Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the April 29th, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. And if the interpreters can interpret for this introduction, I would appreciate it. President John Trusvino will be the presiding officer tonight, and he is joined by Vice President Rebecca Soroyan, Commissioner Jose Lopez, and Commissioner Robin Abad. We expect Commissioner Lily Wong later this evening. Also present is Deputy City Attorney Jesse Minardi, who will provide the board with any needed legal advice. At the controls is the board's legal assistant, Alec Longway, and I'm Julie Lamar, the board's executive director. WE WILL ALSO BE JOINED BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY DEPARTMENTS THAT WILL BE PRESENTED BEFORE THE BOARD THIS EVENING. WE EXPECT CORY TEAGUE, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, REPRESENTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. UP FRONT WE HAVE CARRIE MCELROY, SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION. ALSO UP FRONT WE HAVE ANNE TRICKY, SENIOR PROGRAM OFFICER, SF ARTS COMMISSION, AND JEN ATWOOD, THE PROGRAM MANAGER WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION. The board meeting guidelines are as follows. The board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. No eating or drinking in the hearing room. Appellants, permit holders, and department respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. Time will be doubled if you are using an interpreter. People affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these seven or three minute periods. For cases that have been previously heard, the parties are given three minutes each with no rebuttal. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. Time may be limited to two minutes if the agenda is long or if there are a large number of speakers. Mr. Longway, our legal assistant, will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Four votes are required to grant an appeal or to modify a permit or determination. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules, or hearing schedules, please email board staff at boardofappeals at sfgov.org. Now, public access and participation are of paramount importance to the board. SFGov TV is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. SFGov TV is also providing closed captioning for this meeting. To watch the hearing on TV, go to SFGov TV, cable channel 78. Please note that it will be rebroadcast on Fridays at 4 p.m. on channel 26. A link to the live stream is found on the homepage of our website at sfgov.org forward slash boa. Now, public comment can be provided in three ways. One, in person. Two, via Zoom. Three, by telephone. To attend via Zoom, go to our website, sfgov.org forward slash BOA, and under the calendar, click on today's date, then click on the blue rectangular box that says Zoom link for hearing. If you want to attend by telephone, call 1-669-900-9128 and enter webinar ID 990. 5213-8260. And again, SFGov TV is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you are watching the live stream or broadcast. To block your phone number when calling in, first dial star six seven, then the phone number. Listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called and dial star nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hand so that we know you want to speak. You will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. You may have to dial star six to unmute yourself. You will have two to three minutes, depending on the length of the agenda and the volume of speakers. Our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and livestreamed on TV and the internet. Therefore, it is very important that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their TVs or computers. Otherwise, there is interference with the meeting. If any of the participants or attendees on Zoom need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, you can make a request in the chat function to Alec Longway, the board's legal assistant, or send an email to boardofappeals.sfgov.org. Please note that we will take public comment from those members of the public who are physically present in the hearing room. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the Sunshine Ordinance. If you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say, I do, after you've been sworn in or affirmed. OK, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? OK, thank you. If you are a participant and you're not speaking, please put your Zoom speaker on mute. Item number one is general public comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction, but that is not on tonight's calendar. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda? OK, I don't see anyone, so we'll move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. I want to welcome everyone to tonight's Board of Appeals meeting. I note that we have a matter from the Arts Commission on tonight. During my time so far, this is the first Arts Commission matter we've had, so I see a lot of new people here. I just want to assure members of the public, members who are watching on Zoom, and members of the city staffs that my colleagues and I are come prepared, having reviewed your material, interested in listening to everyone testify, and we will do our best to bring a just decision that comes before us. And do my colleagues have anything to add before we move forward? SEEING NOT, I'LL BACK THROUGH YOU, MS. LAMAR.

IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? I DON'T SEE ANY. SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES. COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE YOU FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION ARE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 22, 2026 MEETING.

Move to adopt the April 22, 2026 minutes.

OK. Is there any public comment on that motion? I don't see any. So on that motion, Commissioner Lopez?

Aye.

Vice President Soroyan?

Aye.

Commissioner Abad?

Aye.

So that motion carries 4 to 0, and the minutes are adopted. We are now moving on to item 4A. This is appeal number 4A, 4B, and 4C. They will be heard together. We will first hear appeal number 26-014, Jianwei versus Arts Commission. Appealing the suspension on February 26, 2026 of Jianfu Wei's street artist license until June 23, 2026. Violation of the street artist ordinance and items 2, 3, and 19 of the code of conduct for physically restraining art vendor Zhongyu Wang. License number 9021 on November 28, 2025. And Mr. Wei's license number is 8970. Mr. Way you can come up now and To the interpreter if you can Let us know the proper pronunciation of mr. Ways name.

So we address them properly, please when you get up to the microphone, please And before we begin with this testimony vice-president Saroyan would like to be recognized I

Thank you. Mr. Longway, I am being recognized.

His name is . OK. Hello.

Hello. We're just going to discuss some preliminary matters. So we're not going to get, can you give us five minutes to get started? Before we start. Yes, please. Thank you so much.

It recognizes me as Mr. Abbott, my fellow commissioner. So it's incorrect.

I think we're switched.

Yeah.

As we resolve this matter, perhaps we can begin with a preliminary question from Vice President Soroyan.

Good evening. I was going to direct my first line of inquiry to our city attorney, Mr. Minardi, to frame the issue for us. explain a little bit about what is our role tonight and what are our decisions in particular with regard to due process.

Sure. Thank you, Vice President. So the matter before the board this evening is the suspension until June 23rd of this year of three street artist permits. The suspension happened after a hearing by the Street Artist Committee that was then ratified. the program director and so the board's duties are to hear this de novo so essentially to hear the matter anew and to make a determination as to whether the licenses each of there are three separate licenses so each one is a separate determination should be in fact suspended or or not, given the underlying facts and the allegations about violating the code of conduct.

Go ahead, President Pesvinia.

If I could follow up, Mr. Minority. As I read Section 2409, we are reviewing the suspension and revocation of the street artist certificate. And in Section 2408, one of the issues is whether the program director found a fair and public hearing has not occurred. So the reason I ask, and I believe the reason Vice President Soroyan is asking, is to make sure that when the people come up and speak, they're speaking on the issues that are relevant to our decision making. So my question is, are we equally, are we focused on both the process that occurred at the Arts Commission as well as whatever happened in November at the site?

So the focus of the board will be on the actions that happen at the site and whether there is in fact those actions constituted a violation of the code of conduct. And the reason for that is found in the charter and the charter provision relevant to the board of appeals requires the board to hear and make decisions about the suspension or revocation and in this case the substance of that actually happened at the street artists committee the subsequent decision by the program director was really sort of a ratification of that based on assuming the process was fair, or determining that the process was fair. So in this case, it's a new hearing. It's de novo. And so you will be sort of sitting in the shoes of the Street Artists Committee to determine whether, in fact, There's evidence to support that the alleged actions happened and whether those actions then constituted a violation of the code of conduct that then warranted a suspension. So it's sort of the underlying facts of the matter.

OK, thank you. Are we ready to proceed?

I believe Vice President Sorin continues to have a question.

That is not my interpretation of section 408 that does outline that the program director shall not amend such findings. and recommendations and may disapprove the findings and recommendations of the street artists. I understand that this is de novo, but that's making the assumption that the program director's decision was based on correct and a fair trial or fair hearing. And so I think that I'm not understanding why we would not stand in the shoes of the program director as well as listening to the facts and sort of a dual role so that we have the ability to decide if there was a fair hearing and that everything that happened at the Street Artists Commission hearing, although we can hear it de novo, that is part of our determination, whether it was fair or not.

So the board certainly can decide whether it thinks that the process was fair, and it can communicate its opinion in that respect. But with respect to the underlying issue of whether the... the licenses were correctly revoked you're looking at the suspended I'm sorry yes you're looking at because the charter takes precedence over a police code section and so you're looking at the underlying facts as to whether there was enough evidence to substantiate that it should be a that there is a violation and be that that should result in a suspension

Isn't that impacted by due process as well as a fundamental basis to make that determination of a suspension?

De novo means that you are looking at everything again. I understand that. But meaning you're looking at the evidence, and you're putting yourself in the shoes of the Street Artists Committee.

If I could interject, Mr. Minardi, as I read 2409, we are

evaluating the final decision of the Arts Commission and the timing is triggered by the final decision of the program director as opposed to the underlying decision by the Street Artists Committee. So as we evaluate, so the appeal that comes to us is the final decision. As part of the final decision, it includes a decision or not a decision by the program director that a fair and public hearing occurred or didn't occur. So in that regard, in reflecting on Vice President Soroyan's question, I would consider that all of those matters are before us.

So you can consider, so de novo means you are essentially looking at the facts the same way as if you had been there the first time. So you're taking the process and you're saying everybody has noticed now and we're just going to redo it. So if there is a problem with the process in the first place, you can recognize that. You can even consider it in terms of how you consider the underlying evidence. But you are essentially putting yourself in the place and saying, okay, we're going to look at these facts de novo, meaning as if for the first time again, and determine based on the facts whether there in fact was a violation.

I understand that, and I respect your counsel. However, we do not have the power to interview the victim here, because we have appeals, and we have a rebuttal by the department, and all that the victim could do was make a public statement. So again, we sit in a different position than that arts commission, according to my experience in this practice. We do not have investigatory powers to interview a witness who is the reason that the suspension was implemented.

Well, you certainly could continue the matter and interview that witness if you wanted to, if you could request them to be here. You can look at the entire record, which was the record that was in front of the Street Artist Committee, and make a determination both based on that as well as any testimony by the department itself as well as the individuals who were here. That's the nature of the proceeding.

Yes, but is the victim available?

Or you could decide that there's insufficient evidence because they didn't bring that person as a witness. I'm not sure if that person's here or not. I guess we should hear the cases, and then you can decide whether you think there's enough information for you to make a decision one way or the other.

Vice President Sroyant, I understand and am very sympathetic to the questions that you have raised. I think they are legitimate questions, and I believe the best way to find out the answer and the ultimate course of action is for us to hear from the people and to hear from the city agency so that we can assess the relevant facts, but also in that process, glean whether the parties are ready to address the legitimate questions that you may have and our colleagues have.

Thank you. Thank you for your patience, everyone. We are ready to begin. So you have 14 minutes for your presentation, including the interpretation time.

Thank you. OK. Sorry, sir.

Just what? Ms. Lamar, can you say he has 14 minutes?

Yes, 14 minutes total, including the interpretation time. So usually he would speak for a bit, then the interpreter would interpret for him, and their time together must equal 14 minutes.

And then the next appellant will, will we hear the next appellant, or will we hear from the city before we go to the next appellant?

We're going to hear from all the appellants, and then we're going to hear from the city.

Great, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

My name is Jen Fu Wei. My name is Jen Fu Wei. My name is Jen Fu Wei. My name is Jen Fu Wei. My name is Jen Fu Wei. My name is Jen Fu Wei.

