

Every roll call, and Trasviña’s other bodies

Present at 23 of 23 roll calls at the Board of Appeals

From the clerk’s own record. We don’t compare members on it.

PresentExcusedAbsentOldest first, 1 square per roll call

Absent 0. Oct 29, 2025 to Sep 16, 2026. The clerk’s record covers 23 of the 26 meetings we hold, through Sep 16, 2026.

Official roll call, from the clerk →
  • Board of Appeals: talk time not compared. Presides over its meetings, so isn’t compared with the members.
Neighborhoods Trasviña named

3 places Trasviña named in meetings

Lines where Trasviña named the place, read by two AI readers that both agree it means that place. Each dot plays the newest one; brighter means named more often.

San Francisco
  • Bayview Hunters Point 1 time
  • Golden Gate Park 1 time
  • Oceanview/Merced/Ingleside 1 time

Places are drawn at the centre of their own boundary in the city’s Analysis Neighborhoods file (DataSF (City and County of San Francisco)). A dot says the place was named, not where Trasviña was or what was said about it.

Meetings

Every meeting where we identified Trasviña’s voice

23, newest first. The date opens the meeting; the time plays the video at Trasviña’s first remark.

  1. Oct 7, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use21.7 min5:08
  2. Sep 23, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use16.7 min4:48
  3. Sep 16, 2026Board of AppealsAlcohol, cannabis and business permits32.2 min4:37
  4. Aug 12, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use35.0 min7:45
  5. Jul 15, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use14.3 min5:46
  6. Jul 8, 2026Board of AppealsAlcohol, cannabis and business permits13.0 min4:50
  7. Jun 30, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use5.2 min17:23
  8. May 27, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use21.6 min7:32
  9. May 20, 2026Board of AppealsAlcohol, cannabis and business permits · Development and land use46.3 min6:07
  10. Apr 29, 2026Board of AppealsAlcohol, cannabis and business permits · Development and land use8.9 min5:31
Show all 23Show fewer
  1. Apr 22, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use26.5 min7:22
  2. Apr 15, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use34.6 min5:11
  3. Mar 25, 2026Board of AppealsHealth and behavioral health17.2 min6:36
  4. Mar 11, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use16.6 min5:44
  5. Mar 4, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use15.2 min4:59
  6. Feb 18, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use · Budget and spending17.0 min5:36
  7. Jan 28, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use · Alcohol, cannabis and business permits34.3 min7:28
  8. Jan 14, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use31.9 min5:23
  9. Dec 17, 2025Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use · Commendations, ceremonies and memorials28.3 min4:51
  10. Dec 10, 2025Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use · Commendations, ceremonies and memorials19.6 min11:01
  11. Nov 19, 2025Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use12.6 min4:21
  12. Nov 5, 2025Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use · Alcohol, cannabis and business permits21.9 min9:41
  13. Oct 29, 2025Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use15.6 min4:46
How we identify who is speaking · blind check, pooled across five cities: of 340 commission lines drawn, 260 right, 4 wrong, 1 unclear, 75 couldn’t be judged

We identified Trasviña’s voice at 23 meetings. A meeting missing here means we couldn’t attribute the voice, not that Trasviña was absent. Claude and Gemini each read every transcript with that day’s roster. A voice gets John Trasviña’s name only when both agree and a code check finds the name said on, or just before, their turn. Voices our transcripts merge with someone else’s are never attributed, so every count here undercounts what Trasviña said. For commissions, of 340 lines drawn, 260 were right, 4 wrong and 1 unclear, and the checkers couldn’t judge 75. We have since removed the voices behind 64 of those lines (3 wrong, 0 unclear, the rest we had already held for other reasons). Of the 276 lines we still publish, the checkers could judge 228: 226 right, 1 wrong and 1 unclear (90% lower bound 0.97). They couldn’t judge the other 48. The check is one sample pooled across the five cities, not of Trasviña or of San Francisco alone.