Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening and welcome to the September 16th, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. President John Trusvino will be the presiding officer tonight, and he is joined by Vice President Rebecca Soroyan, Commissioner Jose Lopez, Commissioner Robin Abad Okubio, and Commissioner Lily Wong. Also present is Deputy City Attorney Jesse Minardi, who will provide the board with any needed legal advice. Note he is transitioning to another team, so he will be replaced by Deputy City Attorney Taylor Jasuski, who will be observing tonight. Welcome. Both of them will be here next week attending the hearing. 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 presenting before the board this evening. We expect Javier Rivera, manager, private sector permits, San Francisco Public Works, Bureau of Street Use and Mapping. And up front, we have Maysoon Wazwaz, program officer with the 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, permanent holders, and department respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these seven or three minute periods. 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. Or three, by telephone. To provide public comment via Zoom, go to our website, sfgov.org forward slash BOA. And under the calendar, click on today's date. And then the blue rectangular box that says Zoom link for hearing. If you want to call in, call 1-669-900-9128 and enter webinar ID 930-9608-8481. SFGov TV is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you're watching the live stream or broadcast. To block your phone number when calling in, first dial star 67, then the phone number. listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called and dial star 9 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 6 to unmute yourself you will have three minutes 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 live streamed 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 at sfgov.org. Now, the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. Please note that we will take public comment first from those members of the public who are physically present in the 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, wait, raise your right hand and say, I do, after you've been sworn in or affirmed. Do you swear?

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

Yeah, they're arriving at 515. So before those cases, we could administer those again.

Thank you.

Thank you. So now we are on item number one, 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 that is not on tonight's calendar? I don't see anybody on Zoom or in person. So we're going to move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions.

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

Okay. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item? I don't see any. So we're going to move on to item number three, the adoption of the minutes. Commissioners, before you for discussion of possible adoption are the minutes of the September 2, 2026 meeting.

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

OK. Is there any public comment on that item? I DON'T SEE ANY. SO ON THAT MOTION, COMMISSIONER LOPEZ. AYE. VICE PRESIDENT SEROYAN. AYE. COMMISSIONER ABBOTT.

AYE.

COMMISSIONER WONG.

AYE.

THAT MOTION CARRIES 5-0 AND THE MINUTES ARE ADOPTED. WE ARE NOW MOVING ON TO ITEM NO. 4. THIS IS APPEAL NO. 26-020, ERNIE BEFFLE VERSUS SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC WORKS, BUREAU OF STREET USE AND MAPPING. SUBJECT PROPERTY 25th STREET AND HOMESHEAD STREET APPEALING THE ISSUANCE ON MARCH 20TH 2026 TO PG&E OF AN EXCAVATION PERMIT EXCAVATION ON THE SIDEWALK CURB TO REPLACE UTILITY POLES THIS IS PERMIT NUMBER 26 EXC00282 FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION THIS WAS CONTINUED FROM MAY 20TH TO AUGUST 12TH. ON AUGUST 12TH, THE BOARD VOTED 3-0-2 TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER TO SEPTEMBER 16TH SO THAT THE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS CAN DELIBERATE AND VOTE ON THE MATTER. THE COMMISSIONERS EXPRESSED THEIR INTENTION TO SUPPORT A MOTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND REVOKED THE PERMIT ON THE BASIS THAT IT WAS IMPROPERLY ISSUED. because the permit holder did not submit a tree protection plan as required by Public Works Code section 808 C 3 and as a preliminary matter Vice President Soroyan and Commissioner Lopez did you have an opportunity to watch the video and review the materials for the August 12th 2026 hearing yes I reviewed the materials and I'm ready to proceed Thank you. And as a preliminary matter, Commissioner Wong has a disclosure.

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

Okay, thank you. So at the hearing on August 12th, President Trasvini indicated that he did not see a need for further presentations. So first we need to ask, is there any public comment on this item?

The appellant is, never mind.

Any public comment? I don't see any. So commissioners, this matter is submitted.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. We did have a full hearing on this matter. In fact, we continued the matter to give the Board of Supervisors the opportunity to take action on a matter that was very relevant to the topic at hand for Homestead. And the Board did act and consistent with their action. As we discussed at the last hearing, it was our intention to move to grant the appeal and revoke the permit on the basis that it was improperly issued because the tree, because the permit holder did not submit a tree protection plan. I want to make sure that my colleagues who were not here have the opportunity to either say something. Also, the other colleagues as well, we did deliberate it on a little bit. So I will yield to any of my colleagues who would either like to discuss it or, in the absence of discussing it, making a motion along the lines that I just described.

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

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

Then I move the motion.

Thank you. So on that motion to grant the appeal and revoke the permit on the basis that the applicant didn't provide, a tree protection plan is required by the Public Works Code. Commissioner Lopez?

Aye.

Vice President Soroyan? Aye. Commissioner Abad? Aye. Commissioner Wong?

Aye.

So that motion carries 5-0 and the appeal is granted. Thank you. So the interpreters are supposed to be here. So I guess we're just going to have to pause. Unfortunately, they're not here yet.

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

Thank you. Let me see.

SFGov TV.

San Francisco Government Television.

OK. Welcome back to the September 16, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. We're now on item number four. We do want to make an announcement for everyone in the room regarding the oath. So we will swear in our firm 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.

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, wait. Raise your right hand and say, I do, after you have been sworn in or affirmed.

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. And then we do have another announcement.

As indicated on the agenda, each of the following matters will be heard independently, and a decision will be made after each case is heard.

接下去在已成的上面几个项目都会按照先后来得到聆听, 聆听以后会徐一得到一个裁决。

Because the board always has the authority to vote to reconsider a matter later in the hearing, all parties should nevertheless remain until the conclusion of tonight's meeting.

Because the committee is always in power, every matter will be resolved later. So I ask both parties to stay until the end of the meeting. Don't leave early.

Regarding speakers, if an individual speaks during a party's allotted time, that individual cannot also speak during public comment.

要注意,當雙方的其中一方在講話的時候, 公眾席裡面的公眾的成員,請你不要同時在講話。 Thank you. 謝謝。

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

Thank you. And we do expect another interpreter so that they can switch off and get breaks. So the first item we're hearing is item number five. This is appeal number 26-037, Ji Yin versus the Arts Commission, appealing the six-month suspension of Ji Yin's street artist license. On June 29, 2026, the Arts Commission suspended Ji Yin's street artist license until December 31st, 2026, FOR ATTEMPTING VIOLENCE AGAINST ART VENDOR ZHANG YU WANG, LICENSE NUMBER 9021, ON NOVEMBER 28, 2025. THIS CONDUCT IS A VIOLATION OF THE STREET ARTIST ORDINANCE AND ITEM NUMBERS 2, 3, AND 20 OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT. THIS IS LICENSE NUMBER 10086, AND WE'LL HEAR FIRST FROM THE ARTS COMMISSION.

Will our slides show up there?