I am here today to appeal the suspension of my street artist license and hopefully all the board members will objectively review my case and arrive at a fair decision.

Let me first explain why I was absent from the February 24 hearing. Because it was around the Chinese New Year's time, I had booked a ticket to make a trip to China well ahead of the time. And by the time the hearing was held here, I was already in China. I actually flew to China on January 26th.

And I did not return until March 5th.

So that explains why I wasn't able to appear for the hearing in February.

First of all, I need to clarify that my role in this conflict, I was someone who tried to de-escalate the conflict. I was not the attacker and I did not help others to attack anyone.

When the conflict broke out, I was actually not at the scene. I was with different street artists at a location about...

About 300 meters away from the first occurrence of the conflict.

We heard some noises and then we took a look and realized that there was a conflict that was happening about 300 meters from where we were. I accompanied this fellow street artist, whose name is Zhijie Mei, to walk over to where it happened. When he arrived there, we saw some other street artists who were there trying to de-escalate the quarrel, trying to separate the people there. And it appears the emotions were very tense and both parties were very emotional. In that situation, I saw that the competition was constantly increasing. In that situation, as a prisoner and a member of the community, I chose to make a deal.

I feel that the conflict was not de-escalating, it was escalating. As a member of the community, I chose to intervene and try to de-escalate the conflict.

My sole purpose of intervening was to separate the two parties to de-escalate the conflict. But unfortunately, in the midst of chaos, my behavior was misunderstood by one of the parties, and even disproved. The other party claimed that I had imposed restrictions on him, causing him to be attacked.

Unfortunately, one of those two parties misunderstood my intention and thought that I was restricting his or her freedom in my action. And that was pretty far from the facts. It's not like that at all. What I did was in no way to restrict the freedom of any party. What I did was trying to separate them and try to help to de-escalate.

To prevent them from any physical fight and I consider this a someone who want to help out is not someone who want to do harm on anyone. I understand that in the context of conflict and fear, the perpetrator may have a sense of guilt or even a sense of misjudgment.

I do understand in such tense emotions, in such moments, one of the parties may have misunderstood the situation and developed a negative judgment on me. I do understand.

But subjective feelings does not mean it's factual, it's objective, and it does not support accusation against me. I have to stress that being a street artist at that location, I have been someone who always abide by the rules, never create trouble. This is very important for my livelihood too. I make a living as a street artist and I always take care to maintain a good relationship with members of the community.

This suspension of my license not only damaged my reputation in the community, it also harmed my livelihood.

This is something serious for an artist like myself. I understand the suspension was a preliminary decision

I do appeal that the board members reconsider the decision and arrive at a more reasonable final judgment.

I am willing to cooperate with any further investigation, including providing witnesses with a record of the scene or other materials that may reflect the facts. I welcome the committee to consider the situation from the perspective of the song. Do not let a single sentence be judged.

I will fully cooperate with the investigation if there is one. I will find witnesses who will testify for me. I will provide more material facts to support my point of view and I will do my best to help.

I was not prepared for that. If the way I handled it at that time I am open-minded.

If the way that I intervene was in any way inappropriate and causing any unexpected result, I am willing to learn to avoid things like this happening in the future.

But that doesn't mean that I am the person who creates the trouble, who harms others. It's very different.

I believe that there should be differences in terms of someone who tries to intervene to help to cool down the things and someone who intervenes on either side to create more trouble. There should be clear difference. So it's not only for myself. If the suspension can be lifted, it's not something that I care about only. I also care about what is fair and justice is very important too.

I tried to contact the convicts who were present at the time. Two of the convicts agreed to testify with me.

Since what happened, I have got in contact with some of the witnesses, street artists, fellow street artists who were there, who know what was happening. And two of them, in fact, have agreed to testify for me if necessary.

One of them is called Mauricio. He said he sent a letter to the Chamber of Commerce saying...

One of them was by the name of Melissa. She said that she has sent a letter to the board, you guys, to explain what she saw at the scene and she was talking in support of me.

Thank you. Thank you, that's time. Another one is called Ellen. I am right now unable to get in contact with her.

Thank you. I have text messages between myself and them that I can prove what I said.

Thank you, sir. You'll have more time. We do have a question, but before we get to that question, Deputy City Attorney.

Yeah, hi Commissioner Wong Welcome to the dice because this is a quasi judicial proceeding To participate and to make a decision you have to be here for the entire amount and so because you've missed the first 14 minutes of this I think you should probably not be here for at least this part of the

And not participate because you have to be here for the whole the whole thing so mr. Renardi I Understand that because she missed the first 14 minutes and this Commissioner Wong by the way for the for the public's knowledge I Is she prohibited from remaining here if we continue this matter and we have a second time at it? If she's here, she can hear this part as opposed to having to watch the whole thing all over again.

Can the interpreter just give a summary of his testimony to her? Would that be possible?

I would prefer

Okay, so she, so anyway.

Well, would that satisfy, Mr. Martin, would that satisfy her ability to, or qualify her to be able to participate in the matter from here on out?

I would say that if they could give a full summary of what was said and the party is okay with it, then it would be okay to proceed.

I realize that one of the two witnesses I mentioned about is actually right here now. Thank you.

They can come later during public comment. But in order for the new commissioner to remain, the interpreter needs to give a summary of, can you give a full summary of what he just said?

Julie, is this email the summary?

Actually, he was reading from a written statement, and she can just take the time to read that. So can we, perfect, yeah. So let's just give her some time to read that. And then, OK, why don't we give her time to read it, and then you can ask your question when she's ready. Just please hold on a few minutes. Thank you for your patience.

Yes, because sometimes things are not so clear.

And we can lodge that in with the record if you wish, President Transvina.

So we'll have the record reflect that Commissioner Wong has read the testimony, the summary of the testimony.

And we'll add it to the file for review from the public and such forth.

If they want. We have it in an email. We will proceed to my questions to you. Is it correct to call you Mr. Wei? Yes, first time. Mr. Wei, can you tell me what kind of artist you are?

I am a handmade artist. I am engaging in art and craft. I would say jewellery, more of the jewellery. Like earrings, necklaces.

My second question is before this incident, were you regularly working at the location?

Yes. Yes. Great. And since the November of last year, where have you been selling or showing your jewelry and art? I haven't been selling anymore. Since the incident, I have not gone anywhere to sell my work.

Was that by your choice or were you not permitted to by the city?

I was not permitted to because the art commission said they would not allow me to be there. They said the person who came to sue me was too close. They were afraid there would be another conflict. So they told me not to be there. Before June 23, they told me not to be there. So I did not be there.

So my understanding was since I filed my appeal, in principle I should be allowed to go back until the appeal has result. But I was at the same time also warned because my location was too close to the other party. So I was also advised better not to go back in case it will... Yes, stroke up the conflict.

And when were you warned about that?

The Art Commission told me not to open it here. I can open it in other places, like Yuen Yen Port. But why didn't I open it? Because I have an 83-year-old father. I have to take care of him. The location is very close to my house. If he needs help, I have to go back and take care of him. He is 83 years old. He is very weak. He is only 88 pounds when he is 1.65 meters tall.

Since I returned around March 7-8, I made an attempt to go back to the same location to sell my but was warned by the Artistic Commission, you better not go because your spot is too close to the other parties and it may result in more conflict. And I was advised I can go to a different location, like in the fisherman's wharf. But I did not go to fisherman's wharf, in part because I have an 83-year-old father who is very ill. 88 pounds body weight and 1.65 meters tall. The original location was very close to home so I would have better maintain a balance and I have time to go back to take a look at him If I were to go to Fisherman's Wall, it would be simply too far from my place to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Wai. One more question. And that is, just to reiterate, your testimony is that your intention of going to the location where people were interacting was to intervene as... a peacemaker or mediator.

Thank you. There are actually quite some eyewitnesses who can speak on my behalf. Thank you. We have a question from Commissioner Abad.

Thank you. Thank you for your remarks, Mr. Wei. May I ask, when did you learn of the hearing that was scheduled on February 24, 2026? Can you remind us, when did you learn that that had been scheduled?

Um...

I think I first heard about it on February 17th. Because I went back to China, I couldn't write any foreign media. Because China blocked the internet. So I went back to Hong Kong on 17 February. I went back to Hong Kong from China. I received a message on my phone. It was from the Art Commission. They told me that there was a hearing on 24 February. I had to participate. I immediately sent an email to the Art Commission saying I couldn't come back on February 24th. Because I was in China. My flight was on March 5th. During the Spring Festival, I couldn't change my flight. Yes, so I asked them to change the date, but they said the date was already set. If you want to participate, you can participate on June 23. I asked them what the Green Party was, but no response. I thought the Green Party was a public... Let's hear from the interpreter. He just wants to know when you learned. I did not know about the February 24 hearing until around February 17.

As you may know, China has an internet firewall.

While I was within China, I had no access to a lot of email or other internet outside China. Not until I actually left China for Hong Kong on the 17th, February 17th, that I realized that the Artistic Commission had sent me a message advising me that there will be a hearing on the 24th. Even with that, I had no clear idea what it was about. My ticket I returned flight was on March the 5th and within that period of time, Chinese New Year, there was no way I can reschedule my flight even if I know this was a very important hearing, I need to fly back to the US.

Thank you. And the notice that you received, was it, I'm assuming it was electronic, perhaps via email, and was it transmitted in languages that you were able to read and understand?

There was actually no email, no texting. The only message was a voice message and it was in English.

Mr. Wei, were you able to understand the message or did you need to seek help in order to understand the message from the Arts Commission?

This is a message from the Arts Commission. Can you understand it? Do you need someone to explain it to you?

I can understand the meaning. But I don't understand the meaning very well. Because English is not my mother tongue.

I do have some rough idea what it was talking about, I mean the voicemail message, but English is not my mother tongue, I don't fully understand it 100%.

Thank you. Can you help me understand, after you returned to California, how did the Arts Commission communicate with you, and can you describe how they sought more information from you about what happened at the incident?

Can you explain how you found more information about this incident? How did you find information?

Before I came back to Hong Kong, I received a phone call from Hong Kong saying that my queue had stopped. Did you receive a phone call? No, I came back to Hong Kong. So the suspension notice, I did receive it when I was in Hong Kong. It was in English, in email, in English. When I came back, I saw an e-mail saying that I can no longer communicate with the Art Committee. If I want to appeal, I can only apply to appeal. So I appealed. After I came back, I tried to ask the Art Commission for an explanation. But the Art Commission said that I didn't need to go to the office anymore, because the hearing was already decided. If I had something, they would hand me the information. So I gave the information directly to my witness. The Art Commission called and asked for an explanation.

Once I know that my license was suspended, I tried to talk to the Artistic Commission. They advised me that your case is being handled by the Board of Appeals. So you don't need to spend time with us. If you have material you want to submit for an appeal, we can accept the material and that's what I did.

Were these interactions with the Arts Commission conducted in a language that you were able to understand or did they provide translation services to support you in your interactions with the Arts Commission?

