Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Ms. Lamar, I hesitate to interrupt you. I know we have an interpreter tonight and we have non-English speaking witnesses. I want to make sure that the oath that you're about to give is being given in the language that they understand. So if we can have the interpreters assist you in that.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. I want to welcome everyone to tonight's proceedings of the Board of Appeals. As I noted a second ago, many of the people involved in three of the items are not fully proficient in English. We will have interpreters for them. The role of the interpreters in this process is critically important. And if they are not here, if they're not able to do their job effectively, then we cannot do our jobs effectively. I just want to stress the importance of the interpreters and when they come we will proceed with that, with the portions of the item for the oath at that time for that

I move to adopt the minutes of the Wednesday, September 2, 2026 meeting.

Yes. I'm disclosing for the record that PG&E made a donation in early 2026 to my nonprofit employer for the purposes of funding the Sunset Night Market. I received no financial benefit from that donation. I do not believe that that donation will impact my ability to be fair and impartial in this matter.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. We did have a full hearing on this matter. In fact, we continued the matter to give the Board of Supervisors the opportunity to take action on a matter that was very relevant to the topic at hand for Homestead. And the Board did act and consistent with their action. As we discussed at the last hearing, it was our intention to move to grant the appeal and revoke the permit on the basis that it was improperly issued because the tree, because the permit holder did not submit a tree protection plan. I want to make sure that my colleagues who were not here have the opportunity

I'd feel comfortable proceeding with the motion that you described.

I share Commissioner Lopez's sentiments about moving to proceed with the motion as stated.

Well, it's almost 515. So we will recess until their arrival. Hopefully, it'll be brief.

And before we begin, I just want to thank our interpreter. Before you came, I talked about the importance of your role in our ability to do our work. So I appreciate it. And if you have any concerns about going too fast or we need a break, just please let us know.

Can I just ask our city representative, have you completed your testimony, or do you want to reserve any remaining time?

I just wanted to make sure that all the remaining time is for this individual.

Thank you. Only for the city representative. Thank you.

Ms. Lamar, Commissioner Wong has noted that Ms. Wong may need an interpreter as well. And I don't know whether she has an interpreter. Do we have two interpreters yet?

Right. So our interpreter should interpret for the group.

But the people who need the interpretation should be in one area so that the interpreter can assist them all at once with the same interpretation.

So I think it can be done one of two ways. Either he can do translations for the whole space and then we double the time. Or if the parties are comfortable sitting near each other, because I don't know how they feel about each other, he could do simultaneous translation on the side. The simultaneous would be a little bit faster because we don't need to pause. But I think it's up to the interpretation and the parties on which one they would prefer.

I agree, and I would ask the people who need interpretation how close they can sit comfortably with each other. And if the interpreter can arrange that, if it's not possible for the interpreter to do his job all with one, then we can move to an alternative.

Thank you all. And I want to welcome our department representative. I note that you have been here for two months. Shall I assume that you were not part of the previous time this matter came before us? Correct. At that hearing, we ruled that there was insufficient evidence to uphold the penalties. My question to you is, of the evidence that you have presented, what is new since the time that the commission presented its evidence?

Okay, well, we do have a de novo hearing. But my question was, what was new? Because the last time we were here, we said it was insufficient. And you've answered me that you're not in a position to be able to say one way or the other. OK, great. And my other question relates to the commission's presentation in writing, where it says that the Yins' actions included threatened and attempted violence. Can you describe with some specifics what the threat and attempted violence was?

And can you point to me which code says intervening in any way is a violation? Sure.

Well, then that gets to my question of what constituted the immediate danger?

OK. And also, it's the department's position that the intention to intervene is immaterial.

That people can intervene for all sorts of reasons. But in the department's view, the intention is immaterial.

Right. OK, great. And that's all I have. I see Vice President Soroyan would like to ask a question. I yield to Vice President Soroyan.

Good evening. Welcome to the city. I have three questions. If you're not able to answer them, I certainly understand. I'll do my best. My first question was, I'm so sorry, I wasn't really clear as to why you conceded a portion of your time to Ms. Zhongyu Wang. MS. Zhongyu Wang. MS. Yes.

Who, Zhang Yimeng? No, no, the individual who said, no, the person, your program person that suggested that. They're not here, yeah. They're not here. OK. All right. And then I also wanted to understand, so you said two months. Were you actually able to attend, I believe, the June 26 Arts Commission hearing?

Hold on one second here. We were given a transcript from June 23rd with summaries of all the discussions. Were you able to attend that one? No. I didn't attend June 23rd. Did you have a chance to review the video of the Arts Commission discussing and deliberating about the case before today?

