San Francisco
Menu

Rebecca Saroyan

Vice president, San Francisco Board of Appeals

We identified Saroyan’s voice at 19 meetings.

19 of 23transcribed meetings with their voice identified
5.7min a meeting at the Board of Appeals, at least
19 of 19present at roll calls, from the clerk
Share card

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

Every roll call

Present at 19 of 19 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 →
What they talk about

Development and land use took the largest share of Saroyan’s speech with a checked topic: 60%

By the agenda item on the floor when they spoke, at the Board of Appeals (clerk’s agenda times). 120 of 132 minutes of their speech have a checked topic. How much they talk about it, not which side they take.

Development and land use60%
Neighborhoods Saroyan named

One place Saroyan named in meetings

Lines where Saroyan 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
  • North Beach 2 times

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 Saroyan was or what was said about it.

Meetings

Every meeting where we identified Saroyan’s voice

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

  1. Oct 7, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use7.7 min19:21
  2. Sep 23, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use3.1 min21:40
  3. Sep 16, 2026Board of AppealsAlcohol, cannabis and business permits5.9 min44:26
  4. Jul 8, 2026Board of AppealsAlcohol, cannabis and business permits13.1 min15:01
  5. Jun 30, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use1.2 min11:13
  6. May 27, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use6.7 min24:40
  7. May 20, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use · Alcohol, cannabis and business permits10.7 min25:37
  8. Apr 29, 2026Board of AppealsAlcohol, cannabis and business permits · Development and land use7.9 min10:32
  9. Apr 22, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use10.7 min22:51
  10. Mar 25, 2026Board of AppealsHealth and behavioral health9.5 min14:26
Show all 19Show fewer
  1. Mar 11, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use5.9 min23:14
  2. Mar 4, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use5.8 min15:52
  3. Feb 18, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use3.9 min4:53
  4. Jan 28, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use · Alcohol, cannabis and business permits14.0 min55:05
  5. Jan 14, 2026Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use9.7 min40:49
  6. Dec 17, 2025Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use3.2 min15:36
  7. Nov 19, 2025Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use1.3 min49:06
  8. Nov 5, 2025Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use · Alcohol, cannabis and business permits8.2 min1:19:33
  9. Oct 29, 2025Board of AppealsDevelopment and land use3.7 min8:08
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

A meeting missing here means we couldn’t attribute the voice, not that Saroyan was absent. Claude and Gemini each read every transcript with that day’s roster. A voice gets Rebecca Saroyan’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 Saroyan 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 Saroyan or of San Francisco alone.