After you came back, in the process of communicating with the Art Committee, did they arrange a Chinese translator to help you? Can you understand them? We didn't communicate much afterwards, because after I asked the Art Commission, they said...

When I went to the office to explain, it was no longer useful. So I didn't use it much. After that, after the election, the election committee, the Arts Commission, and I got in touch with each other. During that time, the Arts Commission had the Chinese version.

For a period of time I did not have a lot of communication with the artistic commission because they said that your case is The suspension was decided by the Board of Appeals. Your case is with the Board of Appeals. If you want to appeal the decision, you have to work with them. Not until later, when I had already filed the appeal, much later, did I receive a notice in Chinese from them.

Because when I came back to the Art Commission building, the Memory Building, they said I didn't need to go there. Because I had already been there. They said I didn't need to go there. My understanding is that the Art Commission and I won't be able to make any more connections. If I want to... After I returned to the States, I made a couple of trips to the Artistic Commission office, where they told me that you don't need to spend much time with us anymore.

You should, if you want to file an appeal, you have to work with Portland Appeals.

They also said you can wait for the hearing on June 23. But... Before June 23, when I came back, I had four months off. I didn't have time to work. I thought I had no problem. I was just taking advantage of the situation. So it was unfair for me to stop. I wanted to get my license back as soon as possible. They also advised me that there will be another hearing scheduled for June 23.

that I may appeal my case during the June 23rd hearing, but I figured out that that would mean four more months, and within these four months I would have no way to sell my works of art. I couldn't make a living, so I decided I couldn't wait. I need to file an appeal before June.

How did the Arts Commission respond to you when you informed them that you were travelling or you were unable to attend or receive communications because you were home in China for a new year?

When you explained to the Art Commission that you were travelling in China, you were unable to attend or receive communications because you were home in China for a new year, how did the Art Commission respond?

They sent me a message. He said that this decision cannot be changed because the hearing was already decided. If you want to hold another hearing, you have to wait until June 23. It has always been like this. I still have my electricity bill.

I communicated with them through email. I told them that there was no way I could make it back to the State to attend the February hearing. They told me that it would be impossible to reschedule the hearing in February. If you want to make your case, They advised me to make my case in the later hearing in June 23rd.

Did they communicate this to you in writing via email? How did they communicate to you that it was impossible to reschedule the February 24th hearing?

He informed you with a telegram that there was no way to change the situation, right?

Yes, because I used a telegram to contact him. I had no way to call him. I heard his message on the phone. I had no way to answer it. I had no way to answer the phone in China. I could only use a telegram to send a telegram to me.

Given I was still spending a lot of time in China, so it was impractical for me to make a telephone call to look for someone to talk about it, I decided to talk to them through email and they gave me a reply through email.

Okay, so via email they told you it was impossible to schedule the February 24th hearing. That's right. I think that's all the questions I have for now. Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you. We have a question from Commissioner Wong.

Thank you.

One moment, please.

We have a question from Commissioner Wong.

Just a few questions. Can you remind me when you informed the Arts Commission about your conflict of being abroad? Can you tell me when you informed the Art Commission that you wouldn't be in the United States during this hearing?

Let me check. I believe that it was February. Okay.

Or instead of a specific date, maybe a different way to frame it.

It was on February the 15th.

So before you got on a plane to Asia, did you inform the Arts Commission when you were going to be gone?

But I did not advise them before I took off. So then the first time that you informed them that you couldn't make it was when you were already gone? That's correct. And then what was your understanding of what the repercussions would be if you didn't attend this hearing? I didn't know at the time. At that point in time, I had no idea what repercussions there may be.

At that time, I had no idea about the exact nature of the hearing and I had no idea about the possible seriousness of the repercussion.

I did ask through email what the nature of the hearing was, but they did not reply. I still have it on my record.

The people of the Art Commission simply told me that it was a hearing, but did not explain the very nature of the hearing.

And then last question. When you shared that you had a conflict and you mentioned that it was the Lunar New Year, did the Arts Commission ever acknowledge that as your reason? Did they ever acknowledge the Lunar New Year at all? So when you let the Arts Commission know that you couldn't make it because of the Lunar New Year, did the Arts Commission themselves ever respond to you acknowledging that you're, acknowledging this was the Lunar New Year time? That it was the Lunar New Year, like it's that time period, the holiday time period?

I did not catch the last one.

Sorry. That they acknowledge that it was during the, like, your reason, one of your reasons for being abroad is because it's the Lunar New Year, right? So there's different celebrations. There's different beliefs during that time. Did the Arts Commission ever convey to you that they acknowledge or knew that it was the Lunar New Year when you shared that with them?

Can you get it closer to the microphone?

I don't know where to speak into this thing. Is it the body of it? I apologize.

OK, sorry.

I'm trying not to get my whole face in it. So I just wanted to confirm whether or not the Arts Commission acknowledged back to you that it was during the Lunar New Year time.

That time, oh, there's another factor. Could it be during the Dragon's Tent? This could be an factor. You can't come back. Did he admit, yes, you were in the Dragon's Tent. So you can understand, you could have gone to China. Did he come back like that? I don't know whether or not it is something in their mind that they do have this understanding or not, but they did not explicitly express this to me. ever have considered that as a factor that I wasn't in the states and I wasn't able to return. OK.

Thank you.

Thank you. You can be seated now. Thank you. We will now hear from the next appellant. Zhe Yin, please come forward with your. Yeah, why don't you both go up, because just so he's going to interpret right now. We're going to hear your mother's case, and then we will hear your case next. You can help and show whatever you want during her time.

OK, welcome.

So you have 14 minutes.

Respectable commissioners, so I am the appellant, so I have three items that I would like to talk about today. First of all, I have not used force on anyone. Second, I just wanted to protect my daughter. Third, I have not used force on anyone. Okay, so thirdly, I have not had a fair chance for hearing.

And the following is what happened. So I was at the number 30 stall setting up my own.

And then I heard there's some arguments. Overhead, please.

You want to show the stalls? Yeah. Thank you. So yeah, I heard there's some argument. My daughter and her husband was in an argument with someone.

OK, so yeah, so I rushed over. And then OK, so yeah, I was behind my daughter. I told her to just go away.

在这个过程中,王推了我女儿,又拿起白色的喷壶打我女儿。 Okay, so at that moment, Wang actually pushed my daughter and used a... 拿起白色喷壶打我女儿。 Oh, okay, so yeah, used a white bottle, hit my daughter with it?

我担心女儿受伤,想上前保护她。

So yeah, my daughter was hurt, so I wanted to protect her. 这是一个妈妈看到孩子受伤时本能反应。 So this is a mother's nature, instinct, when the daughter is being hurt. 我还没来得及走到女儿前面。 So even before I was able to reach my daughter.

就被Wendell Peter从后面把我拉住了。

Okay, so yeah, so there was a vendor named Peter. He actually held me back from behind. 我被控制住,无法靠近现场。 So I was, you know, I was withheld, so I could not get close to what happened, my daughter's location.

在整个过程中,我没有碰到王,也没有试图打他。

So the entire incident, I did not touch Wang, nor have I tried hitting him.

Wang also said that the mom was screaming, yelling. So we did not let her come over. So someone was actually blocking her way. This also shows that I did not touch or hit Wang or assault him. Can I request to show a video clip?

Yes, please go ahead.

It's November 28th, 12.05pm.

So I wanted to emphasize that I did not enter Wang's stall nor interrupt his business. Okay, so according to our commissioner's evidence B, so the incident happened at stalls 38 and 40? Yeah, Wong's stall is actually at 42.

Okay. I've actually stayed during the entire incident at my daughter's stall, number 38. I have never entered anyone else's stalls.

Okay, so the allegation that I actually entered Wong's stall interrupted his business is actually not factual. Okay, so after this incident, Wong brought his son and came to me and my daughter, threatening us and using bad language. Can I show another video clip?

Yeah, your mother, your mother, he actually used the F word. What are you doing? What are you doing? What are you trying to do here? You guys just go back to your booths. Just go back to your booths. Shut the fuck up. Shut us up, bitch. Just go back to the booths, guys. I don't know. What's wrong with you?

So my daughter actually informed the Art Commission on December 18th that we will be going back to China at the end of January.

Okay, so I left the States on January 31st, but I have not received any confirmed date of the hearing.

So when the notice was sent out on February 6th, I was already in the countryside of China.

So there's no way for me to receive Gmail texts nor phone calls. Because of this, I did not even know there is a hearing going on. So, of course, I cannot be here in person. This is not my choosing not to be present because I was not notified effectively.

So without my presence and having these decisions made, it's actually unfair. 我請求上市務委員會撤銷對我的相關決定和處罰。謝謝。 So I plead the appealing board members that please remove this suspension and the penalties. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Yan. I have just a couple of short questions for you. Do you recall what time of day it was that the incident that you responded to happened?

It was November 28th.

I'm wondering the time of day.

It's about around 10 o'clock.

A.M. Good morning. And when do you start selling? Yeah, so I was just setting up, just a couple of minutes, and I started hearing this argument.

Okay, and at the location of the argument, were there any customers, was there any business going on, or does that come later?

发生的时候,争吵的时候,有没有客人呢? 那时候有没有其他人呢?

Yeah, so yeah, I was still in the process of setting up, so it wasn't ready yet, no.

Thank you. Commissioner Abad has a question.

Thank you for your testimony, for your remarks. You informed the Arts Commission that you would be leaving the country, that you would depart on January 31. I missed earlier when you mentioned, when did you communicate to the Arts Commission that you would be leaving? Earlier in January? Yes.

It was not done by me personally. It was actually my daughter actually notified them that we won't be back until March. So that was done. We notified them earlier.

Do you recall when your daughter communicated to the Arts Commission? It was sometime in January, a week before, two weeks before you left?

My daughter actually notified the Arts Commissioner on December 18th.

And did your daughter or you receive a response from the Arts Commission confirming that they knew you were going to leave on January 31?

So I have not received any message before my departure.

Thank you. Those are all my questions. Thank you. We have a question from Vice President Soroyan.

Good evening. Yes. If you, during your process of selling art, and you've been doing this for a little while, is your normal break to return to China, how frequent is that, and about what time of year? I see perhaps you've had a license maybe since 2024.

OK, so I don't go back often because my grandma is actually 96. She's really weak and sick. So it was actually a kind of last minute decision to go back.

But if you go, you have stayed a while. There, you stayed for a while.

So we actually bought the tickets back in November. It was decided then to go back in January. Thank you for answering my question. Thank you. Commissioner Abad, do you have another question?

Yes, I have one more question I forgot to ask earlier. In the video that we just saw your daughter showed of the arguments between different vendors, is the man wearing glasses and yelling Mr. Wang Zongyu? Is that the man who filed with the Arts Commission to revoke the permits?

The complaint. Thank you. The one wearing glasses? Which one?

The one wearing glasses?

Let me ask the question again. Is Wang Tongyu in that video?

Okay, so yeah, Wang brought his son over. I see.

Wang is the one that actually called his son to come over.

I see. So is Wang in the video? Yes. OK. As well as Wang's son, who is the man with the glasses. Thank you for helping me understand.