You read the transcript, but you didn't have a chance to watch the video? Correct. OK. And then my final question is, in the artist's code of conduct. And don't get me wrong, I understand we are where we are. But the first paragraph says that a violation of these rules may result in the denial, suspension, or revocation of your license.

So where does the theory that intent doesn't matter or must come into play here? It's at the top of page two, the artist's code of conduct.

All right. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Wong? I don't have any more questions.

Sorry. Okay. Thank you for coming here. Welcome to the city. Can you explain a little bit more about the intent to run in? There's an altercation. I think human beings are naturally inclined to be interested in what's going on. So can you verbalize or explain to me a little bit more, help me understand how Jie Ying's Moving towards an incident where her daughter was involved triggers the assumption that she was violating the code of conduct.

Anybody could hold her back just because.

But there was a person independent of all this that made the decision to hold her back for whatever reason, wasn't on her. And the actions of that person is the underlying factor of the assumption that she was, she needed to be, or like, sorry, just help me understand that a little bit more.

And was there consideration given that it was her daughter that was involved versus just anybody on the street? I think a mother's relationship with their daughter is a little...

I think that that's also why it's a may versus a must. So there was no consideration of relationship.

Ms. Lamar, do we have any remote requests? No, we don't. Great. Thank you.

Oh, the parties need to hear and understand your presentation. If you are able to pause so the interpreters can do their work, then we'll give you twice the time that you would otherwise be allotted in order for that to occur.

If they're going to do it simultaneously, you can probably just give her an additional minute for pauses in between. And then typically when you're speaking, like the pace that I'm at right now is good for continuous translation. But if you're not able to go this slow, you could just pause at the end of every sentence and just breathe.

So what is the preference of our interpreters? How would you like to be able to make sure that this witness is understood by the people who need the interpretation? Would you like to have her speak and then you speak? Or do you want to...

And who is doing the interpreting during this section? Both of you or just one of you? Since I'm here now, I will do it. All right. So as I said earlier, we'll do it to make sure your job is best, which is she will speak at a good pace, and then you'll be able to restate it. So six minutes.

Yes, six minutes. We'll restart the presentation and the time.

So, thank you for bearing with us through all this. I'm wondering, with the translation during these events, I get that you've only been around for two months. So, to the best of your knowledge, the translation for both the Arts Commission's hearing, the interviews, do you know if they're more verbatim or if they were a summary? Verbatim. Verbatim, okay. And folks are speaking at about the same speed as they normally do, or do you know if they slowed down? Sorry, say that again. For English translations? Oh, actually, do you want me to pause real quick for translation?

In your experience during this process, did you feel that the Mandarin translation was exact or could be different?

And then another question. Can you tell me the difference between, I think, Mr. Wei, when he was giving his presentation, that he ran, or his public comment, that he ran into the space? What's the difference between him running into the altercation and Jie Ying running into the altercation?

What you've told us is that she ran in, and the action of running in and being restrained, or the action of running in, is the reason that you think that she was going to do something.

Yeah, and that I understand. I'm not trying to re-litigate his situation. I'm just trying to figure out, because he said that he also ran towards the incident, that the reason that I heard that Jie Yin was given a penalty is because she also tried to run in, but she was restrained.

So I'm just trying to figure out what's the difference of him successfully running in and just holding out his arms to prevent something happening versus her attempt to run in.

Just one question. What's the, if you know, the economic cost of a six-month suspension for a vendor?

And do any of your colleagues with the commission know that, what a vendor makes in a year?

Yes. Good evening. Hi. Hi. Thank you to the interpreters for your work. I have a question for Mrs. Jian and also for Ms. Ying-Hei Gay's daughter. I know we're hearing this de novo, but it's difficult to forget some video that was presented to us by you and your daughter when you were here before us before of Mrs. Hong Yu Wang's, and I believe another family member, a son, yelling and screaming quite aggressively. And I just... Could you talk a little bit more about what that dynamic was like? The son is not present today. But my understanding of the incident from today's testimony and, of cour

Do I remember correctly that there was another family member involved, for example, Ms. Wang's son, who was screaming very loudly and aggressively towards you and your daughter?

We have completed the testimony in this matter. First, I want to thank our interpreters for helping us with this process. And I also want to commend and thank the Arts Commission for conducting what appears to be a very effective program in the arts.

At the beginning of this proceeding, the Arts Commission representative stated that it has been seven years since the last incident to be brought to the Board of Appeals. I think that's wonderful, and I think the board would appreciate having no docket and no matters having to come before us. But inevitably, there are disputes, and there are rights to bring matters to us.