Computer, please. Computer. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Hello, members of the board. My name is Mason Wazwaz. I'm a program officer with the San Francisco Arts Commission's Community Investments Program. Along with administering grants to artists, I also manage the Art Vendors Program. I've been in position for just over two months, so be kind. Joining me today is program associate Kingsley Sun, who supported the entire investigation and disciplinary process, and also our community investments director, Denise Pate, there, and our deputy director of programs, Evan Glenn, who I wasn't sure was coming. Before we get to GAIN's violation of the code of conduct, I would like to point out that it has been seven years since the last incident that brought us to this board. The agency is proud of the successful governance of the program that has produced minimal violations. We are discouraged by this recent incident as this process is a last resort and only used when absolutely necessary. I can assure you that no staff member joins the Arts Commission to discipline artists. We are here to support their work and their safe participation in the Art Render program and rely on our policies to do so. To make sure we all understand how our disciplinary procedures work, I am going to briefly go over them. Step one is the report. A report must be filed either verbally or written. Staff are prepared to help with translation or interpretation services if necessary. Step two is the investigation. Article 24 of the Police Code, a voter pass initiative which designates the program as the will of San Francisco voters, mandates that Arts Commission staff investigate the report, gather evidence, and interview named parties. The investigation cannot be referred to the police unless an art vendor files a police report. Staff cannot do this on behalf of an art vendor. While Article 24 is part of the police code, Arts Commission staff do not have police authority and cannot subpoena evidence, require witnesses to meet with staff, or demand that people turn over evidence. Investigations are completed within the capacity of the Arts Commission staff. Step three is the issuance of notice. This approved policy mandates that serious violations, including a violation of a violent or threatening nature, must move immediately to a disciplinary hearing. Next slide. The notice to artists and the artist's code of conduct govern disciplinary procedures for the program. Once accepted into the program, artists are sent the code of conduct and, by using a license, agree to abide by these policies issued pursuant to Article 24, Section 2408B that requires the Arts Commission to adopt rules and regulations governing appeals from a denial, suspension, or revocation of a street artist certificate. The Code of Conduct defines what constitutes the violation. The Notice to Street Artists defines the steps needed after confirmed evidence of a violation. The Code of Conduct was updated earlier this year, and item 19 changed to 20. However, the text is the same. The code of conduct has been in place for eight years and the notice to artists for 30 years. Both rose out of the need to address unsafe and inappropriate behavior in the program. Next slide. Step four is the public hearing at the Street Artist Committee, a subcommittee of the mayoral appointed Arts Commission. Step five is an optional rehearing process. Step six is the formal notice that triggers a possible filing with the Board of Appeals. Step five. I mean, slide five. In addition to the policies referenced here, the Arts Commission uses a racial equity lens to manage the art vendor program, which includes a high standard of language access and efforts led by staff, such as gaining a free license for vendors with the support of the Financial Justice Project.

Next slide.

The Street Artists Committee recommended a six-month suspension for Jie Yin's license 10086 at the June 23rd meeting. This was determined after statements made by the named parties and other witnesses. During the investigation, witness Xu Huaxi stated that she intervened to stop Jie Yin when she saw Yin attempting to hit Zhongyu Wang. At the June 23rd Street Artists Committee, Yin stated that she saw the conflict escalating and attempted to intervene in the physical altercation to protect her daughter. Next slide. These actions and statements made by GAN violate items 2, 3, and 20 of the code of conduct. Rushing towards a fight while yelling is a physical and verbal threat that presents an immediate danger to public health and safety. It is not respectful, courteous, nor considerate to other vendors conducting business in the market, nor to the public walking through the plaza. It interferes with customers and other artists. It also affects the atmosphere of the market and makes it unsafe for business as usual. In's action, as self-described during her interview, appellant brief, and statements at the June 23rd Street Artists' Meeting, violate these three provisions of the Code of Conduct, which requires disciplinary action, as stated in the Notice of Art to Artists. Next slide. The committee found in violation of the Street Artist Ordinance, Police Code Article 24, based on her violation of Numbers 2, 3, and 20 of the Code of Conduct. This is in accordance with Section 2408, Section A, which allows the Street Artist Committee to deny, suspend, or revoke an artist certificate after a public hearing and for a good cause shown. The Arts Commission has complied with all aspects of the program's governing legislation and believes that a six-month suspension is aligned with program policies and goals. As such, we ask that the Board of Appeals uphold the Street Artists Committee's decision to suspend GAEN's license. Next slide. And please pause. I'm going to cede the rest of my time to Zhongyi Wang.

I pause the time. Thank you. 1 minute, 48.

Does she need an interpreter?

OK. Did you want to? Thank you.

So she'll get double the time. Why don't we just give her four minutes? Four minutes, OK. So we don't have to. So for the interpreter, if you want to explain that, we're going to give her a total of four minutes, including the interpretation time.

So she should plan on about two minutes or however you want.

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

But she's speaking in support of the Arts Commission's case.

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

Yes. OK. How are you doing?

I am .

There have been three hearings. This is my fourth time standing here. I may be a little not very stable in my mood.

就是說這個事情對我來說是一種很難就是說 This is a super tough matter to me.

I am a victim as well. The process required me to repeat going back to think about what happened repeatedly. One of the victims I got beat up as well and I become victimized again by scraping my license and I have to rethink about what happened again and again. I have described the evidences repeatedly and I assume you have already gotten your attention to those evidences. I am here just to appeal for your fair judgment and arrive at a fair decision. Because I don't know why the other party keeps making non-stop, unspeakable remarks. There were three hearings in total, and the other party didn't make any comments twice. And then they kept going up the tree, and kept struggling with the video. How did this video come about? Was I beaten up? I wonder why the other party keep on repeating untrue and

he or she was not here three times out of the three hearings. And then once they appear, they show a video. I have no idea where the video come from. And I have to stress again, I am the victim and I did nothing wrong. I think I will stop here. Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Thank you. President Trasvini has a question.

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

Why don't we wait for the interpreter to get back to Ms. Yin, and then he can interpret what you say. So just thank you.

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

Yes, but they need to switch off because they need breaks. So we can have this interpreter sit between them, I guess.

Right. So our interpreter should interpret for the group.

By the department?

So do you want him to just come up and give double the time? Maybe that's easier. So interpreter, why can't? Could you please come up again, and you'll just interpret for everyone. And so you can have seven minutes, or we'll do... Oh, it's a question. I'm sorry. You have a question. Sorry. You don't know... No, you can get in the... Yeah, no, he's going to ask her a question. You can translate that. And then she will answer. And then you can translate the answer, just so everyone in the room hears. So if you can come up here.

There's a microphone here, too.

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

Or he can just speak in the microphone.

Wait, Commissioner Wong has something.

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

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

SPEAKER 2. I suggest that everyone who needs to be translated can come closer to the translator. If the translator is able to translate in the same voice for most of the time, it will save a lot of time. Otherwise, the suggestion just now is to ask the person speaking in English to stop after a few words. Okay, thank you.

And I understand that the interpreters have to alternate every 20 minutes, so please have a seat. And our next interpreters here, welcome. No, I'm sorry, Vincent? Vincent, welcome. Thank you. Thank you. So if you can just interpret, Vincent, for there's a question coming and an answer for both the parties. Thank you.