Thank you. Do you have another question? I do.

Yeah. I need to figure. OK. So the video that you showed us is Wang and the son. And this was after? The incident? Or is this the incident?

So this was after the incident, yeah.

So yeah, he kept calling us and threatening us. Yeah, you just wait, you know. You wait and see, wait and see. Thank you. Commissioner Bodd?

Did you send any of these videos? I know there were photographs in the brief, in the packet, but did any of the videos get sent to the Arts Commission as part of their investigation, as part of their follow-up?

Yes.

Yeah, I'm not familiar with the technology, but my daughter has actually uploaded everything to the art commissioner.

OK, so it's your understanding that your daughter sent the Arts Commission these videos?

Yes. OK, thank you. Thank you. We have a question from Commissioner Wang. So on that day, did you stay and continue to sell?

Yes. On that day, yes. But we actually moved my daughter's stall too far away from me. And then what was your reason for moving over?

Then why did you leave her?

Because at that time, Wang kept threatening us. You guys are waiting. You guys are waiting. He kept calling us. So I was afraid. Because I also knew that this matter would not end. Wang kept calling people to come here. Then I was afraid. So I moved my daughter's position to a place far away. To another place.

So yeah, because Wong kept threatening us on the phone too. So you just wait, you just wait. He kept calling other people. So you just wait. So I felt threatened and scared. So that's why I moved my daughter's stall away.

And then just to confirm, this incident made you feel unsafe?

Did you feel that the situation was not safe? Yes, I was very scared. It was the same until now.

I often dream about it at night. Because at that time, there were a lot of politicians who saw it. None of them dared to come out to testify for us. Because they saw the violence of this family. So they were scared.

OK, so yes, yes. Even until now, I still get nightmares. But because if you look at the witnesses, they're reluctant to come out because they feel that they're very violent. So that's why they're reluctant to become witnesses.

Thank you.

Thank you. We will now hear from Yingzhi Jie. It's your turn. So if you can hear. Thank you.

Oh, OK.

I just want to compliment the interpreters, too. You both are doing an amazing job.

OK, you ready? Overhead, please. Laptop.

Computer. Here we go. Respectable commissioners, my name is Ying Zhige, the appellant.

There are three items I would like to point out. The first one is that I have not received effective notice.

我在2025年12月18日和Art Commission的Interview中 已经明确告知 我将于1月底回中国 3月份返回

Okay, so I've actually clearly told the art commissioner during the interview on December 18th, 2025 that I will be going back to China at the end of January and will not be returning until March. 工作人員表示收到了這一個通知並且 Okay, they've also acknowledged that they've received this notice, and the hearing would be postponed. Oh, okay, then we will get another notification afterwards.

But before our departure on January 31st, we have not received any notice. After we returned to China, our commissioner finally sent a notice to us on February 6th after our return to China. 但是中国大陆是无法使用Gmail的,我也没有办法使用中国的电话以及短信。

Because of the great firewall, we cannot receive gmails nor use phone calls, receive phone calls.

Our commissioner mentioned that they provided a remote meeting method, but if the client did not receive a notification, then any meeting method is meaningless.

Okay, so the art commissioner also said that they can provide remote access to be present here, but if we did not receive the notice, then it's pointless. Okay, so it's not what the art commission subjectively stated that we do choose not to be present, it's that we cannot be present.

So, yeah, so... Okay, so, yeah, so the... The hearing, decisions made on the 24th of February was...

was made without our presence, without testimony from us. These decisions were made based on these.

Okay, the second point I would like to make is that the evidences that they've made

the Commission has made the decision upon is actually not complete.

Okay, so on December 23rd of 2025, I've actually submitted

all the related pictures, photos of our injuries, the map of the stalls, and the videos of, the threatening videos that I've shown to the art commission.

I want to say that these evidences are not secondary materials, but directly relate to the core issues that the committee needs to evaluate.

These are not just ancillary, these are actually just core to our discussion here. Is this just like a one-sided violent assault?

Was I also injured?

Or have I actually interrupted the other party's business? So all the material that was submitted was actually confirmed by the Art Commission.

But the Art Commission's final decision never actually brought, never discussed, analyzed, nor these things, you know. So even in the reports were not fully revealed that these were recorded to the committee? Oh yeah, yes, fully, completely ignored fully.

或被委員會作為決定證據進行評判。 So the committee can actually make the final decision.

If these evidence and material were actually submitted for your consideration... How come it was not discussed that these materials were actually been submitted or evaluated? Or why they were not actually submitted? Yeah, why didn't you submit it? Why don't you submit it? This is very important because if there's no evidence of me being injured, I was injured during this altercation.

Without the map of the stalls, then there's no way of evaluating the distance and spacing between these incidents, the altercations.

There's no way of...

There's no reliable way of actually determining if there was an interruption or interrupting of the business to a final decision.

如果没有考虑威胁视频也无法完整解释世界的后续发展和我以及家人的安全顾虑。

So yeah, if there's no evaluation of the videos, nor the threatening videos, nor a thorough understanding of what happened, of the event, and of what happened, what followed, so they're not considering our safety.

Our safety concern.

Yeah, safety concern. Yeah.

In other words, so the decision made on the 24th of February were actually made without the full facts. Even if after these evidences or materials are submitted for January 24th to the Board of Appeals, this cannot change the fact. The committee did not see all the evidence I provided when I made the decision on the 24th of February. So under these circumstances, I applaud you. to see if you have to reconsider these supporting evidences fully, and the decisions that were made without these, right? Thirdly, that this is not one-sided violent behavior.

So this is actually a quickly escalated incident from multiple parties. So Wang actually pushed my stall, my tent, okay, my tent first.

And then Wang pushed me first.

Wang actually used an object to hit me, strike me.

Wang's husband also assaulted me. 我本人有受伤,我提交的视频证据以及照片证据,还有我事后就医的medical report都可以证明。 So I was injured, so the videos, the photos and medical records can be, you know, they're evidence of that. 冲突被其他班的制止后,我主动将摊位搬离去其他的地方。 冲突被其他班的制止后。 Oh, okay.

So after the altercation was stopped by the other vendors, I actually moved my stall to another location.

So about an hour after this, Wang brought the family members, came and threatened us, screamed at us. So that clearly shows that this is not a one-sided altercation.

并且事后是我主动搬离的冲突现场,然后是王带着家人过来有了二次冲突。 So after the incident, I actually moved my stall away. And so after this, Wong and the family came for a second altercation. Yeah. Based on these above stated, so I appeal to the commissioners.

撤销对我的相关认定及处罚。 So please remove my suspension. 或者将案件发回进行一次完整公平的重新听证。

or actually just to start anew, a clear and fair hearing?

30 seconds.

That's all I would like to say. Thank you.

Thank you. We have some questions from President Trzevinia and Vice President Soroyan.

Thank you, Ms. J. I'm interested in the incident itself. Can you tell me? I see in the incident report, it states that the other person pushed your tent. Is that your testimony? And is that the first thing that occurred?

Yes. Yes. I was in the process of setting up the tent.

Setting up, not the tent, just setting up?

Just setting up in general, yeah, so the booth. So they actually pushed really hard, so that's why I felt everything move.

Okay, and where was your, your tent was in your stall? Yes, in stall number 38. And that was assigned to you by the city, correct?

OK, so that was not assigned.

It just first come, first service. Yeah, first come, first.

And did Ms. Wong enter the stall when she hit the tent?

So she was in the process of helping her husband moving around their stall, so they were outside my stall.

And can you describe whether you are shorter or taller than Ms. Wang? I am taller than her, but she's stronger than me, heavier than me.

OK. Thank you.

Vice President Soroyan has a question.

Good evening. I wanted to know, did anyone call the police? Nobody called the police.

May I ask why not? The reason why we didn't call the police is because we wanted to end this conflict. After that, the other party came and threatened us for the second time. We were worried because we knew that if the police had a record, the other party would take action first, and the other party's meeting would be canceled. After the other party was canceled, we were worried that the other party would have more retaliation.

Okay, so yeah, we just wanted to settle the situation, let the situation calm down. But when they approached us again, threatened us the second time, so we didn't want to report that because if we did that, their license might be suspended. We're afraid there might be retaliation if that happened.

Because when the first conflict happened, we wanted to end the conflict. We didn't think about what to do. We just wanted to end the conflict. Because my mother was there for a long time. She was single. So we considered my mother's safety.

OK, so yeah, because we just wanted to let everything just calm down, because my mom is actually there more often by herself. So we are more concerned about her safety.

OK, and that was but neither the police weren't called on the first altercation or the second altercation, which you showed us in the video.

OK, and then does the street arts program

have inspectors or representatives that walk around while you sell your work? Was there anyone from the city representative that you reported these incidents to after or during the time that you were vending after the two altercations?

OK. Not on the date of the incident, November 28? OK. Because it appears that Ms. Wang filed

an incident report. However, you nor your mother filed an incident report.

No. So yeah, we just wanted to let this whole situation go because Dave actually came back again with the son and threatened us. So we are afraid. We're fearful of filing a complaint.

Thank you. I understand.

One more detail. It's like this. When the conflict started, it was me, Ms. Wang, and her husband who were fighting. During the fight, Ms. Wang and her husband were both there. So I couldn't beat them alone. After that, I was the one who was hurt. The other party would come and threaten me. So from the beginning, we thought the other party was very scary. We just wanted to let it end.

Okay, so yeah, because when the incident happened, it was actually Wang and her husband against myself. So there's no way I can fight against two. So that's why. But afterwards, they actually brought her son over too. So again, we were afraid. It was really afraid of that.

They have a big family, and there are only three of us. It's just female.

Thank you for the clarification.

OK, thank you. You can be seated now. Thank you. We will now hear from the Arts Commission. Welcome. Since you are responding to three appeals, you have 21 minutes to address the board.

We're just going to set up some visuals first.

Sure, take your time.

Great. Can we get the computer, please?

Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you.

We'll give you a couple of minutes to set up, and we'll take a break. We'll be back in two minutes.

OK. So did you want to take a five-minute break?

Five minutes, yes.

OK. Thank you. OK. But take your time setting up. We're set up, but we can take a break. OK. I think they want a five-minute break. Thanks, everyone, for your patience.

Break, please. Thank you.

OK, welcome back to the April 29, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. We are on items 4A, 4B, and 4C. And we are now going to hear from the Arts Commission. Welcome. You have 21 minutes.

Thank you. Before I begin, and I will start with my name, I'm Anne Tricky. My pronouns are they, them. I'm a senior program officer at the Arts Commission. I manage both the grants program and the art vendor program, and this is my colleague.

Hi, my name is Jen Atwood. I'm a program officer at the Arts Commission, also doing grants and the art vendor program.

I do have a point of inquiry for the city attorney. I was wondering if you could restate what the purview of the decision is today. It's my understanding that the discussion and the review is purely on the suspension, revocation, or denial of a permit. And so I just wanted to make sure that that was what we were understanding was the conversation for today.

Well, this is your opportunity to testify.