We told the Arts Commission that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the charges earlier. While the Commission representative states that we should forget about that and forget about the earlier proceeding. I disagree. That's why I asked the commission representative what new evidence is there. I appreciate her difficulty in being able to answer that because she is new. But the department should have been able to give us that information either collectively or in the brief as they thought about bringing these charges again.

I won't say whether it's high or low, but it is significant.

But when there is doubt, the remedy is to say that the prosecutor, in this case the department, hasn't met its burden. It's not to just lower the suspension because of that doubt.

I don't hear new significant facts tonight. I did not hear new significant facts tonight.

According to the department, An attempt to get involved is the same thing as participation in a violent altercation. We don't know exactly what's on, or we don't have to decide what was in Ms. Yin's mind, but we do know the testimony is that she did not reach the altercation that was already going on. She did not reach?

And I see Commissioner Abad Okubiyu would like to be recognized.

Thank you, President Chasvinia. I would concur that I don't. see that the department has presented anything new. I know we're supposed to be conducting a de novo review. In fact, what I recall from our previous hearing on this matter is that in the course of that hearing, some additional evidence, videography was presented. It doesn't appear to be referenced whatsoever in the analysis presented by the commission. I'm also a little bit confused as to why the commission, I guess Ms. Trickey isn't here, would opt to give time to one of the people who are before us tonight, who's who.

Thank you. And yes, to conclude my previous thought, I'm confused as to why, and again, Ms. Trickey is not here to answer this, the department, the commission would cede some of their time to one of the appellants in another item for tonight. That was a little confusing for me and signals that I think the department could have made a more compelling case, provided staff support. Both Ms. Pate and Mr. Glenn are in the room, and yet our department representative was sort of left to answer, struggle with a lot of questions that Ms. Trickey, Ms. Pate, and Mr. Glenn didn't appear to provide any sup

I'm inclined to agree with my colleagues that the motion, I'm sorry, the appeal should be granted based on the fact that we continue to have insufficient evidence to support the penalty or suspension of the artist's license. And I also am troubled by the fact that we seem to still have conflicting accounts of the event itself. I understand that it's difficult to ascertain exactly what happened, but we don't have more clarity

unequal application of the rules to those individuals. I think that's fundamentally unsound.

Thank you. First, I want to thank everybody for being here tonight, especially Arts Commission staff. Actually, again, I want to name the staff person, Mr. Sun. I recognize that it's hard to be in your role, and it sounds like you've done your best to try to use your language skills in the best of your abilities in this situation.

I think I'm in the same boat as my fellow commissioners. I don't see clarity in this situation. And when I asked my question, it really felt like there was arbitrary application of the rules in the same situation.

And as I was reading the briefs, the only new thing that I saw was that they were being heard again at the Arts Commission. So as I was reading the brief, the only new evidence that I saw was from the Arts Commission's own investigation. the process of the investigation.

I think this is a complicated task to investigate these matters. It's arguable whether the Arts Commission is in the best position to conduct these investigations. And I suspect that the commission would probably rather focus on other aspects of their duties. But I want to thank the representative this evening and everyone participating in this investigation, because I do think that it's been done thoroughly. With that being said, I do not see evidence of violence or attempted violence in the record.

Are you going to read your statement in its entirety?

You're entitled to... If your statement is being interpreted, then you're entitled to twice the time. You don't have to use it, but...

Thank you both. I want to start, and I do appreciate that you've inherited this case. The commission's been at this since almost 10 months now. And we've been at it for quite a while as well. You state, and you just stated it's in the department's brief, by their own admission, the parties have violated the terms. If that's the case, why are they appealing?

OK. Isn't it more the case that the dispute is over whether the actions are violations, not the legal conclusion that they violated the terms?

It seems to me the reason we're here is because the department is taking certain legal views on what the code means.

Right. So, for example... where it states in Code 20 about interference with customers. Were there customers involved in any of the altercations? In the matter that's before us right now.

In this matter, was there a customer involved in the dispute between the two vendors? No, there wasn't a customer involved. Okay. And do you know who started this altercation that is the subject of this item?

But there are no customers. They were still setting up, correct?

Right. And do you know who started the physical altercation? Started the physical altercation?

I'll ask the question again. Do you know who started that?

And just two more questions. How many code violations have there been brought by the department this year?

And are there any efforts by the department to have restorative justice in disputes?