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

I think I was under the impression that we were doing a de novo review, which would be taking everything fresh or from today. I don't know if that's still part of it. I don't know what's actually new.

Okay, well, we do have a de novo hearing.

Okay.

But my question was, what was new? Because the last time we were here, we said it was insufficient. And you've answered me that you're not in a position to be able to say one way or the other.

Sure.

OK, great. And my other question relates to the commission's presentation in writing, where it says that the Yins' actions included threatened and attempted violence. Can you describe with some specifics what the threat and attempted violence was?

My understanding is that Jie Yin, when she heard that her daughter was in a potential conflict or altercation, was running towards the altercation to intervene. And my understanding is that she had to be held back. So there's an implication that... she was perhaps going to intervene in an also violent way. And we have in our code of conduct, intervening in an altercation in any way, whether it's verbally or physically, is against our policy.

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

Hold on a second. We have number two is be respectful and courteous and considerate to fellow artists. Number three, basically for all the artists that we're talking about today, we're saying that they're violating Codes 2, 3, and 20 of the Code of Conduct. Right. Okay. Number three is do not physically or verbally threaten or assault another artist or act in a way that can present an immediate danger. And then...

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

I think rushing into a fight seems sort of immediate.

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

Sorry, can you repeat that?

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

Yeah, we're trying to look at the action.

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

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

MS. Yeah, I think that was a decision made by my program officer or our senior program officer, Anne Truckee. And I think the idea was that Zhongyu Wang would be able to provide more context around what they experienced in this altercation escalation with regards to Jia Yin. MS. But she is not here this evening?

Who, Zhang Yimeng? No, no, the individual who said, no, the person, your program person that suggested that. They're not here, yeah. They're not here.

Correct.

OK. All right. And then I also wanted to understand, so you said two months. Were you actually able to attend, I believe, the June 26 Arts Commission hearing?

There was a June 23rd hearing, and there was a July 27th hearing. I attended the July 27th hearing.

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

I didn't view that particular video. I did read the transcript.

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

Yeah, OK.

So it says may.

OK.

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

I'm not sure I have an answer to your question. I think I just was told that we're talking about actions specifically, but...

Okay.

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

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

I think it's also that she was held back. So it seemed like there was- But that's not her choice, right?

Anybody could hold her back just because.

Right. I think there was a concern that she was going to engage in the altercation.

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

Yeah, I mean, I think my understanding is with the program that You know, no artist shouldn't be getting involved in an altercation in general. If there's concern, there's other steps they can take, like calling the park ranger or the police, as opposed to getting involved themselves. So we're also looking at that as well.

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

I know, but I mean, we have to be sort of neutral in looking at these things, I think. I know.

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

I think we were trying to stay neutral to thinking about relationships, yeah.

Thank you. Thank you. No further questions. You can be seated. We will now hear from Ji-Yin. Welcome, Ms. Yen.

Should I speak into this one?

Yes, please. So she will have a total of 14 minutes, including the interpretation time. So she probably should speak and then pause and whatever she feels comfortable.

OK.

Can we have the overhead, please?

Overhead, please.

Hello to everybody in this commission.

You can just put it down there.

OK, let me know when you're ready. Go ahead.

I am . So on November 28th, on that day, I was at my booth trying to get ready to start my work. I heard my daughter get into an argument with Ms. Wang.

So I went quickly to her side, to my daughter's side, to tell her not to get into an altercation. So in the meantime, what has happened? And then the altercation got worse, escalated.

I saw Ms. Wang Yu push my daughter.

I saw Ms. Wang Yu push my daughter. and even grabbed a white bottle and was hitting her with it. I was very worried my daughter would get injured. So I wanted to stop that or prevent that. And to protect my daughter. But I didn't make it in time. And I was stopped by somebody.

During the whole event, I never interacted with Ms. Wang. So the other party says now that after April 29, I changed my narration.

Changing my narration from protecting my daughter.

She wants overhead, please.

Can we have the overhead, please? Thank you. Yeah.

So it changed my narration from being to protect my daughter to another narration. But... So during the first investigation on December 17, 2025, I told our commission

I already informed the Art Commission that when the other person grabbed a bottle to hit my daughter, I went there to support her.

And then Peter held me back.

The Art Commission asked me If I ever punched or kicked anybody? My answer is no, I didn't. I was there just to support and protect my daughter.

It's not that I made up something new after April 29th.

Every time I make this declaration, I need interpretation so there may be differences in between each session. But the core message of my narration is the same.

I was there to support and to protect my daughter.

I was there to support and to protect my daughter. So on June 23, there was nobody present stating that I acted violently against Ms. Wang. Nobody has said this, and Peter has not said it either. So I don't understand why the Art Commission is saying so.

Overhead, please, again. Thank you. Is that where you want to show? OK. Yeah? OK.

So this is what? What is it, mom? So this is something from the Art Commission.

So somebody held me back so I didn't attack Ms. Wang. And I was going there to protect my daughter.

But Peter didn't say that I actually had violent act against Ms. Wang.

And that's why he held me back.

Peter cannot guarantee or be sure who he held back at that time.

In the audience or hearing on June 23rd, there was another commissioner who said, when something happens to one person, It may be that they want to participate in. But it's also that they are trying to prevent something from happening.

And because somebody was holding them back.

We cannot guarantee or be assured what they were planning to do.

Our commission agrees to this.

They cannot be sure what I was planning to do.

Furthermore, I want to invite every commissioner to go back to the record of the hearing on June 23rd.

And listen to the original speech.

我就劝对方,劝对方说不要吵,不要吵。 然后他的妈妈过来了就说,打我你。 我说不要吵,不要吵,不要吵。 我就在中间落下,我说不要吵,这样吵下去, 你来省就会掉掉。

So she also saw Ying Zhige's mother who was saying that Wang Zhongyu hit her daughter, but she was trying to stop Ying Zhige's mother from entering the scene of the altercation. And she also said to the mother that if you continue this altercation, your license would be revoked.

So the person who said these words?

Her mother said that she hit my daughter. And she even said, don't argue, don't argue.

So what I claim is what was said on June 23rd.

She said, do not argue. Did not say that I acted violently or threatened Ms. Wang. So this original speech should help each commissioner understand why at that time I went there. So my biggest worry was to make sure my daughter did not suffer or be abused. So I'm going to show now. So these are some of the pictures of the injuries that my daughter suffered. Also the report and the medical report. I hope for the understanding for each one of your commissioners. And understand the situation that I was facing. And why I was worried about my daughter. That I wanted to go and protect her, support her. To go and protect her. It's because I saw my daughter getting injured. So this time I want to continue in state.

I've never interacted with Ms. Wang.

And I never hit her. June 23rd. So for me, the conclusion of the June 23 event or audience, the art commission decided that because I was walking towards the scene of events, even though I was held back by somebody, that avoided me from really getting involved into the altercation. to recognize that I was on the sidelines of that event.

To make this kind of conclusion is not an easy thing to do. But we need some hard evidence to demonstrate it.

if I really meant to go and hit Ms. Wang.