I asked the legal assistant if that was OK. And he did say I could ask you for a point of clarification.

Well, you're here to testify. I believe you were here earlier when the city attorney and a number of us had a discussion about the matters that are coming before us. And as you can tell from the discussion, we're discussing a number of different options. This is a de novo hearing.

Right. I guess there seemed to be some line of questioning that seemed to be out of the purview of what the Street Artist Committee would have reviewed. And my understanding with the de novo hearing is that the Board of Appeals reviews what the Street Artist Committee would have reviewed. So I just wanted a clarification on the jurisdiction.

You can use your time, your 21 minutes, in any way you want.

OK. Understood. Then I will begin.

Do you want the computer up?

Yes, please.

Computer, please.

All right. So hello, members of the board. Thank you for your time and attention this evening. Before you is appeal 26014. I'm going to address them each individually. Involving Jianfu Wei and his violation of the art vendor program's code of conduct. The code of conduct is a policy documents all artists receive that is a binding policy approved by the Arts Commission and governs the oversight of the art vendor program. Wei's violation of the code of conduct resulting in a suspension of his street artist certificate from February 24th, 2026 until June 23rd, 2026, at which time staff plan to recommend revocation of his license. Wei is involved in a multi-party violent altercation that took place the Friday after Thanksgiving last year. Through investigation and public hearing, staff found Wei did engage in the altercation by physically restraining another art vendor, Zhongyu Wang, which led to Wang receiving injuries from another party. The Street Artists Committee suspended Way pending an upcoming meeting of the Committee in June, at which time staff will recommend revocation for all parties found in violation of the Code of Conduct. Staff initially planned to recommend revocation of Way's license at the February 24, 2026 disciplinary hearing. Upon discovering that Way was not in the country, staff altered the recommendation from revocation to suspension, pending a date that both Way was back in the country and the Street Artist Committee could next meet, which is June 23, 2026. The strategy of suspension pending revocation is due to the fact that many of the parties involved were out of the country in February, including Way. However, because of the violent nature of the incident and the complicated scheduling of the Street Artists Committee, which does not meet regularly, If the disciplinary hearing had not moved forward in February, the next available date to address the issue is June 23, 2026. This would have been seven months from the violent incident, enabling potentially violent individuals to remain in the program without consequences. possibly leading to more violence. The Arts Commission has zero tolerance for violence in the program and must send the message that these types of actions will result in consequences and removal. The Arts Commission made every effort to ensure that the February meeting was accessible, including sharing a WebEx international phone number and an internet-based video call link, as well as providing Mandarin interpreters for the call. We did not take advantage of these accommodations. Additionally, Section 3 of Article 24, which is included as Exhibit A in your brief, states that the program applicants must supply a person's contact information through whom the art vendor may always be reached. The burden is on Wei to provide accurate contact information to the program by which he may always be reached. Section 2408 of Article 24 of the Police Code allows for a rehearing request if the artist fails to appear at the hearing and has, for good cause, subsequently requested another hearing. This section of the legislation stipulates that the art vendor must make this request to the program director within five business days of the notice of decision. Wei did not do so. He did not make a rehearing request. He moved directly to appeal. The Board of Appeals should affirm the Commission's decision to suspend Way's license until June 23, 2026. I'm now going to summarize the incident and the evidence against Way. Could we move to the second slide, please? Here you can see the parties involved. Witnesses interviewed by the Arts Commission affirm that on Friday, November 28, 2025, Zhongyu Wang, license number 9021, Yingjie Ge, license number 10088, and Jie Yin, license number 10086, engaged in a violent altercation, including shouting, kicking, hitting, and hair pulling. This disruption of the market caused many other art vendors to run towards the altercation. Some attempted to intervene. Wei chose to intervene by physically restraining Zhongyu Wang. Wei did not get consent or approval to touch Wang or restrain her. Because he held her, Wang was unable to defend herself and received injuries from Ying Jige. Wei contests that he did not touch anyone. However, Wang gave testimony at the February hearing, which you all received in the brief as part of the exhibits, that held her so that she could not raise her arms. He held her so she could not raise her arms. That's part of the testimony. Witness Xu Huaxi, license number 7548, confirmed that she saw Wei physically restrain Wang. Staff were unable to interview Wei's named witness, Xi Ji Mei, license number 8719, before the February hearing. However, staff later intervened Mei on March 25th. And Mei stated he could not see the interaction between Wei and Wang. So Wei's statement that he did not restrain Wang remains uncorroborated by a witness. Staff understand that Wei's intention while intervening was not malicious. However, the consequences of his actions are injuries to another art vendor. No matter the intention in this case, the Arts Commission must respond to the multiple violations of the Code of Conduct. It is out of the purview of the art vendor program for the Arts Commission staff or Street Artists Committee members to determine cause, intention, or fault regarding the incident. Article 24 of the police code solely governs the approval, suspension, and revocation of an art vendor license. Arts Commission staff are not the police and are not able to determine any sort of crime or fault regarding what happened. We can only address issues governed by the Code of Conduct and work to ensure that the Art Vendor Program does not harbor violent individuals and people who cannot abide by the Code of Conduct, which Wei clearly violated. The Street Artists Committee found Wei in violation of items 2, 3, and 19. Number two, always be respectful, courteous, and considerate to fellow artists, Arts Commission staff, advisory committee members, and the public. Wei restraining Zhongyu Wang against her will was not respectful, courteous, or considerate. Number three, do not physically or verbally threaten or assault another artist or engage in any other serious mistreatment of persons or acts that present an immediate danger to the public health and safety. Wei physically restrained Wang, which led to her injuries, a serious mistreatment of her person that presented a danger to Wang. Number 19, respect the business of your fellow artists. Do not enter their spaces without permission. Interfere or hinder the interaction between customers and other artists. While, thankfully, there are no customers or members of the public involved in this altercation, Wei interfered with Wang's business by restraining her, which hindered her from conducting her business under her own volition. The Embarcadero Plaza does not have regular administrative oversight or operations. Each individual vendor is their own business and operates individually. Wei restraining Wang interfered with her business. Could you move to the timeline, please? Thank you. In conclusion, the facts are clear. Wei violated the code of conduct in a violent manner. The Arts Commission cannot allow violent actions or individuals to remain in the program and will recommend Wei's license for revocation in June. The Arts Commission accommodated Wei's international travel by suspending his license in February pending a date when he could attend a rehearing of the issue in June. Wei did not make a rehearing request, as is his right, but moved directly to appeal. The Board of Appeals should affirm the Commission's decision to suspend Wei's license until June 23, 2026. And I want to note that a number of the statements that Wei made about the communication that we sent him are incorrect as far as I understand it. All of the evidence of the in-language communication we sent him is in the brief and the exhibits, including the multiple times my staff member contacted him via language, leaving voicemails in language. text messages that should be translated to Chinese on his phone, as well as email that included the attachment with all of the information that's translated into Chinese. It's not clear to me why he didn't understand what was happening. All of that information was provided to him. Sorry, I need a drink of water.

I pause the time.

All right, I'm going to move to the next item, which is Appeal 26017, involving Jia Yin's violation of the Art Vendor Program's Code of Conduct. I have some same items to note. The Code of Conduct is binding policy, approved by the Arts Commission, and governs oversight of the Art Vendor Program. All artists receive copies, and it is translated into all required city languages, including traditional Chinese. All of the parties here received this notice as recently as September 2025. Yin's violation of the Code of Conduct resulted in a suspension of her street artist certificate from February 24th until June 23rd. Staff plan to recommend revocation of her license at the June Street Artist Committee meeting. Yin is involved in the same multi-party violent altercation. Through investigation and public hearings, staff found Yin did engage in the altercation by attempting to hit another art vendor, Zhongyi Wang. The Street Artists Committee suspended Yin's license pending the June meeting, at which time staff will recommend revocation for all parties found in violation of the Code of Conduct. Staff are using this strategy of suspension pending revocation as an accommodation for parties that were out of the country in February. Program policy does not require that staff offer such an accommodation. Staff could have moved forward to revoke all licenses in February and did not do so. However, because of the violent nature of the incident, staff felt it would be negligent to wait seven months from the violent incident to move forward. Again, the Arts Commission has zero tolerance for violence in the program and must send the message that these types of accidents will result in consequences and removal. The Arts Commission made every effort to ensure that the meeting was accessible. Yin did not take advantage of these accommodations. And again, I will remind the board that Section 3 of Article 24, again, Exhibit A in the brief, states that program applicants must supply a person's contact information through whom the art vendor may always be reached. Yin is not in compliance with this section of the legislation by her own admission. Section 2408 of Article 24 of the Police Code allows for a rehearing request if the artist fails to appear and requests another hearing for good cause. The request must come within five business days of the notice of decision. Yin did not make a rehearing request. The Board of Appeals should affirm the Commission's decision to suspend Yin's license until June 23, 2026. I'm now going to summarize the violent incident and the evidence against Yin. Witnesses interviewed by the Arts Commission affirm that on the February 28, 2025, Zhongyu Wang, license number 9021, Yingjie Ge, license number 10088, engaged in a violent altercation, including shouting, kicking, hitting, and hair pulling. Ji Yin, license number 10086, tried to intervene in the altercation by attempting to hit Zhongyu Wang. This disruption of the market caused many other art vendors to run towards the altercation. Some attempted to intervene. Yin admits to attempting to join the altercation with Wang. During her interview conducted by staff with interpretation, Yin said, I tried to interfere, but another vendor held me back. Witness Shuihua Shi, license number 7548, confirmed she saw Yin attempting to hit Wang and intervened to stop Yin. Shi's intervention did not harm Yin and is a separate interaction from that leading to the disciplinary action taken against Jiangfu Wei. So I want to note that there is some discrepancy from what we were told in the interview versus what these folks said today in front of the board. Staff understand that Yin's intention to intervene was to support her daughter, Yingjie Ge, who was engaged in physical violence with Wang. However, the code of conduct is clear that violence and attempted violence are a violation of program policy. No matter the intention, in this case, the Arts Commission must respond to the multiple violations of the code of conduct. It is out of the purview of the Art Vendor Program or Arts Commission staff or the Street Artist Committee members to determine cause, intention, or fault regarding the incident. Article 24 of the Police Code solely governs the approval, suspension, and revocation of an art vendor license. Arts Commission staff are not the police and not able to determine any sort of crime or fault regarding what happened. We can only address issues governed by the Code of Conduct and work to ensure that the art vendor program does not harbor violent individuals and people who cannot abide by the Code of Conduct, which Yin clearly violated. The Street Artist Committee found Yin in violation of the same items 2, 3, and 19. For time, I'm not going to read number two, but this is the one about being respectful, courteous, and considerate. Yin attempting to hit Zhongyu Wang was not respectful, courteous, or considerate. Number three, do not physically or verbally threaten or assault another artist. Excuse me, do not physically or verbally threaten or assault another artist. Yin attempting to hit Wang is a threat of assault, a serious mistreatment of Wang's person that presented a danger to Wang. And number 19 is about respecting the business of your fellow artists. While again, luckily, there are no customers or members of the public involved in this, Yin interfered with Wang's business by attempting to hit her, which hindered Wang from conducting her business as well as disrupted the normal business of the market.