Thank you. Just some question. I looked through what was submitted to us. And on the appellate side, they talked about how they got to the two years being the decision. Can you talk about two years being the penalty? Can you speak on the behalf of your department of how Sorry, do you mean the street artists the committee's decision for this one? Okay, how they got to two years Yeah, why why two years because what I saw of what was submitted the staff gave a whole host of options

that. Am I reading it wrong? That's not what I read in what was submitted. Yeah. It was a revocation?

Okay. I read permanent revocation and then. Sorry, I can't hear you. I think the The Commission's hearing reflected the original recommend. Maybe you can maybe you can tell us. I'm sorry.

action in terms of because we know that this is people's livelihood and this is the one of the best sites for the artist to sell okay okay so then what i'm reading of what the appellant submitted was after they decided not to go with the full verification they were in discussion of how long the suspension is right they got it discussed other possibilities okay got it thank you

Yeah, first time. So the altercation was over. So she didn't actually see anybody hitting anybody? She saw the injuries.

Point of orders are not made by me. Other than members of the board, only members of the board can make points of order. In your time that you have, you have time to, in your rebuttal, you can certainly raise any matter that you would like with us.

Thank you. How does self-defense figure into the Arts Commission's assessment of violations of the code or code enforcement?

And is that approach informed by specific code provisions?

So the code of conduct, but not the city code. Is that correct?

Can you or your colleagues tell us where in the code of conduct it says that?

You're talking about the 24 paragraphs of the code, correct? Are you talking about the 24 paragraphs of the code of conduct?

Thank you, everyone, and particularly our interpreters, for helping us have a fair and even proceeding. I want to be brief. I've got five points. But I do believe bottom line is that the department's position is untenable. First, when this matter came before us before, we said there was insufficient evidence. I haven't heard any new evidence tonight. So just on that basis alone, I would say that the department has not met its burden. Second, there appears to be an uneven application of the code in this matter. It seems undisputed. Well, the department says, oh, there's strict compliance. We do

MS. Yes. President Drozdvinia, I concur with everything you've said. I don't see a reason not to grant the appeal. I think from my observations at the record below, at the commission hearing, the Arts Commission hearing, it was unclear and inconclusive who started the altercation and the testimony was conflicting. So I'm in a position where I think that there is unequal application of the penalties at hand. And I might recommend that perhaps there is some kind of consideration of an interim type of resolution, mediation, counseling. some tiered level of Resolving disputes before jumping to a r

I believe Commissioner Lopez would like to be heard.

I see this case a little bit differently than the last one, because I do see in the record the appellant making statements that she was involved in a physical altercation. I think there's a dispute as to who started that altercation, but I don't think there's a dispute about whether an altercation occurred. So just putting out there that I think, and I agree with what Vice President Soroyan has said about you know, having alternatives to suspension or revocation. I think that aligns with President Tresvina's question in a prior matter about restorative justice processes. But I'm just not sure

Commissioner Wong. Thank you. So I think I'm still stuck on whether or not there was anything new brought up. We've heard this case before. We heard it again tonight. I think folks have just shared variations of a story that I don't know what the truth is. It's probably somewhere in between. But you're right, Commissioner Lopez, that there was clearly something that happened. I like that President Trasvina and Vice President Sororan brought up alternative solutions that are a little bit outside of this. I think culturally giving face to both sides is important. And I think that there's clearly

Thank you, Commissioner Wong. Yes, I'd agree with you colleagues that we haven't heard anything new this evening. And it was the department's opportunity to press a more vigorous case and to explain how a two-year suspension What are the logics of how that is proportional to the incident and the gravity of the incident? I don't have a clear sense of that from the commission representative. Maybe the committee of the Arts Commission did, does have some kind of rubric they're working from. It wasn't brought forward. It's difficult to understand that. But aside from that, Because we haven't heard

Thank you, Commissioner Budd. We do have a motion by Commissioner Soroyan. I just want to add a couple of things, and that is notwithstanding my comments earlier, this is a generally well-run program. The testimony from the department is there has been vendor peace for the most part, at least maybe over the last seven years, maybe longer. And that's something to be not forgotten in this. As we focus on the specific facts of this case, overall, there appears to be vendor peace. There is certainly more language services and materials and translations than I've seen in almost any any department i

Thank you. I can count, so I won't make an alternative motion with respect to reduced suspension. But I wanted to tack on a couple of other points or advice for the department just to summarize, I think, some of what we've heard. I think alternative forms of dispute resolution, whether that's restorative justice, bringing in other people from the vendor community, mediation. And then I think if things do go down this path again, clear evidence would, I think, in my mind, support. you know, something along the lines of a revocation or suspension potentially, with the understanding that there's

Commissioner, I think we have a motion on it from Vice President Steroian.