And during the audience hearing of June 23, the witnesses did not mention this point.

So on April 29th, It was already recognized that there was not enough evidence to demonstrate that there was violation of codes.

And then the audience on June 23rd did not corroborate this. So the biggest gap in the evidence.

It's what I declared last time to the Commission.

And per the decision of April 29th, the recording of June 23rd, even with the witnesses that were present,

pushed further the decision of June 23rd. And then there was a suspension of six months. And also the risk of losing my license. So thank you very much for your attention.

OK, thank you. I do believe we need to switch interpreters now. It's been more than 20 minutes. I'll leave it up to you if you want to switch, if you want to figure out what's logical. Just highlighting. Okay, I don't see any questions at this time, so thank you.

You can be seated.

So if the interpreter could stay up, I'm going to call for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to provide public comment for this case?

If anyone wants to make public comment, please raise your hand.

Ms. Yin, you can be seated. OK. And so we have public comment. Because Ms. Wang testified on behalf of the Arts Commission, she can't provide public comment. I believe the gentleman next to her can. He can.

And if they could fill out a card.

Pardon?

The card for the speakers?

Yeah. So please, you can come up. And after you're done speaking, write your name down on the card to the right of the dais.

So he can come up, sir. You can come up and speak. Yes.

Just the name.

Who's going to say first?

Okay, you go first.

How are you doing, all the commissioners? I am Wang Zhongyu, Ms. Wang's husband. I was at the scene when all these altercations happened.

That day, they welcomed their daughter on the 38th. I was on the 40th. When we were at the tent, the tent hit her. You don't understand the first part. 38th, 40th, what is it? It was the stall.

I know.

She was at number 38. I was at space number 40.

We were setting up the tank.

碰着她的帐篷的。

And in the process, inadvertently hit the other party's tank.

因为帐篷底下有一个红点。 红点。 红点。 It's a red plate at the bottom of each of those tanks.

两个红点。

The plate acts as a separation between two spaces. She said to my wife, why do you touch my tent?

So the other party got worried, angry, and tried to demand answers from my wife. Why we did that?

當時我們就沒有說話,我就去打帳篷,我背對著他們,我就在打帳篷的時候。 等我起來的時候,他抓住我頭,就是他迎接的女兒,抓住我。

我老婆的頭髮在暴力襲擊她。 I did not act immediately, but the next moment I realized that the other party was holding my wife's hair.

他是在我們的攤位裡面。

It was within our space, within our tank.

The other party is in control of my wife, holding her.

And my wife was not able to move at all.

他就不停的暴力的用腳踹他。 是個女的。 就是那個英字歌。 英字歌,男的。 女的。 女的,OK. That woman called 英字歌。

used violence, kicking my wife, and then hit my wife too.

事情今後就是這樣的, 他們因為家父威抓住, 控制了我太太, 太太沒有辦法動,

My wife was not able to move at all.

I'm demonstrating holding her hair like this. Keeping her hair down, in other words. The version she gave was not true.

There were a lot of people who came over to try to help us resolve the quarrel.

Ying Jie came over intending to beat up my wife. The manager on site came in time to stop her from doing it.

OK, thank you.

Thank you. That's time.

The time is up. Thank you. So no more, sir. Thank you. Please be seated. And do we have another person who wants to provide public comment? Please come up.

And if you could fill out the speaker cards, that'd be great.

I think she did fill out a card.

This gentleman did? OK.

Does anyone else want to provide public comment? Then come over here, please.

Yes.

So go ahead.

You have six minutes. Can you speak into the microphone, please?

Thank you. I was the on-site manager at the plaza.

Once I realized what was happening, I went over there immediately.

我第一时间跑过去,我就看到终于往手里被抓掉一把头发。

I saw Zhongyi Wang was held by someone who held her hair. That's number one.

Number two.

I was trying to be the person to hold back both parties, trying to get the quarrel stopped.

我一直就在喊,我在勸叫不要動手,不要動手,不要動手,用嘴說。

I repeatedly, verbally say that don't get physical. Don't get physical.

Stop. Yes, yes. Number three. And...

I saw the person who got hit was Zhong Yu Wang, Miss Wang.

She showed me on the site the area she got hit, her hair, her arms, and her legs.

and the two sides of her legs. 當時周圍的人都有看到鍾玉王被受傷。 And there are a lot of people there who witnessed 鍾玉王 got hit, got beat up and got injured.

但是每個人現在都不願意出來作證。

And unfortunately, virtually nobody now is willing to testify in public.

所以呢,我就是說,在這個普拉薩我擋了十年,但是我衷心的表示,就是說以後不准動手打贏。

I have been taking this role at the plaza for the past 10 years. And I all along have admonished everyone not to get physical.

我还有最后一个意见就是我最中心最中心的发誓就是终于王才被打的一个他才是最后最头的第一个受害者

I have to, from the bottom of my heart, to say this again, that Zhongyu Wang was the main victim in this incident.

对,在那个当时打架这个现场,受伤的只有王忠于。

And I believe that who got hurt in this incident at the scene, it was, if I have to say, it was Zhong Yihong.

Yeah. 希望以后不要出现有暴力行动,我就是这个中心表示。

And again, from the bottom of my heart, I really want to see there will be no more physical incidents, violence incidents at the plaza again.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

OK, thank you. The next speaker, please, come up. And after you're done, if you could fill out a speaker card, please.

You can just leave the card. You can leave the cards right here.

Are you speaking?

You could do it afterwards.

Yeah, yeah.

Now, are you speaking in Mandarin or English?

Cantonese.

Cantonese, yeah.

I am a native speaker of Cantonese, so no problem for me.

No problem. Okay, wonderful. Thank you. You have six minutes. Please go ahead.

Commissioners.

I am the guy that moments ago the husband of Wang Zhongyu said who helped and stopped his wife. My name is Jianfu Wei. My name is Wei Jianfu.

Just now, Wang Zhongyu's husband said that he held his wife in his arms, and then his wife was beaten. I am now refuting it. Because when that happened, I was not on the scene. I was a little far from the scene.

Let me get you my version to begin with. When the altercation started, I was not at the scene. I was some distance from it and once I realized what happened, I rushed towards the scene.

So when Mr. Wang's husband and his wife had a fight, I went over and hugged Mr. Wang. This is completely impossible. Because if there are a lot of politicians on the scene, I can see that the matter is almost over. When half of what happened, basically the fight was over, I went over.

So because I was not in the beginning physically at the scene, when the husband of Wang Zhongyu moments ago testified that I was there in the first place to hold back His wife, that was not accurate. I estimated by the time I arrived at the scene, the altercation may be already halfway through or maybe 60% through.

As I said in the previous testimony, if there is a witness, it can prove that I was there on the way. Maricel and another witness are here today. So they can testify that I have never been in contact with Mr. Wang's body.

So you have never been in contact with his body?

No, I was just standing in the middle of them. Because when they were arguing, they were very agitated. They seemed to want to rush to each other. So we stood in the middle and blocked them. We didn't want them to be in contact.