If you could withhold for just a moment, I've been informed that the speed at which you are speaking makes it difficult for the interpreters to do their job. If you could slow down a bit, that would be very helpful.

I'm trying to meet the time that I've been allotted, but sure. So this is, again, me repeating some of the same information that has been heard before. In conclusion, the facts are clear. Yin violated the code of conduct in a violent manner. The Arts Commission cannot allow violent actions and individuals to remain in the program and will recommend revocation of Yin's license in June. The Arts Commission accommodated Yin's international travel by suspending her license in February, pending a date when she could attend a rehearing of the issue in June. Yin did not make a rehearing request, as is her right, but moved directly to appeal. The Board of Appeals should affirm the Commission's decision to suspend Yin's license until June 23, 2026. And now we'll move to the final item. which is appeal 26018 involving Yingzi Ge's violation of the art vendor program's code of conduct. Again, I have similar items to note. The code of conduct is translated and binding policy approved by the Arts Commission and governs oversight of the art vendor program. Ge's violation of the code of conduct resulted in a suspension of her street artist certificate for four months. Ge is involved in the same violent altercation. Through investigation and public hearing, staff found Ge did engage in the altercation by hitting, kicking, and pulling the hair of Zhongyu Wang. The Street Artists Committee suspended Ge's license pending a rehearing in June, where all parties found in violation of the Code of Conduct will be recommended for revocation. This is a strategy of accommodation, one that is not required by program policy but is needed to address the issue now instead of waiting seven months, which would send the wrong message to the parties and the program. The Arts Commission has zero tolerance for violence in the program and must send the message that these types of actions will result in consequences and removal. The Arts Commission's accessibility accommodations for the February meeting were not utilized by GA. GA's inability to be reached is a violation of Section 3 of Article 24 that requires a person's contact information through whom the art vendor may always be reached. Again, may always be reached. The rehearing request allowed by Section 2408 of Article 24 of the Police Code must be made within five business days of the notice of decision. Guh did not make a rehearing request. The Board of Appeals should affirm the Commission's decision to suspend Guh's license until June 23, 2026. I'm now moving into the summary again. So once again, witnesses affirmed that these individuals were part of the altercation, Zhongyu Wang, license number 9021, Yingzhi Ge, license number 10088, and Jie Yin, license number 10086. They all engaged in a violent altercation, including shouting, kicking, hitting, and hair pulling. This disruption of the market caused many other art vendors to run towards the altercation. Some attempted to intervene. Ge admitted she used violence in the altercation with Wang during her interview conducted by staff with interpretation. Ge said, I pushed her back and during the fight we both laid hands on each other. We started to use physical violence. Witness Xu Ha Shi, license number 7548, confirmed she saw Ge kicking and pulling Wang's hair. She confirmed Wang's statement that Ge was the perpetrator of the physical violence. We have no witnesses that affirm the version of stories you heard here tonight. We have witnesses that affirm the version that we've presented in the brief and in my statement. The Code of Conduct is clear that violence and attempted violence are a violation of program policy. The Arts Commission must respond to the multiple violations of the Code of Conduct. It is out of the purview of the Art Vendor Program or the Arts Commission staff or Street Artist Committee to determine cause, intention, or fault regarding the incident. Article 24 of the Police Code solely governs the approval, suspension, and revocation of a license. We are not the police, and we are not able to determine any sort of crime or fault regarding what happened. We can only address issues governed by the Code of Conduct and work to ensure that the Art Vendor Program does not harbor violent individuals and people who cannot abide by the Code of Conduct, which Ge clearly violated. Again, Ge violated the same items, number 2, 3, and 19. Ge engaging in a violent physical altercation with Zhang Yu Wang was not respectful, courteous, or considerate. Ge admits to hitting and kicking Wang. This is assault, a serious mistreatment of Wang's person that resulted in injuries to Wang. And Ge interfered with Wang's business by hitting and kicking her, which hindered Wang from conducting her business, as well as disrupted the normal business of the market. In conclusion, can we see the timeline again? The facts are clear. Guh violated the code of conduct in a violent manner. The Arts Commission cannot allow violent actions or individuals to remain in the program and will recommend revocation of Guh's license in June. The Arts Commission accommodated international travel by suspending her license in February pending a date when she could attend a rehearing of the issue in June. Guh did not make a rehearing request as her right, but moved directly to appeal. The Board of Appeals should affirm the commission's decision to suspend Guh's license until June 23, 2026.

OK, thank you. We have questions from Commissioner Abad, Commissioner Wong, and President Trezevena.

Thank you, Tricky, for your preparation. A few questions. Can you help summarize how the Arts Commission, what your procedures are for investigating an incident when a complaint is filed?

Yes. I'm actually going to let Jen take this, since she conducted the interview and procedure. Jen, could you just go over how we move forward through something like this?

This is program officer Jen Atwood speaking. When we received notice, which was from Wong's daughter, emailed us to say that there was an incident that took place. I then requested that the incident report be completed. We received the incident report and then I requested interviews with Wong first and through the interview process identified the people that were involved in the incident and Everyone who was named was then requested additional interviews for follow-up. All interviews were conducted with an interpreter. And they are also in the materials that were provided along with your brief. During the interviews, we did ask if they had evidence to support. And they did send us, I think, different parties. So Wang sent us images. And Yingjigi also sent us the video, one of them that you saw today. And then some of the images that they showed today as well were provided to Arts Commission staff, but not all of those that you saw today were provided to staff.

So just to recap, the procedure is to you receive a complaint. This might come initially via email or by maybe like a voicemail or maybe even a visit to Arts Commission office. And then a program officer, in this case yourself, Ms. Atwood, aids in the completion of an incident report on behalf of the person who is filing the complaint.

We asked them to complete the incident report, which then following the receiving the incident report, we began an investigation, which involves interviewing all parties that we're aware of that were present. Any named witnesses as well, reviewing evidence. And then once we receive all, we've completed the interviews and the evidence that we've gathered, bring our recommendation to the Street Artists Committee, is my understanding.

I would note for clarification that if there was a request to assist with the report, that we would absolutely assist. We have contracts with translators and interpreters on file, Blingva, and LanguageLine. And we use that in all of our communication in language to the folks we know who need certain language access. We've been doing this for years. And so it is standard procedure to communicate in language when we understand that that is the requirement of the particular art vendor.

And so at the conclusion of staff's analysis, intake, conducting interviews, documenting everything, receiving materials, staff conducts an analysis, develops a recommendation, and then brings this to the Street Artists Committee. Who presides and conducts the Street Artists Committee hearings? Who's present? Who sits on that committee?

Just point of clarification, we also work with the city attorney. So in this case, we worked with the city attorney that advises the Arts Commission, who is Lauren Curry. And so because there was a complicated nature with this particular issue, including needing to move forward because of the violence, but needing also to accommodate people's travel, we worked with the city attorney in this case. But in most cases where it's at this level, we advise with the city attorney, again, before we would move forward with the type of recommendation we're making at the committee. And then to your question about who sits on the committee, the Street Artists Committee is made up of the same subcommittee of the Arts Commission of commissioners that are the Community Investments Committee. And I don't know who all is on the committee at the top of my head. I'm sure Jen could look it up. But it's the same set of commissioners.

And at the hearing, can you describe the kind of format of presentation in particular? I'm assuming they'll be in receipt of your analysis in advance and staff's recommendation, which, as you noted, is is prepared in consultation with the city attorney. So all of that is presented, described, and is the party that filed the complaint and the party who is named in the complaint, or the parties named in the complaint, typically they're, as I'm to understand it, they're typically there to, do they have an opportunity to provide comment, to be questioned?

Yes. Jen, do we have the procedure online that you could find? I have a document, actually, that lays out the procedure. But essentially, the parties are allowed to speak. They also are given additional time, just like you saw today, if there is language interpretation needed. And then there is a chance for rebuttal. And then if there are other parties, then they also speak in a chance for rebuttal. And then there is commissioner deliberation, discussion, public comment, and then a final decision.

Thank you. So we move then, in this case, to the date of February 24th, which is when this Street Artists Committee hearing was conducted. What time of day, California time, is that conducted? Was that conducted?

It's the same time that the Community Investments Committee would meet. And so it's 1 PM on Tuesday.

It's 1 PM PST on Tuesday. And what is that? Beijing time, Taipei time, Suzhou time, Shanghai time.

There's a 12-hour difference.

There's a 12-hour difference. OK. So 1 in the morning. It should be 4 in the morning. Sorry, 4 in the morning. OK, right. And so it's been noted that none of the parties, I believe, including the party that filed the complaint, attended. Am I incorrect?

That's incorrect. The party that filed the complaint was in there. And if you saw the exhibit or looked at the transcript or watched the video, you can see her testimony. You can also see the other witness testimony, Shui-Ha Shi, who is the one corroborating Wang's testimony, we don't move forward unless we have corroborating evidence. Just based on one person's statement is not enough information for us to move forward. We need a corroborating witness or other evidence that allows us enough information to move forward in proceeding.

Suffice to say that the parties named in the complaint were not present, they were not able to be present, and the Arts Commission was aware that they would not be in the country at the time that the Street Artists Committee was convening.

Correct. As stated, we sought advice from the city attorney about this procedure and were recommended to move forward with suspension. at the February committee pending the opportunity to revoke.

And you mentioned that the Street Artists Committee, for whatever reason, doesn't meet with regularity. Can you help us understand what drives this scheduling? It's solely disciplinary actions. Yeah, sorry, go ahead.

Sorry, I did not mean to interrupt you. I apologize. It's solely disciplinary actions. The Street Artist Committee does not meet unless there is a disciplinary action they are hearing at the committee. We have not had a disciplinary action that rose to the level of committee since 2019. So it has been some time.

Which is, I think, good news that These are hopefully isolated incidents. So it's driven by incident. Were there any other incidents that were scheduled the same evening or the same afternoon? Not at that.

I mean, the three, you folks have batched them, I think, in order to attempt to consolidate time. However, we've been advised that we cannot batch them. And so it requires each one to be taken individually. And so each person, when we schedule it, the victim has the opportunity to speak for each one. And then the parties involved, if they had been there, would have had the opportunity to speak for each one, plus public comment and witnesses.

Understood. So each of these three suspensions were taken, but they were scheduled on the same evening. Correct. Were there any other disciplinary matters before the committee at that time? This incident that took place in November of 2025 was the only one at hand? Correct. Okay. So the Street Artists Committee only convenes if there is an incident, and yet we knew the city was aware that two, if not three, of the parties named in the complaint were not going to be able to be there.

Correct.

Okay.

I also just wonder, again, based on the city attorney advice, we were debating how to address this. And waiting seven months sends a particular message to the program, one that we are trying to avoid. It's in the brief that previously, people were allowed to stay in the program. And those folks created a... atmosphere of fear and intimidation where people would not report to us and not move forward. And it has been my work with the city attorney to create the code of conduct and provide a process at which we can address these things and create a more safe program for the people who are participating.