Thank you for your presentation. Can you just state again what is the statement that was threatening?

Okay, and what is the nature of the threat?

Well, the allegation and her license is going to be revoked for a threatening statement, correct? Right. And you read me this threatening statement. So I'm trying to get a sense as to what's the nature of the threat. Or how is that threatening?

The words, if I have a problem, I will definitely come to you. Yes. OK. And well, on page 90, or screen 90 of the department's brief, or department's presentations, on page 90 of 255, it says, threats implying legal, physical, or some other action. So is it legal? Is it physical? Is it?

OK. One other question is, in the interview of Ms. Wong, the department interviewer says, I need to tell you that if we determine you made threats to anyone, you could also be facing disciplinary action, either suspension or revocation of your license. Is that a threat?

Why not? What's the difference between if you did something, you're going to pay for it, and if I have a problem, I will definitely come to you?

But isn't that threatening legal action?

Thank you, President Trasvigna. Just a couple questions regarding the body of evidence that we have. And I believe that the commission and its own committee has already reviewed. One has to do with this videography, and then the other has to do with content that came up in the previous appellant's record, which is part of the collective body of evidence concerning this incident. Starting with the latter, it's my understanding, and I just want to affirm this is the commission's conclusion as well, that Ms. Tsang Yu-Wang went to Ying-Yei Gay's booth at some point and pushed her.

Excuse me, thank you. I'm sorry, will you repeat that last statement?

And there was videography submitted or shown as part of the prior hearing here at the Board of Appeals on this. there was video submitted, and then there was additional video that was revealed in that hearing that showed a family member of Ms. Zong Yu Wang screaming obscenity, behaving very aggressively, violating all of these, I think, provisions of codes of conduct, courteousness, threatening language, aggressive posture. And so it's my understanding that, as you explained earlier, Obviously, the commission can't take action against that individual, even though they are a close family member

Yeah. And can you help us understand, even though the commission can't take action, I mean, against that individual, clearly that behavior is impacting the atmosphere and is wholly counter to what we're all trying to encourage in our vendor communities and locations. How did the commission and the committee consider that videographic information? I mean, just curious if that...

It is in itself a piece of evidence, even though it's something that the commission can't act on, right?

Right. But sort of acting very much on behalf of his family is probably, it seems like a habitual, probably a habitual inhabitant of this location and these environs. So it's still just, I guess I'm trying to understand if the penalty that is being levied upon the vendor, which is a three-month suspension, if this other extraneous but related behavior at all relates to the proportion of the response that the department is having. I mean, it seemed to be, of all of the things that we are having a hard time understanding in terms of what actually happened, seeing that video and hearing the langu

I'm just trying to understand if that affected them at all or if it came up, because it's clearly behavior that we want to discourage, that makes everyone uncomfortable. So thank you, Ms. Pate, for this. Thanks for that clarification. Thank you. And then so I guess, did the appellant, Zong Juong, push someone ever in this?

OK. Maybe I misunderstand who did the pushing. Perhaps I misunderstand or misremember who pushed.

So it's just a verbal threat, but the pushing that occurred is not part of the... That's not part of this piece.

Just to clarify, so on the presentation, you had the reasons for the three-month suspension, right? So the top part was if I have a problem, I definitely come to you. Can you pull that up again, that one slide? Can we have the slides?

Maybe not. Thank you. OK. So the supporting evidence, the top one is the, if I have a problem, I'll definitely come to you. At the bottom, I also noticed that she was intending to ask Jen Fu Wei why he didn't stop an action. Is that also considered part of the three-month suspension? This second bullet? Yeah. How does the second bullet apply in this situation?

I'm just trying to figure out what, because you put it up as in the second bullet, said that in an interview when asked about the video, I was speaking to I wanted to find to ask him if he saw us hitting them. And then I asked why he didn't stop them from hitting me. Just can you provide the context of why you're showing this to us?

OK. All right. That's helpful. Thank you.

I have a question. Are you saying that there is a video of this statement being made?

Well, so are you saying that you have evidence of the video evidence of the statement being made? Correct. Is there a reason why you haven't shown it to us?

OK. And can you remind me, was that said in English or Chinese?

And who translated it? Whose video is it?

So has anybody certified that that translation is correct?

Yeah. Who is certified that it is correct?

And when did the commission get, when did the department get this?

Thank you, President Transviña. Yes, that was the video that I've been asking about earlier. And a point of clarification for the Arts Commission representative. I'm sorry, I keep calling you that. Please remind me of your name.