Like I testified in previous hearings, I have been all along saying that I arrived at the scene relatively late. And I had no physical contact with Wang Zhongyu. And all I did once I arrived there was to ask hold out my hand to separate the two sides, separate people from fighting with each other.

I don't understand why Ms. Wang and her husband always think that I'm restricting their freedom of life. I don't understand. But since she said that, I have to refute it to prove my innocence. That's it.

So the previous accusation against me from Wang Zhongyu was that I held her up and then against her will and I still don't understand why they accused me of doing that.

In the previous hearing, I-Commission also thought that the evidence was insufficient, and they didn't punish me. But I don't know why they kept doing this. This can be said to be an offence, it should be said that it was more serious.

So in the last artistic commission hearing, after hearing my testimony, the commissioners decided that I was not at fault and have a rule for me. That's what all I want to say.

Thank you. If you could please fill out your name. I know your name, actually. Thank you. And we have another person who wants to provide public comment. Do we need to switch the interpreters, or you're doing OK?

Do you need interpreter? No need.

Hello, Commissioner. My name is Walter Zhu. I'm one of the artists for many years, like 14, I guess.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

I've been an artist for almost 14 years in our commission. Yeah, I'm actually out of country while these things are happening. And yes, yes. Some just report me, like Mauricio report to the other person, Christian Chavez, and he report me on the same hour that's happened in the fight. Yes, I heard that Zoe Nguyen has got beated by those ladies out there. And yeah, I joined this hearing just to see what is the real full story that happened. From listening to each part of, you know, narrators and character, I try to, you know, do the puzzle. And just careers which are the true, that relate to the... I mean, Chen Fu Wei, yes, did join and tried to stop. I don't know how he stopped, but it doesn't matter. The real confusion was Peter was joining the previous hearing, saying that he did not remember what he did or the scene. And from some part, it says, Jae-in was being stopped by Shu. And she herself was saying that she's being stopped by Peter. Or is it because of Peter don't remember anything, and she's taking the advantage of that he couldn't remember? I was just a little confused about the scene. That's all.

OK, thank you. If you could put your name. Is there anyone else to provide public comment? OK, we're going to move. Oh, OK. So typically, we wouldn't because she's a family member. And I told her that if she presented, then she would not be able. She did show on the overhead. You can't speak during public comment at the beginning of the hearing. Prior to the hearing starting, I told you if you assisted her, like you showed her present. But you can speak in rebuttal when we get to it.

She has a written statement that she wants me to read for the rebuttal.

For rebuttal. OK, we're not at rebuttal yet for you. We're going to hear from the Arts Commission first and rebuttal. Thank you.

With interpretation, yes? Pardon? Six minutes?

Yes. With interpretation? Yes. And we do need an interpreter. So interpreter Vincent.

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

Oh, for the room. For the room. So we want an interpreter for the room. Is that right?

Well, actually, if you just speak and he can just...

So just three minutes?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Let me know when you're ready.

I'll gather myself.

OK, I'm ready. The appellant's argument hinges on testimony given at the June 23rd Street Artist Committee hearing and evidence that was not verified by a third party witness. As previously noted in her original interview with staff, said, I tried to interfere, but another vendor held me back. And I moved towards her to stop her, her being . only changed her testimony to say she was trying to de-escalate the situation after April 29 Board of Appeals hearing.

If she was going to interrupt, but I believe interpreter Vincent, are you able to interpret?

Yes.

Yeah, thanks. Okay. Rather than consecutive, I think it's better for the presentation to slow down some more, and then we should be able to- Okay, so President Chisinau, do you want them to have double the times and just have an interpreter at the front?

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

Well, if we're giving her twice the time, we might as well have the interpreter come up front so everyone can understand. Is that so? Commissioner Wong, did you have something to say?

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

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

I think...

She has a text here. If she's basically reading from the text, I can see the text, too. So if she, between maybe two sentences, she gives a little pause, I jump in, something like that. When you're reading... Then I can jump in, too, because I'm able to read the text, too.

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

And restart the time?

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

Restarting time at six.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. The appellant's argument hinges on testimony given at the June 23rd, 2026 Sweethearts Committee hearing and evidence that was not verified by a third-party witness. As previously noted, Yin in her interview with staff said, I tried to interfere, but another vendor held me back, and I moved towards her to stop. Her being Zhang Yuwang.

OK. One of the evidences is that he did not use third-party witnesses to confirm what he said. As I mentioned before, Okay, great. Oh, you're still... Then I will go to her to stop her. Yeah, right.

Okay. Okay. Xi only changed her testimony to say she was trying to de-escalate the situation after the April 29th Board of Appeals hearing. Even if she was going to break up the fight, getting involved in any altercation is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

That person, Wang Zhongyu, has now made some changes to his position. He is trying to... The new statement was made on April 29, 2026. It was made in the hearing of the Chamber of Commerce Committee. Although he tried to separate the two parties from fighting,

previous decisions by the Board of Appeals should not be taken into consideration for this disciplinary action. Under the Board of Appeals' de novo review, past actions by the Board of Appeals are not relevant and should not be considered as evidence regarding Appeal No. 26037.

The past decisions of the House of Representatives should not affect today's decisions. Because according to the re-election of the Board of Directors, the decisions made by the Board of Directors in the past are not related to the decisions made now. We should not use the decisions made in the past as evidence to solve the case of 26037.

In Yin's own words, her original stated intent was to intervene to stop Zhongyu Wang from harming her daughter. While she has changed her intent to de-escalation, she has never changed her statement that she went to the physical altercation to intervene and had to be held back. From the June 23rd meeting, I approached to protect her. Before I acted, I was being pulled by another vendor.

Using Ying's own words, his original purpose was to intervene, to stop Wang Zhongyu from hurting his daughter. Although she has now changed what she said about her purpose, that is, to try to cool down, she has never changed her maturity. She is going to... OK.

There's no question that Jia Yin violated the code of conduct. I'm going to skip that. We don't have time. Yin admitted to attempting to intervene in the violent altercation. No matter the motivation, attempting to participate, running through the market, and yelling at Zhongyi Wang are all violations of the code of conduct. We respectfully request the Board of Appeals uphold the six-month suspension administered by the Street Artist Committee.

There is no doubt that this should violate the code of conduct. It should admit that it tried to intervene in the conflict of violence. No matter where its intention is, it tried to participate, to go to the market, And then, like the Chinese King and the Great Monk, they all violated the rules of the rules. We... Thank you. Your time is up. We do have questions from Commissioner Wong and President Tresvena. Hi.

So we need the interpreter. Just stay up, please.

Can we have your interpreter, please? Sorry. Thank you.

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

Oh, yeah. And then do you know if the speed that the native English speakers were going at for translation?

Do I know the speed? I think they were probably speaking slowly, slower.

Sorry, Kingsley Sun can answer that specific question. Yeah. Hi. Hello. My name is Kingsley. I am a staff member of the Arts Commission.

one of the staff during the entire investigation process. So I was involved with all the interviews with different interpreters to answer questions, because we are bound to one, I believe, translation service. So each time, we get different translators. So it really depends.