Absolutely. And I think I understand your charge and your mandate to develop protocols and a code of conduct and to enforce it as such. But I'm not understanding why there's only a six-month gap? If these particular types of hearings are required in order to address alleged violence, et cetera, why is there only an option between November and June or whatever it is?

Because the April meeting already had a full agenda. The April meeting was the Committee Investments Committee meeting, which had a full agenda. They met yesterday for three hours. There was the same members, same committee members, same date and time. There's no room on the agenda. We could have... We we would have had to hold one committee before the next which it would have ended up being Perhaps a five or six hour meeting and we would have lost quorum at that point with the committee members Okay, I understand the cadence that the Commission and its subcommittees have established for itself.

I Don't know that it also satisfies or meets the parameters that you described earlier. But I'm going to move on with my questions.

It's my understanding that the Board of Appeals also sticks to their calendar when scheduling and does not necessarily accommodate, and that the schedule is strict.

In the materials that have been presented to us before this evening in preparation for this evening's hearing, as well as some of the materials that we've had a chance to see in real time, it's evident that this was an incident that involved many people, including the person, the party that filed the complaint, their, it sounds like their husband and their son. Their son is outside of the program. I understand that their son is outside of the program. But as you said, the relatives of your licensed vendor were involved in creating an atmosphere of violence, of fear, et cetera, which is something that we are all trying to guard against. So my question is, in the course of your investigations, either generically or in this case, It's found that the party that filed the complaint was also engaged in physical altercation. Parties connected to that person who filed parties connected in a familial way to the person who filed the complaint were engaging in fomenting escalating those dynamics on site, right? So I think that's pretty irrefutable. And my question is, in the course of the Arts Commission's procedures, does it also ascribe fault? Or does it note, does it observe that the party who filed the complaint also violated the code of conduct? Or is that not the finding that you have?

There are no witnesses that corroborate that. accusation. And I also want to state that in consultation with the city attorney, we asked about the potential of the video and the other individuals and the city attorney advised that those folks are outside of the purview of the art vendor program and we cannot take action based on their actions. Jen, did you want to add?

I was just, the city attorney specified that we could not hold the art vendor accountable for the actions of their family members.

OK, so I understand that separation. And I guess pulling up a little bit in elevation, you've spoken very forcefully this evening about the need to send the right message, to enforce codes of conduct that ensure that we have an atmosphere on our streets and among street vendors that is peaceable, without anyone having any fear of violence perpetrated against them, et cetera. So can you help us understand, Mixed Tricky, what your approach is then in these situations where you can't take action, but programmatically, what are we doing in order to address the fact that the person who filed the complaint, and people closely connected with them who it seems like are on site with regularity, that you're addressing that that dynamic exists, or are you?

Well, I think there's a lot there to unpack. I mean, one, I want to note that the video presented as evidence does not actually show the parties named in the altercation. So Zhongyu Wang is not in that video, and there are a couple of other art vendors who were named as witnesses who will not speak with the Arts Commission. One of them claimed to not remember anything, and the other one, after multiple communications has not followed up with us, including Jen going out multiple days to try to see if he's selling. They will not speak with us. So we acknowledge that there is an atmosphere of bullying and intimidation in this program, and that is something that the Code of Conduct is meant to address. If we receive witness statements that could corroborate evidence against other parties, we will move forward with action against those parties. We have not received any witness statements that corroborate that evidence. We have only moved forward with what we can corroborate with witness statements. And then secondly, to your question about what are we doing, We have. very little control over the location of the Embarcadero Plaza. The Arts Commission is not the jurisdictional authority of the location. It is rec and park property. And they are the agency mandated to manage safety and use of that space. We do, on a regular basis, provide information and contact information of the rec and park number to call if there is a ranger needed. We regularly provide communication, including translated communication, to program members that if there is a violent altercation, the party that needs to be addressed is the police. So we do that sort of education as much as we can in language. And then we also have a contract with a market manager who is only on site on Saturdays. So that is not a requirement of the program. It is not a requirement of the legislation. It is something that the Arts Commission has created in order to address the types of issues that led to the altercation that is before us today. So we've taken action on a number of fronts, but there is no standard oversight of this location. These people are considered individual businesses operating on their own. The only thing that kind of brings them together is proximity. There's no other binding oversight or administration other than the code of conduct that we've created.

Thank you. There is no witness statement. Are the materials that the Arts Commission is in receipt of in the course of their investigation, right? Ms. Atwood described the investigation. Do they not form a body of information enough to... to understand what the dynamic is. I mean, it's hard for me to understand why you would see a young man yelling, swearing, you know, avowing violent acts, right? It's on video. But you're saying that you can't, I mean, I think that the parties named in the complaint have told you that that's Ms. Wong's son.

And the city attorney advised we could not hold Ms. Wong accountable for the actions of her family members that are not in the program. If the city attorney advises that we have no jurisdiction, we can't move forward with that.

But you are aware that Ms. Wong's family in this incident, perhaps at other times, is involved in, you said bullying behavior is a dynamic that we find in the program.

I don't have a history of them in specificity. It is an issue from the- Aside from this incident. Correct. On video. Yeah. But again, she is not in the video and neither is her husband. The only people in the video are witnesses who won't speak to the Arts Commission and people who are not in the program.

When is the Lunar New Year observed? Does the Arts Commission know what dates those are?

I believe it's February 17th is the official new year. I am aware that festivities do take place over an extended period of time. Yes.

Yeah. And yet the only time we could find in the calendar to have this hearing when we knew that all of the parties named in the complaint would not be able to attend I think I can make the fair assumption that all the people named in the party, or all the parties named in the complaint, rather, are of Chinese ethnicity and had signaled to the Arts Commission that they wouldn't be here. Can you help me understand what the commission made no attempt to accommodate a different time, a different date. I mean, I know you mentioned there was an international WebEx, but as noted, it would have been, what, in the middle of the night. So I'm sure this is also not a decision that you yourself make. Makes tricky, but it's hard to perceive this procedure as entirely fair. We've arrived at this where we are tonight as a consequence of decisions and actions that the commission and its committees made via scheduling, et cetera. But one of the things that I think is on our minds is how fair it was for us to arrive at where we are today.

I'm unclear that the fairness is part of the procedure. To me, it's the denial, suspension, and revocation. But I will state that according to What we knew before we scheduled the committee hearing is that we thought Jianfu Wei would be present. And so we actually changed our recommendation from revocation to suspension in order to accommodate the travel. We didn't have another date to meet before June. Those are just facts. And I've provided the committee information to you as part of the exhibits. there was the april meeting was already agendized in full the next time would have been seven months i i i'm not sure what it's unclear to me what i could have done outside of what we did do considering all of these moving pieces and upon the advice of the city attorney

The cadence of the... Commissioner Abad, your questions are very illuminating and the answers are also very illuminating. I just want to alert you that your colleague commissioners also have questions and may want to have a second round. I don't want to cut off because I think you're helping us get a lot of information. Thank you, President Transvigna.

I'll pause for now. Thank you both.

Commissioner Wong.

If it helps, I've deleted a couple of my questions. So one of my first just logistical questions is to your communication with Jianfu Wei. He had mentioned that he had a voicemail. Can you confirm what language that voicemail was left in?

The voicemail was left with a Mandarin interpreter.

OK. And you're aware that he requested to speak Cantonese tonight?

I never received a request that he preferred Cantonese. Was this asked? No. Did I ask? Yeah. I believe when I scheduled the first interview, I asked what language he preferred, and he replied Mandarin for that interview. So we've conducted the interview and communications in Mandarin. since that time that I was informed of that.

And so that means during the interview, he didn't clarify that the language was incorrect or that there would have been another language. We would, of course, have updated if he had at any time told us he needed a different language. One of our tasks after today is to confirm if it's Cantonese or Mandarin and ensure that we have the correct interpreters lined up for June. Appreciate it.

It's written the same, but it's spoken differently, and there's many sub-dialects as well. So you also mentioned multiple times that folks are supposed to give you contact information where they can always be reached. Is there ever any, like, Any time where people can just inform you that they'll be out of, or is there consideration when people may not be able to be reached and inform you in advance?

So because of the way that the license runs, and these are essentially their own individual businesses, there's no... policy or procedure that requires them to inform us of like i won't be operating business they just choose not to sell on those days or they choose not to go out or use the lottery and that's not there's not a formal process where they would say i'm not available but in this case you know they could have given us someone else's contact information we've also had hearings or committee meetings where people have sent proxies and that would have been welcome And was any of this informed? They didn't ask. They just said they weren't going to be there.

So the expectation was that the appellants themselves would know to inform you that they wanted to send a proxy or anything?

The information is in the hearing notice.

OK. And this is the one that they received when they were already in China. Yes, translated into Chinese, yes. OK. And then you had mentioned also multiple times that they were supposed to respond within five days. Can I confirm that that's five days after the decision was made by that commission?

The notification. So not the day of the hearing, but the notification that's sent out by the program director. Five business days within notice of decision.

And then remind me when that was sent out. I believe it was. February 26. 26. February 26. And they had indicated that they would be out of town until March.

I don't know if we had the exact dates.

I don't know if they actually said specifically what dates they would be returning. We did also follow up with the left of voicemail in Mandarin and a text message in addition to the notification decision. OK.

I'm just trying to figure all this out. And then my last question is just general understanding. Can you explain to me what the purpose of the hearing is, especially if you're making the recommendation to revoke a license? Is it realistic to expect that they could defend and maintain their license?

The committee is allowed to change the recommendation from staff and have in the past. So we present our recommendation, we present our evidence, they hear from all parties present, and then the committee makes a decision based on the information received. They are allowed to amend the recommendation from staff.

OK. Random other question. Does this committee meet around Christmas? No, they don't. Do any of your committees meet around Christmas?

I mean, it depends on the schedule. OK, let me amend my comment. There is always a December hearing scheduled for the Community Investments Committee. If an incident such as this had occurred and we would have met, we would have moved to committee in December. Currently, the Street Artists Committee meeting in December is scheduled for December 23rd of this year. Last year, it was December 18th. Got it. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. President Shezvinia?

I have a lot of questions. Commissioner Abbott and Commissioner Wong have helped me pare down those numbers of questions. And we've had you up here for quite a bit. What's the role of the program director in this case?

to affirm the decision made by the committee. It actually says that they're not allowed to amend the decision.

Did you include that in the record? I don't recall seeing it.

Denise Pate, is it present? Denise Pate is present.

No, I asked you, is it in the record?

Sorry, is what in the record?

The program director's decision.

The notification of decision is in the materials that were provided. In the exhibits.

Have you provided us the program director's decision?

Yes, it's the notification of decision.

Okay, great.

It's one of the exhibits. So has there been a violent history between the appellants and the... Not these individuals, no. Pardon me?

No, there is no previous history of interaction of the parties involved.

Okay, and how about since? Has there been any violence reported by them?

Isn't it in this...