Maysoon. Thank you. Apologies. No worries. Maysoon. So earlier I had asked for clarification that the record shown, and this is in the material submitted by the commission, by the Arts Commission, that Zongyu Wang had physically pushed Yingzi Gay. And it shows here on page 54 of the agenda packet, I don't know what number this is in terms of just the Arts Commission's brief, that at 1035 the arguments turn physical. So I just want to be absolutely sure that I understand correctly that that is what my question earlier was, was that the Arts Commission's finding? And I see it written here that ,

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Staff have submitted that as part of the reason, presumably, that your committee decided to levy some kind of suspension, a penalty, right? To apply a penalty because there was physical altercation, right?

Well, I'm referring to materials that your team submitted. Got it. So I'm trying to make sense of that. So my understanding is that part of the reason, there are many reasons why the committee had decided to apply some kind of penalty in this case of three-month suspension.

Specifically, it's Exhibit B in the Arts Commission's submittal. And it's an incident summary, I think, is the title.

So at 1035, it indicates that the appellant associated with item number seven of tonight's hearing pushed the appellant associated with item number six.

Yeah, OK. And that is part of the committee's decision to apply some kind of penalty, or it's not?

So the fact that the physical altercation and then the yelling and the obscenities in the video an hour and a half later happened at 90 minutes apart makes them separate events? The commission doesn't consider those all part of a collectively as part of an incident?

OK. But the commission is submitting in their own written materials that the appellant for item number seven pushed the appellant physically. Right. I'm not disputing that. OK. Thanks.

Commissioner Wong? To the best of your knowledge, do you know, did it at all come up how her son appeared an hour later? Like, was he given a call? Was he, sorry, happened to be around? Yeah.

Do you know how her son happened to appear?

Was that in here at all or no? Say that again? Was that submitted to us at all? Yeah. There's just a million pages. I know. There's a lot of pages to read. So I appreciate that. Thank you.

I'm sorry. I have another question. Have you had a chance to watch the video?

So how have you been able to ascertain that the statement was directed at, I'm sorry, I can't pronounce. Yeah. Because I'm looking at the video and I can't see... I mean, I see the words, but how do we know the words are directed at him?

OK, so you're acknowledging he's not in the video. He's out of the screen.

OK, and you verified with her that her statements were directed at him.

So same question that I asked the department. Can you talk to me about how your son knew to come to this space?

And then one other question. In the video that we saw, I think maybe your daughter-in-law, the girl with the purple hair, was also recording. Is there any reason you didn't submit that video?

So in the video that was submitted by the former appellant, the appellant in the other case, it seemed like Ms. Wang's daughter-in-law was also recording. And I'm just wondering why their recording was not submitted as evidence.

In the video, yeah. 她說從那個視頻, 映資格的視頻裡面看到了, 你的女士也出現在現場, 為什麼她會現場呢?

The question is, because in the video that was submitted as evidence from Jie Ying, there was clearly, I believe it's Ms. Wang's daughter-in-law that was recording as well. Her phone was up, she was holding it, she was recording. Yes, so in the second At the follow up an hour later after the incident, when the video that Miss Wang is saying is edited to make her son look like it wasn't the full picture. I'm also wondering, because in the video I can see that there's somebody else recording. Why wasn't, like, is that video available?

I think we're losing the interpretation purpose here. You've stated something we need to hear from. We need to hear you translate that.

I'm asking, so can you just translate what I asked?

Thank you all, particularly our interpreters, for helping us hear a lot of testimony and try to come to bring us to the ability to make a decision here. A lot has been going on on this matter. It comes down to one statement. As I understand, the department's view is there's one statement involved. There's a lot more going on. But the statement is, if I have a problem, I will definitely come to you. That the department considers as a threat. What occurred an hour before, what has occurred, all the dynamics, is not that statement. At best, the statement is ambiguous and innocuous. That statement

I think I'm looking at this a little bit differently than the last two cases that we've heard this evening for a couple reasons. One is I'm looking at all the evidence that we've received, testimony that we've heard tonight and in the previous one, to be honest, inclusive of that video. And in my mind, and I don't know if perhaps the department or its committee compartmentalizes this in a different way. But the entirety of that morning, what happened starting 10.30 through this latter incident where there was yelling, there was the N word, there was the F word, there was the C word, sort of co

It's submitted as Exhibit G. It's one of the two videos submitted. Thank you.

Are there other commissioners who would like to be recognized? Commissioner Wong.