And can I ask your comprehension level of Mandarin or Cantonese? I am native speaker of Mandarin.

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

Since I was there listening to the interview, if the translator didn't catch something, I would catch something and I would inform my former supervisor who was conducting the interview and ask the translator to translate the thing that he or she did not translate.

Thank you. I appreciate that because as a bilingual speaker, we don't always get recognized for the actual work that we do. Thank you.

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

So can you explain, Mr. Wei, when you ran into the altercation, what's the difference between you and Jie Ying?

I guess I don't see how that is relevant for today.

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

Right. So in the, I think, June 23rd Street Artists Committee hearing, Jun Fu Wei was one of the artists being questioned for his actions. And so I think they deemed that he was trying to help a situation and didn't see to revoke his license or to suspend it for any period of time. It seems like that situation was already sort of addressed and isn't before here today. Translation first.

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

HENG-MING JINPING CHUANG 2021

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

I don't think there's a difference.

OK. That was helpful. Thank you. Thank you, President Chesvena.

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

I wouldn't know that. Sorry.

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

Yeah, I guess we don't collect that data.

So we don't know the answer to that.

Thank you.

Thank you. We are now moving on to, you can be seated. We're now moving on to rebuttals. Ms. Yen, you have six minutes.

OK, so she's giving me a rebuttal, which I'll read to you.

OK. Are you going to read it in English, then? It's in English, yes. You just want to read it in English. OK, so you get three minutes.

OK.

Thank you.

So President and competitioners, thank you. The Arts Commission describes me as rushing through the market while yelling. But that is not what happened. When I saw my daughter arguing with Ms. Wang, I immediately went over because I wanted to tell my daughter to leave. I was not yelling when I went over. I started yelling later, after I saw my daughter being hit. I was worried about my daughter and very upset, and that's why I yelled. The Arts Commission combined things that happened at different times and described them as rushing through the market while yelling. That description is not accurate. The Arts Commission also calls my yelling a verbal threat. I am a mother. When I saw my own daughter being hurt, I was scared and upset. Of course, I yelled. And of course, I wanted to step forward and stop what was happening. That was my natural reaction as a mother. I would like to ask the commissioners to think about this. When a mother sees her daughter arguing with someone and then being hit, what is she supposed to do? Stand up. Stand there without moving or saying anything? Turn around and walk away? I was not the only person yelling. Mauricio stated during the investigation, I saw everyone screaming and separating them. This shows that many people were yelling and trying to separate the people involved. I also want to clarify one statement in the Arts Commission brief. They say that in my own brief, I admit to violations two, three, and 20. But I have never said that I admitted violating Rules 2, 3, and 20. If the Arts Commission believes that my brief admits to these violations, I ask them to show the board exactly which sentence in my brief says that I admitted violating Rules 2, 3, and 20. From the beginning, I have said the same thing. I wanted to protect my daughter and to stop the conflict. I did not attempt to attack Ms. Wang. Finally, because my rebuttal time is limited, I cannot respond to every point in the respondent's brief or every point made by staff. The fact that I do not respond to every point does not mean that I agree or accept those arguments. I continue to disagree with the points I have disputed. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the board to decide based on the actual evidence, not assumptions, and to reverse the finding of attempting violence against art vendor Zongyu Wang, vacate the six-month suspension, and reinstate my street artist certificate. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a question from Commissioner Abbott.

Does that need to be interpreted or no?

Well, he was simultaneously interpreting already. We do have 20 seconds. Ms. Yen, did you want to add? Before the question?

No more.

Nothing more? OK. Thank you. Thank you. You can be seated. We have a question from Commissioner Abbott, actually. If you could stay up here, please.

She should stay up?

Yes. She's right there.

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

So the interpreter has to... Yeah.

Sorry, just make sure you said from a previous video, that's what you saw?

Yes.

Okay. He said he saw a video before. It looks like in that video, you and your daughter were very mean to Mrs. Wang. So I want to confirm if your memory is correct. Your memory.

So the aggressor was not us. The aggressor was really Ms. Wang towards us.

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

Yes, because when her son came, he was scolding me. He was scolding me very rudely. He was scolding me, saying that I was ugly. My little daughter saw him scolding me many times. So my daughter went to scold him a few times. That's it.

So yes, I do remember him coming over and telling me some obscenities and telling me some rude words. And my little daughter saw that, and she went over there and tried to also speak back to him. Thank you.

Thank you. You can be seated. Commissioners, this matter is submitted.

Thank you. You may be seated.

If you want to interpret this matter submitted to the commissioners.

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

The arts are very important to San Francisco. And vendors contribute a lot to our culture and to our city.

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

When that happens, we review the actions that have produced a dispute and the actions of the department. In this particular case,

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

The department has a significant burden in this case.

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

And in my view, the department has not met its burden. And I note in the commission proceeding that the commissioners weren't sure about the evidence. And their remedy was to reduce the extent of the suspension.

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

So if we don't get enough evidence, we should give the Arts Commission its responsibility. Reducing the suspension time is not a reasonable plan.

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

And the principles of law that the department asks us to accept are also incorrect.

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

She didn't reach the altercation.

The department also asks us to agree with the notion that getting involved in any altercation is a violation of the code of conduct. If that were the case, then a vendor would be forced to just observe criminal conduct by a customer, a member of the public, or another vendor against an individual. There are other parts of the code, particularly Code 2, that cannot be taken as literally as presented by the Commission tonight. So in my view, I would grant the appeal.

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

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

He needs to interpret, so if we could take a break. Sorry.

Thank you for the reminder.

So this person also agrees with this view. Why did he come to this conclusion? Because this time there is no new evidence to show. Previously, there seemed to be some videos that said to appear, but this time we did not see any specific new information. I also don't understand why today the Arts Commission invited Ms. Wang to participate in this.

Thank you. And yes, to conclude my previous thought, I'm confused as to why, and again, Ms. Trickey is not here to answer this, the department, the commission would cede some of their time to one of the appellants in another item for tonight. That was a little confusing for me and signals that I think the department could have made a more compelling case, provided staff support. Both Ms. Pate and Mr. Glenn are in the room, and yet our department representative was sort of left to answer, struggle with a lot of questions that Ms. Trickey, Ms. Pate, and Mr. Glenn didn't appear to provide any support around. So in any case, I am inclined, along with President Trasvina, to grant the appeal with the suspension for this case for reasons that I suspect are going to apply for the next two cases that we're hearing formally separately, but they're all embroiled in this one incident.

So today, the Arts Commission invited Ms. Wang to participate because they don't have any new evidence. From this perspective, I decided to agree with Transvenia and say that I agree with the appeal.

I do want to just state for the record that Ms. Trickey is on leave, and she did request that the hearing take place at a later date. That request was denied. Thank you for the clarification.

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

And finally, if there's no difference in how they're jumping in between two individuals, but there's

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

Thank you, Commissioner Wong.

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

So, first of all, I would like to mention the commission representative and his colleagues. I know that if he can speak both languages, his participation in this matter is very meaningful.