Sorry, could you repeat the question? Has there been any violence perpetrated by the appellants against the victim since the incident?

Not that anyone has reported to us, no.

OK. And what's the reason for them to be moved? I'm sorry? What was the reason for the March 17th email, Ms. Atwood?

Are you speaking about the jurisdictional location of the Embarcadero Closet?

I'll read it to you. It says, due to concerns regarding the safety of other artists in the program, we have made the administrative decision to restrict the locations at which you may sell.

Yes, this is past practice and also, again, outside the jurisdiction of the Street Artist Committee. The lottery is the purview of the program staff and not part of the Street Artist Committee consideration. This is also on advice of a previous city attorney and past practice for violent incidences such as the one we are addressing today.

Okay, but you said that you haven't had a... a violent incident since 2019?

It's to keep violence from happening so they're not all in the same location. I'm assuming the reason there hasn't been violence is because they're not all near each other. So they don't currently have access to the Embarcadero Plaza location.

Why did you wait until March 17 when the concern about violence

That was after the appeal was filed.

The suspension stays until the appeal is filed, and then your appeal overrides the suspension. You've answered my question. Yes. And you attributed to, you stated in your testimony that even the appellant admitted to a violent altercation. Which appellant are you speaking of? You quoted her as saying, I pushed her back.

That was from the interview of Yingjie Ge.

I'm sorry, of who?

That was the interview of Yingjie Ge. That quote is from Yingjie Ge. Not the one of the appellants. That was their interview.

Yingjie Ge is appellant for 26018. So yes, that's from the interview statement.

So you are saying, you are giving weight to the appellant's statement, I pushed her back.

Correct, but there is no witness to corroborate the beginning of this altercation, and there is no witness that says the other person stalled her to the altercation. Do you know how the altercation started? Nobody knows how the altercation started. But there is a witness that confirms... that Yingjie Ge was perpetuating the violence, and we've moved forward based on the witness.

Did you ever investigate the origin of the incident?

We interviewed all witnesses that were named. No witnesses were able to confirm how the fight began, how the altercation began.

Okay, thank you.

Vice President Sorian?

Good evening. Thank you. Ms. Atwood, I guess you led the charge for the investigation. Sorry, I can't hear you. Did you lead the charge for the investigation for the Arts Commission for the most part? Yes. So I'm curious. There's been much discussion about the violent nature At any point, were the police consulted with to investigate? Was it referred to the district attorney for assault and battery charges? I understand it's not within the Arts Commission's purview to do that. But was a referral made? Because I've heard many times. this evening during the course of the testimony from the city, how violent and how disruptive and how much bullying conduct there has been. So what is your relationship and coordination with the police and the DA's office to address?

We have no relationship with the police or the DA's office. And we've had other people make complaints, for example, about potential grantees. And the city attorney says, we have no jurisdiction. We cannot file a report on someone's behalf. They have to go to the police.

I understand that, but it is possible to refer a matter or a suggestion to an organization within the city, like the DA's office, to look into the situation or the police to further investigate. I mean, that request could be made.

In the interviews, I did recommend that when there is a violent interaction or a potential violent interaction, that the vendors need to contact the police as soon as possible. That was my recommendation. It's also what we notify to artists through the violations. When we are updating and providing information about the code of conduct in our newsletters, we also recommend to all art vendors that when there's a potential for violence that they contact police immediately.

But I guess what troubles me is that there's no clear description of how the event started, how long it happened, was there video. And I know you tried to put the pieces together as best as you were able to.

Do you mean was there video? Like, was there video at the location? We did investigate if there were any public cameras.

Are there cameras around the plaza? There's no cameras on the plaza.

And again, just to be clear, even if there were, and I've had to investigate something like this that happened at Fisherman's Wharf, as someone who is not the police, I cannot subpoena someone. I cannot mandate that someone hand over information to me. I can just make a request.

I understand that. I guess having a hearing with the three individuals whose permits were suspended in absentia

I also want to make clear that the art vendor program is not the only licensed program that allows people to sell on the street. The city also has a Department of Public Works street vendor program.

Oh, yes. And the port. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I did. Please.

And the port program, which is also available, and we've recommended that everyone take advantage of these opportunities. They actually allow folks access to more locations across the city.

I think that's something to communicate to your street vendors, not necessarily. That doesn't really come into play here with what's in front of us this evening, although I do appreciate it.

Well, if the concern is economic access, the point is that there are other opportunities for economic access.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lopez?

Thanks. Thanks for your testimony. In exhibit B to your brief, which is the 11-28-25 incident report, at the very end of that document, you have a collection of four people who, whether accused or named witnesses, who weren't able to be interviewed as of 11-28-25. Is that list still valid, or were any of these folks able to be reached and interviewed? Several are listed as being out of the country as of that date.

Some of those folks we were able to interview, and some of those folks we attempted to interview and told us they did not remember anything. And there is at least one witness who we have not been able to track down or get a hold of. We've left multiple different versions of communication, including going out on the standard Saturday selling day and seeing if he's selling. And we have not been able to find him or contact him.

And are those efforts ongoing, or did they stop as of... They are ongoing. The investigation is... If I could just finish my question. Are those efforts ongoing, or did they terminate as of the 2-24-26 hearing? Would you like to...

We've been continuing investigating as we're learning more information. For example, when Jianfu Wei has insisted that Mei is another witness that we needed to speak to, we scheduled two additional interviews with Mei to corroborate his information. about what he witnessed. And May did note in those interviews that he actually was not able to view Jianfu Wei because he was turned away from him at the time. So those interviews took place in March. And additionally, I've been out to the plaza Twice in March. Well, once in March. I think once in late February to try to reach Aaron, who is one of the witnesses that is named by all parties. He's the man in the hat in the video. Unfortunately, because he sells knitted beanies, and since the weather has warmed up, he hasn't been selling on the plaza in the more recent time period. does not respond to texts or emails or phone calls. But he is one I've been trying to track down. The other witness in the video is Peter. And when I reached out to him, he said he did not remember what took place.

And thank you for that. And is there a method for anonymous submissions or anonymous collection of information? Obviously, I wouldn't be a fan of having people be accused by anonymous sources, but just in terms of as an investigation method to maybe acquire other leads for Verified kind of named inform information.

We haven't received any anonymous information There was a previous. I mean again.

We haven't been here since 2019, but there has been previous items Brought to committee and then brought to the Board of Appeals that included anonymous witness statements that we redacted the information due to fear of retaliation that was in the last brief that the Board of Appeals reviewed and

And how do vendors or members of the public, how are they made aware of the anonymous channels?

It would be through Jen's outreach or investigation. In this case, one of the tactics that we discussed is going to the plaza and then letting folks know that they don't have to speak on the record, but we just need to know more information so that we can move forward with a full account.

Thank you.

OK, thank you. You can be seated. We're going to move on to public comment. Is there anyone here to provide public comment on this item? Is there anyone here? How many people in the room for public comment? President Tresvena, I think we do have a few. Should we limit it given the length of the agenda? Yes? OK. And then anyone on Zoom as well? How many people for public comment? One? OK. So if the interpreter can come up. We have two.

Please come up. We'll have one minute of public comment per person.

OK. You can speak for one minute. Since we have an interpreter, you'll have two. So please go ahead.

And then if they can fill out the card. Yeah.

And then when you're done speaking, if you could put your name on the card.

OK. I think he's speaking. You can start the time. Please proceed. Go ahead, Alec. I would like to question why

the person who started the altercation has not been suspended his license. Why those who subsequently tried to intervene got suspended?

Okay, thank you. Can you put your name on the card, sir?

My name is Mei, last name M-E-I. You can write it down.

Okay, next speaker.

Z-I-J-I-E. Thank you. Last name M-E-I. Thank you. Okay, go ahead.

You have two minutes since you have an interpreter.

Good evening, Commissioner. My name is . I am speaking as a family member and someone closely involved in the events.

OK, one minute since she's speaking English. But go ahead.

Before I continue, I would like to remind one point for the board's consideration. This case is not only about what happened, but how the decision was made. The February 24 hearing proceeded without meaningful participation due to lack of effective notice. At the same time, the Arts Commission has admitted in their brief that certain key materials were not presented to the three artists committed, including the injury-related evidence, the threatened videos, and the injured videos. This means that a decision on February 24th was made based on incomplete records. While this decision may not be submitted or reviewed later, that does not change the fact that original decision was made without complete records. Without a complete record, it is difficult to conclude that outcome was fully informed.

Thank you. Can you fill out a card, please, ma'am? Is there anyone on Zoom who wants to provide public comment? Raise your hand. I don't see anyone, so we're going to move on to rebuttal. So yes, you can come up, Mr. Wei, with your interpreter. You have six minutes.

No, he's no longer there. He left. He did submit an email, which all the commissioners read.

Right, and I gave it to all the commissioners. He read it.

Now he's not on the phone.

Oh, OK, OK. Before he told me, he understood. This is your time for rebuttal.

OK, go ahead. Six minutes, please. We have a lot of cases we need to get to. Oh, oh, oh.

I want to follow up on the witness, Mr. Mei, M-E-I-Z-I-J-I-E. I follow up on what he just said here.

He was the guy I was with before we saw the altercation. We together went to where the altercation happened after it started. Mr. May is one of the street vendors, so both of us witnessed what happened.

My question, Mr. Wang said I restricted his freedom of life, and the Art Commission believed him. I want to ask the Art Commission, what is the reason? I believe what Mr. Wang said is true. ... ... ... ... I still have a question. Why the Artistic Commission made the judgment that I

limit the freedom of movement of another vendor. The role that I played in this incident was purely a peacemaker. I tried to stop the violence and I still don't know why I am saying that I was a guy who limit one of the parties in the altercation, limit her freedom. I still don't understand. And as for witnesses who can speak for me, Mr. May, there is Melissa and also a person named Alan. I have been trying to... E-R-I-N. E-R-I-N. E-R-I-N. E-R-I-N. E-R-I-N. E-R-I-N. E-R-I-N. He promised to testify for me before, to tell other people that I was purely a peacemaker in this case.

Later he was...

He was out of the country, supposedly in Indonesia. And he said that he will return to the States April the 21st. But I have not been able to get in contact with him lately.

OK. Thank you. If that's it, you can be seated. We will now hear from Jay Yin. Why don't you all come up at this point so we can move along. We'll hear Jay Yin has six minutes. Thank you.

The Art Commission mentioned that if I did not attempt to use violence, why would I need other vendors to pull me away? Okay, but according to the evidence exhibit C, Wang's husband also, during the altercation, was also pulled away by someone.

如果被人拉开,意味着试图试试暴力,那么同样的逻辑也适应于原。

OK, if someone's trying to pull him away, that means they're trying to prevent the physical violence. Then the same logic also applies to Yu Yuan.

But according to this hearing, the Art Commission

only says that I've used violence.

第二点就是艺术委员会在答辩声称, 我在1月26日与他们有个访谈。 Okay, so according to the Art Commission, that there was an interview with me on January 26th? 我在此真正说明这通电话并不存在。