Yeah, I think I agree with Commissioner Abaddon that this case is a little bit different because we are hearing it new. So it's not that we're looking for new evidence. I don't know which step to take. And I'd like to hear more from my fellow commissioners because I can see that, we can all see that something happened, right? And we don't want to, or there's clearly an incident. Violence was clearly a part of it. The code of conduct was violated. I think the Arts Commission staff has done all that work to lay that out. I am hesitant to put a fine on Ms. Wong when there were other parties invol

Other commissioners like to be recognized?

I'll go. I'm inclined to see it in the way that Commissioner Abad described. I do think that there's a piece of hard evidence in the video. I do think that it's appropriate for a vendor to be responsible for the actions of a family member at their location unless there's kind of railing evidence to suggest that the family member or that the the permit holder has taken steps to distance themselves from the family member and disallowing them from coming back to the site or asking for support from the department in keeping the family member away. I don't think that anything to that effect has bee

Before I yield to my fellow commissioners, including Vice President Soroyan, I do want to ask the city attorney a couple of questions. One is, is there a basis to depart from – well, let me ask another way. Is the – It's my understanding the department's view is that it doesn't have jurisdictions. This code of conduct does not apply to non-vendors who have received the code of conduct and are aware of it. Is that a correct understanding, that the code of conduct doesn't apply to other than vendors? I'm sorry, other vendors? Other than vendors. Other than vendors. I believe that's correct. And

Well, the appellant was found guilty of code violations for the statement. She appeals that finding and that penalty. She comes to us. And it appears that we are making a decision on that charge and penalty based upon other activities that we have evidence of over the evening that the commission has already said do not apply to her. That is the conduct of the non-vendor. And I'm wondering are there any notice or other due process problems in making a decision based on those non the elements unrelated to her?

The elements that I forget the last. That's right.

Commissioner Soroyan, I'll yield to you. I've spoken a lot already.

I actually have a lot in common with what everyone said. I'm very disturbed by the video. And I see why the commission made the recommendation that it did. And I think it's proportional for a threat. But I also recognize that we've been here now for five hours. And I think that we owe it to everybody to make a fair and partial decision. And I'm not sure that I have the right solution at this juncture in time because I also recognize that there were two other matters where we – granted the appeals. So I am also in a line with Commissioner Wong that I don't want to act unfairly here, but I do se

Commissioner Abad. Thank you. Right. What distinguishes this case from the others for me is that we do have evidence it aligns. And there's alignment across different stakeholders in the situation. Certainly, the Arts Commission's statement, I guess, is the basis for their suspension is the verbal threat. But we're seeing more. We're hearing more. That's part of our packet. That's part of the body of material that we are charged to consider. So all those taken together really do distinguish this case from the two prior. The commission also made recommendations for much higher penalties for the

Commissioner Bottage, I just want to follow up on that. The statements you just referenced, as I understand it, were not made by

Correct. And I think echoing what I think Commissioner Lopez had mentioned, it does seem appropriate to send an enforcement message to a vendor whose family, whose associates, you know, are a party to creating an atmosphere of intimidation and abuse in our public realm.

So if I could follow up. This is why I asked. For each case, what is the new evidence? Where is the evidence? What we're trying to do here, yes, we see a difficult situation. We see an abusive situation, a violent situation, whatever you want to call it. We do see that. It's on video. We've had a lot of people, well-meaning people coming, spending hours before us telling us what occurred. But what we have in front of us is a charge. The last time these issues came before us was that there's insufficient evidence. I think tonight we're saying, well, there's insufficient evidence for this, but w

Yeah. So I appreciate that because I do think it's grounding us into what we're really looking at. I am looking at the Code of Conduct 2, 3, and 20. I think that those were the same ones that were brought against the previous two appellants, as well as this one. And similar to the previous two, the evidence is mostly hearsay. And both parties are saying something a little bit different, so it's hard for me to say whether or not that code was violated, right? Because if you listen to the previous two appellants, then Ms. Wang was in violation. If you listen to Ms. Wang, they were in violation,

Thank you, President Trasvigna. It's my understanding, and maybe the department can correct me if I'm wrong, that we weren't in possession of the video at the prior hearing. It was shown during testimony, but it was untranslated, and it was sort of, you know, it was like an iPhone under... Projector kind of situation so it is fresh and new material in this packet and it was as as I think everyone can tell was something that was very compelling to me in the way that I Looking at and considering this case so in that way It is a free fresh there is something new and again that distinguishes this

Well, if I could intercept your yielding to the city attorney while they're conferring, everything here is new material. This entire matter, unlike the other two, which were sent away for new material, this one is the first time. So in fact, if there's a precedent, it would be, OK, the first time you're up, you didn't get it. We need more. Now we're going to say we need more and come back with charges. As I said, if the department can determine legally that a vendor can be held responsible for their family members, then that's what we need to hear the next time. So that was my view. If we gran

Thank you. Commissioner, does that answer your question? Great. Commissioner Lopez.