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

So I agree with my colleague. I think the judgment we used this time is not consistent. It's a little unclear.

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

Thank you, Commissioner Lopez. Thank you. I'm sympathetic to the position that the Arts Commission is in.

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

Perhaps things would have been different if the person in question had not been held back. But basing that determination on the permit holder's testimony and essentially that alone, when it can be subject to any number of intentions and interpretations, I think is difficult. Based on that, I'll make a motion to grant the appeal on the basis that the evidence in the record does not support a suspension of the permit.

OK, on that motion, President Chesvinia? Aye. Vice President Saroyan? Aye. Commissioner Abad? Aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. So that motion carries 5 to 0, and the appeal is granted.

Thank you. We'll be in recess for 10 minutes. Thank you for your patience.

SFGov TV. San Francisco Government Television.

SFGov TV. San Francisco Government Television.

Okay, welcome back to the September 16th, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. We are now on item number six. This is, so if one of the interpreters can sit next to Yingjie. This is appeal number 26-038. Yingzhi Jie versus the Arts Commission, appealing the two-year suspension of Yingzhi Jie's street artist license. On June 29, 2026, the Arts Commission suspended Yingzhi Jie's street artist license until July 1, 2028 for violence against art vendor Zhang Yuwen. This is license number 9021. on November 28, 2025. This conduct is in violation of the Street Artist Ordinance and Items 2, 3, and 20 of the Code of Conduct. This is license number 188. Okay, so we will hear from the Arts Commission first. And what was your preference? You indicated the interpretation.

Do you want to interpret? But I think what I'll do is read the English first and then have you read it. Is that OK?

Were you saying you wanted to read the statement and then have him read it in Chinese? Yeah, I think I'm going to read the whole statement.

So you're not broken out first? And then he'll translate if that's OK. So not very long. OK. It's a few pages. You finish first.

A few pages.

So is that 14 minutes?

Yes. Maybe one page? Let's give her seven minutes.

Are you going to read your statement in its entirety?

And then seven more?

I mean, do you need your full 14 minutes? Why don't you... I think this is... Hold on.

I did write down how long I took. Well, why don't we give 14 minutes and just start? I'm three and a half minutes, or almost four minutes.

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

Okay, 14.

Okay, so I'll read this, and then we can pause time and bring up the interpreter.

You can just read your statement, and then he can read it in Chinese after. So he can just wait until you're done.

So you finished the whole statement? We'll start the clock.

And then you'll have plenty of time. Okay.

Thank you.

I'll call you. I'll bring you up.

OK. Thank you, everyone. Slide 9. Yeah. OK. Before I move to appeal 26038, Ingsiger's violation of the Art Vendors Program's code of conduct, I will review the general details of the incident. On the slide are the parties involved in their actions as confirmed by witnesses. Confirmation means that a third party, not a member of the same family unit that does business together, confirm the party or action noted on the slide. Jen Fu Wei, the gentleman on the left, was part of the altercation, but the Street Artists Committee did not take action on his license in the June 23rd meeting. In the middle of the slide, Jie Yin is the mother of Yingzi Ge, and they are in a family unit that sells the same items and does business together. On the right side is Zhang Yu Wang, who submitted the incident report and is in a family unit with her husband, Xingzhi Yuan. Next slide. On the left, Zhang Yu's husband Yuan was named by Yingzi Ge and Jie Yin as an actor, which was contested by Zhang Yu Wang. No third party confirmed that he participated in the altercation. On the right are Zhang Yu Wang's son and daughter-in-law. These individuals are not in the program. and therefore are out of the Arts Commission's jurisdiction. Staff were informed by the city attorney that because Article 24 of the police code does not govern individuals without a license, only a restraining order filed by another offender would potentially impact an unlicensed individual's ability to be at the market.

Next slide.

The events took about an hour, with the initial altercation lasting about five minutes. The undisputed violations of the code of conduct are the initial physical altercation and the later verbal altercation. All parties with appeals before the board today admit that these altercations took place and their roles in them. By participating in the art vendor program, they agreed to terms of the code of conduct and by their own admission have violated these terms. Next slide. The Street Artists Committee recommended a two-year suspension for Ng Zi Ge's license 10088 at the June 23rd meeting. This was determined after statements made by named parties and other witnesses. During the investigation, Ng Zi Ge stated that she engaged in physical violence with Zhang Yu Wang. A witness, Xu Huaxi, confirmed that she saw Wang being struck by Ge. At the June 23rd Street Artists Committee meeting, Ge stated that she started the verbal interaction that turned into a physical altercation. Next slide. The actions and statements made by N'Zuga violate items 2, 3, and 20 of the Code of Conduct. Laying hands on another artist, no matter the reason, is assault and presents an immediate danger to public health and safety. Embarcadero Plaza is a high traffic area, and when a violent situation occurs, there must be a response to the impact to public safety. It's not respectful, courteous, or considerate to other vendors in the market or the public walking through the plaza. Using physical violence interferes with both customers and other artists. No customers want to exchange money or purchase items near violent altercations. No artist can manage their business or sales near a potentially escalating fight. By her own admission, Goh violated these three provisions of the Code of Conduct, which requires disciplinary action as stated in the notice to artists. Next slide. The committee voted to find Guh in violation of the Street Artist Ordinance Police Code Article 24 based on her violation of numbers 2, 3, and 20 of the Code of Conduct. This is in accordance with Section 2408, Section A, which allows the Street Artist Committee to deny, suspend, or revoke an artist certificate after a public hearing and for good cause shown. The Arts Commission has complied with all aspects of the program's governing legislation and believes that a two-year suspension is aligned with the program policies and goals. As such, we ask the Board of Appeals to uphold the Street Artist Committee's decision to suspend Goode's license. Thank you.

In my presentation, I mentioned that Article 26038 violates Before I talk about the actions of the Art Corruption Project, I would like to review the general situation of the incident. On the wall, you can see the different parties involved. and their actions are confirmed by the witness. Confirmation means that the third party is not a member of the same family unit, but they are working together. Then the third party confirmed what they did on the change of lights. The gentleman on the left is part of the collective conflict. But the street art committee did not take action to target his signage. In the middle of the change, the reception was the mother of the Englishman. They belonged to the same family unit. They sold the same things. to do business together. On the right is Mr. Wang Zhongyu. He has the report of the accident. He is from the same family unit, including his husband, Mr. Yuan Xingzhi. On the left is Mr. Wang Zhongyu. This actor means drawing the action, right? It has nothing to do with professional... OK. OK. OK. OK. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... So... If it can affect a person without a license, as a family member with a license, if it is against him, he can only give him a temporary ban. Then another convict will propose. 那個事故延續大概一個小時。 最初的肢體衝突大概是持續了五分鐘。 There was no physical conflict according to the rules of conduct. After that, there was a lot of verbal abuse. All the people who took part in the trial today... ...acknowledged that there was a physical conflict... ...and that they had a certain role to play. They agreed to comply with the act... ...and took part in the trial. And they all admitted that he violated the rules. Then the Art Committee suggested that Ying Zhige be sentenced to two years in prison. This decision was made at the meeting on June 23. This decision was made after the committee listened to the testimony of all the state officials. During the investigation, it was determined that and involved in the physical violence that affected Wang Zhongyu. The witness, Xiao Huashi, confirmed that he saw that Wang Zhongyu was beaten by Ms Guo. 在6月23日接到艺术大委员会的会议当中,郭女士说她开始了对骂跟对方,然后对骂慢慢变成一个肢体的冲突。 OK. Who's next? To beat up other artists, regardless of the reason, a kind of violation that would cause public health and safety to leave the country. Ambacatero Parasol is a very busy place for traffic. When a violent incident happened there, will certainly have an impact on public safety. They also don't respect other art prisoners. They are not polite and don't consider their safety. They use physical violence to interfere with customers and other artists. There are no customers who like to use money to buy goods, and there is a violent collective conflict next to it. There are no artists who can run their businesses or sales well, close to a place where money may fight and upgrade. Through his own confession, the son-in-law violated the three rules of conduct. He was forced to take disciplinary action. This is based on Article 23 of the U.S. Constitution, Article 24 of the U.S. Constitution. This is in accordance with Section 2408A, which allows the street art committee to refuse to stop or cancel the signage of an artist. Through the process of public hearing, there must be a good enough reason. This is what the above shows. The Art Committee will draft all the relevant plans. The law still believes that giving him a two-year suspension sentence is consistent with the policy and goal of the plan. As such, I ask the Chamber of Commerce to support the decision of the Chamber of Artists to suspend the son-in-law.

Okay, thank you. We have questions from President Trusvenia and Commissioner Wong.

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

I guess maybe because they don't agree with the decision the Street Artists Committee made.

I'm sorry? I didn't hear that.

Because they don't agree with the decisions the Street Artists Committee made, perhaps.

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

The dispute is over the actions, not the legal. Sorry, can you rephrase that maybe? I don't totally understand what you're saying.

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

Oh, we're just following our code.

You're interpreting the code?

Yeah, I guess, yeah.

Right. So, for example... where it states in Code 20 about interference with customers. Were there customers involved in any of the altercations?

Involved in the altercations? I don't believe so.

In the matter that's before us right now.

Sorry, I can't hear you.

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

Sorry, I just want to point out in Code 20, it's also regarding not entering other artists' spaces without permission. So I think there's more in there than just whether or not there was a public.

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

Yes.

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

Yes. I think we know who started the verbal altercation, the verbal interaction that led to the physical altercation.

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

Sure.

Through all the interviews, no one admitted to being the person that started. No one told on anyone and pointed out anyone in this situation. They just started telling about what happened. But no one ever said this person started it. So are you explaining that the department doesn't know who started it? We do not know who started it. OK, great.

If you could identify yourself for the record.

I'm Denise Pate, the director of community investments with the San Francisco Arts Commission.

OK. If you wouldn't mind filling out a card, sorry, just because I didn't have your. Thank you.

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

Overall, this year? Yes. I think this is just what we're seeing today.

Well, how many than last year?

I don't know, last year. I don't think any.

Year before that?

Well, as we said in the earlier brief, it's been seven years since anything came where there was a violation of the code. So seven years until this year.

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

Do you know about that? No. No.

Commissioner Wong.

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

Oh, yeah. My understanding, and you can tell me if I'm wrong, is that the staff was recommending just a revocation of the license altogether, which would mean they would never be able to enter the program again. And the commissioners felt that was too strong and wanted to do a two-year suspension, which would then mean that artists could actually reapply to be a part of the program.

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

Okay. I read permanent revocation and then. Sorry, I can't hear you.

Sorry.

I think the The Commission's hearing reflected the original recommend. Maybe you can maybe you can tell us. I'm sorry.

Yeah If you could speak to the original recommendation by your staff and what the Commission ultimately Imposed the original was for replication of their licenses, but after discussion and the meeting the committee recommended a lighter

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

Thank you.

OK. Thank you. We will now hear. You can be seated. We will now hear from Yingzhi Jie.

Good evening, everybody. I am Yin Zhige. I've never denied that something happened between Ms. Wang and myself.

However, the notice of decision is violence against art vendor Zhong Yu Wang. 我一直不同意这个认定。 I don't admit to this. I don't accept it.

从第一次接受调查开始,我的陈述一直是。 From the very first investigation, my position has been. 王女士先对我使用身体力量,我是在害怕的情况下做出反应并试图保护自己。

It was Ms. Wang who first attacked me, and then out of fear, I responded to her.

所以本案真正的问题不是有没有发生肢体接触,而是现有证据是否足以支持这个具体认定。 So the issue is not whether this happened, but how it happened. 我想先听波尔听一下6月23日听证会开始时,staff是怎么向committee呈现调查结果的。

So I want you to hear the audio of the meeting on June 23rd of how things happened.

According to the interviews, the argument occurred over tent setup. And again, setup is a common time for art vendors to argue. In this instance, one vendor touched another's tent and it escalated to a physical altercation. Ying Zhige says that Zhang Yuwang pushed her first. However, Zhang Yuwang claims she did not touch Ying Zhige, that Ying Zhige started hitting her. Again, no witnesses saw the beginning of the fight. That can confirm who struck who first. We have one witness, Xu, who confirms that they saw Ying Zhijie striking Zhang Yuwang and Ying Zhijie herself in her interview admitted to striking her as well. Ying Zhijie in her interview admitted to pushing and using physical violence against Zhang Yuwang, including hair pulling and kicking. Zhang Yuwang's husband, Xingzhi Yuan, licensed 9022, when interviewed, said that he witnessed Yingjie Ge physically strike, kick, and pull Zhang Yuwang's hair.

So this is what I heard from the committee when I assisted to do the hearing on 6-23, June 23rd. But I don't think this particular audio has all the relevant background in the investigation that corresponds to it or should be corresponding to it. So you can see on the slide what I actually said.

So this is what's recorded in the interview.

Ms. Wang first pushed me.

And then she used a spray bottle to hit me. I said that at the time I was scared. And basically tried to defend myself.

So then the staff asked me who laid hands on who first. 我的回答是 Miss Wang laid hands on me first.

And my answer was Miss Wang laid hands on me first.

所以我不是否认后来发生的行为。 So I'm not denying the events that happened. 我的问题是 My question is Staff 在引用我承认的 physical acts 是没有同时完整呈现这些行为发生的背景。

so that when staff decided that I took physical acts, at the time I took physical acts, they didn't consider all the background and previous incidents before this.

Staff got committee.

So the staff told the committee.

We have one witness show who confess that they saw Ying Jige striking Zhong Yu Wang.

So at the event, at this audition, staff heard the committee say, we have one witness, Xu, who confirms that they saw Yin Zige striking Zhang Yuwen.

But then at the end, what they said to the committee was,

I didn't see him hitting each other. I just saw Wang Zhongyu rush over and hit me. He said, I was hit. Look, my hair is in my hand. Because we can't lie. Because I saw Wang Zhongyu run over and hit me. I was hit. My hair turned over. That's how it happened.