Yeah, the way that I see this, and I I agree that because this is a new hearing, the fact that the video is in the record is enough evidence. And even if this was a re-hearing of a matter where the video hadn't been entered into the record before the night of our hearing, we have it in the record now. And so I think it's fair to consider that I do my my reading of the Arts Commission meeting from July does say essentially the The item that was discussed that's agendized is participating, or the charge, if you will, is participating in a violent altercation, which to me is the hour before actio

Thank you, Commissioner Lopez. I mean, I think that your reading of the Artist's Code of Conduct, we have the authority, because it's a de novo review, to... disagree with where the Commission or what the violation of the code was and I think you're right if It's in three or acts that present an immediate danger to the public health and safety I think we could be squarely within three if it's not an actual It's not constituting a verbal threat, but we are in that arena and perhaps If we agree that It's a violation of code number three. I think we're all a little tired. It may make sense to rea

Thank you, Vice President Soroyan. I'm going to suggest that we are stretching ourselves to try to find a solution that is fair, just, and legal. And we are looking for a way to tie the son, adult son, I believe, to the vendor. Hoping, and as I understand Commissioner Lopez's answer for, this is the notice that the vendor was provided. I'm guessing, even if the vendor were fully proficient in English, I think it would be a stretch to say the vendor understood your learned interpretation of the law. Second is, as I read the letter from the department, it says Wang made verbal threats towards ar

All right, similar to the first agenda matter, I'm going to make a motion to, I'd like to suggest a motion to continue this matter perhaps next week or the first meeting in October so that the Arts Commission could consider what other section of the artist's code of conduct this violation might fall into. And I think we'd also like to know what other, maybe this is from the city attorney too, What kind of penalty might we consider other than a suspension?

I think the city attorney would like to comment on your well-reasoned suggestion. Mr. Minardi. Yes.

And Vice President Soroyan, would your goal be achieved if the Arts Commission were able to bring additional and different charges in this matter to itself first and then potentially an appeal to us?

I'm not sure. I mean, I think we have the ability with our de novo to review to make that decision. I think what I might suggest or ask is if there might be additional evidence for both parties, the appellant or the commission, to give them an opportunity.

I think that what we are looking for, or my colleagues are looking for, is a way to bring all this other activity beyond what's here into this case.

Then I'm more than happy to have someone else make a motion. I can withdraw and another member can make the motion.

Well, as I understand your motion, your motion was to continue. To get information on alternative penalties. And that I certainly would favor. The city attorney seems to say we can't ask the Arts Commission for additional charges because it's the appellant who comes for us.

I wasn't asking for additional charges. I was just asking for scope or some other area of the code.

But I think that... Well, then I think your motion is still alive.

OK, well, it's been 5 and 1 half hours, so I think we should try and make the motion.

I would like to propose an alternate motion, not to step ahead of you, Commissioner Wong. I would just like to make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the suspension.

I believe Commissioner Wong wanted to be recognized, but perhaps not. Mr. Wong.

No, actually, I don't need to be recognized for this. We can just do the vote first.

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.

Do I need to further clarify the basis, or is the motion itself complete enough? That the behaviors violated sections 2, 3, and 20 of the artist's code of conduct.

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.

Yeah, I'd just like to clarify that I don't think that, in my mind, the deputy city attorney's guidance with respect to applying the code or the code of conduct to non-permit holders is not something that I'm concerned about. Because I do think that by calling in a third party whether explicitly inviting them over to the site or in an emotionally charged situation, presumably if someone's a family member, knowing that they may be capable of the type of behavior that we saw on video, reporting to them what was happening within minutes of it occurring with the expectation that they're capable of

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 t

Just to clarify, based on the timeline, it looks like the incident started a little after 10, and her son didn't show up until about 11.40. So based on my reading of the timeline. I'm sorry. I didn't hear. So the incident itself happened a little bit after 10 a.m., or sorry, 10.30 a.m., and then in the video the video that we saw was made at 1140 so it's about an hour and change afterwards so do we have a motion on the table so yes there is we have a motion from

Thank you all for a very long evening, but I appreciate everyone's participation, especially my colleagues. We stand adjourned.