whatever they are checking. they ask how we are doing and the people are moving. whenever she would come across here, she would get in his face. i wondered why. then they turn the corner and then i was uncomfortable. that's when i go up. i recorded this situation. so she went away and by the outside where we are and that's the first photograph you saw. and then he turned around and came back. eventually i went to the half, when someone --

[inaudible] why don't you stop doing this? she turned around and the photograph of me talking to her. then i forward the photo to the arts commission. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none then we'll start our rebuttal. you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> wow, i didn't spend two years in prison in new york like a lot of the information that you are hearing. i don't know where it's coming from. it's coming from a lot of chatter at the plaza of people i don't know. there is no code violation. there is john that came up and took a picture of me and walked away. he did not discuss anything with me. that photograph of dog prints does

not place me at that stand. i knew nothing about it. i knew nothing about any letter from any artist and i have asked has there been any response. i would have known about it. there was a similar case that was filed against me curiously enough on march 14. i did a public record search. that's how i knew about it. he regurgitated a lot of the same information. even though i wasn't served, i did know. i noticed it online and i was tracking it. i went to 400 mccallsers street. what i showed was a video not a photograph. so you can see

exactly what happened. and this was a chance meeting. i was righting my bike and i was in pete's coffee in the ferry building. he approached me. and the case was dismissed. i looked at this case three times in these past three days. there was no reference to anything he said, he used my own video against me and my own police report against me and he didn't appear. >> can i stop you for a minute. stop the time. >> it's a lot to take in. >> no. you have less than three minutes now, we would like to hear your response on the charges. >> my response on the charges in all honesty i didn't do any of this. i have shown you the

work that i have done that i have been screened for. >> go ahead and put it on the overhead. >> i worked with feathers my entire life. i actually went out yesterday to take a tape measure and mark off a space. my stand is 6 feet. i was in an 8 foot space. but there is this -- daniel assaulted me and i wasn't able to complete my task. i was out there and did my work. the few times he was constantly calling the police. he called them down and he told the police he had a restraining order and asked him to produce it and he didn't have it. they said to document everything which i have done. you have seen police reports in the file. these are events that did not take place. what can i say?

this is how i make a living. i did not do the things i'm charged with and i don't see any evidence against me. what i see is selective prosecution. people vouching for each other. >> thank you mr. lazar? >> well, commissioners she mentioned that she's now identified in the photos those pictures. that is her, that is the back of her. john can testify that that was her. he saw her. secondly -- >> do you have any pictures of her making a transaction there? did she sell anything? >> no. the street ordinance says offers for sale or display, offers for sale. >> where in the ordinance does it say that? >> in proposition l.

>> can you site -- cite it for me? >> i just know that ordinance is 1975. >> you are using phrases from a text that i don't have in front of me. >> i'm sorry i can't do that. as far as the brief time period in which she was caught selling and doing these activities, we waited into consideration her previous record which included her coming before you and ruling us and giving her a second chance and she's committing some of the same type of violations and selling work she was not licensed to sell. i just want to address those two. >> mr. lazar, you show these products and this size, she shows a different product and

different size. how are we supposed to gauge that? >> i'm only show you what was given to me. i can only testimony she is license today sell feathered jewelry and it was not what she showed us. when that happens that requires a reexamination. >> i understand that. then let m ask you slightly differently. those photos were given to you. did you did not actually see? >> correct. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. any comments? >> confusion. i don't know what completely opposite. i don't know what to do with it yet.

>> well, evidently there is a personality conflict to say the least. >> please don't speak. >> [inaudible]. >> i'm not in for taking someone's livelihood away and i'm extremely disappointed in the lack of information that was brought forth by the commission that we need to have this information before us to make a decision. i think there is some violation here, but not enough to warrant her not being able to have a livelihood. that's my thoughts. >> okay. did you question his attorney? >> i'm not going to get legal

advice from him. >> have you seen evidence here to support the charges? >> i'm not a -- justin my position here as a commissioner along with the board and the evidence that was presented today, even if i would give a pass to the arts commission which is a paid position for not having submitted documents, we have lots of documents from someone who is not paid to support her position. i find it very beyond challenging to try to come up with, i don't have records, i don't have the basis, i don't have the statute and actually personal knowledge. we did hear some testimony of being photographed. i will grant that we have actual, the person who took the photograph of the appellant taking pictures of the director, does that rise to the level of something of certainly not a revocation,

certainly not a renewal in my view. maybe a slap on the hand, maybe a please stop doing that or else type of thing. that's the only real evidence that i have seen and that's basing it on the actual representation which has been orally provided to me. i think this is, as far as an evidentiary hearing goes, i think it's woefully inadequate. i don't think it supports the arts commission. i would grant the appellants appeal here to preserve her an i think one of the commentors that there was no progressive discipline. i think it's necessary, i think it was written in the statute that was discussed with commissioner fung's questions that exist for a reason that was legislatively

enacted that people have a right to warrant to fix their problems and go forward and further penalty if not corrected. whatever it is to be done in a certain type of man or or a type of conduct, you have gone too far but we didn't get evidence of that. taking someone's picture four times in one day. there could have been many circumstances for that reason. maybe there is a personality problem, maybe there is deep an animosity from a prior history of not having secured the non-renewal in 2007. this is my perspective. this is a little drama. i feel very unhappy, beyond disappointed that i don't have a record from the arts

commission, a paid director who has been on-the-job 41 years. it's woeful. >> six years ago i asked her with her concurrence why she wanted to be a street artist and she indicated there were certain things about that lifestyle that she found very attractive. that was neither here nor there with respect to today. the question is that there were two other street artist at that time that were raising the issues with her in that previous case. the question of and then i have to ask is not so much that what we

can't substantiate, i do need to reinforce though, that the department has indicated at least one thing that perhaps needs to be identified. that is that the art that she's selling is not what she was certified to do. we can ask the question, but the issue here really is a renewal of a license and it's not any type of an action that relates to her on going. it's either we grant the renewal or we don't. i guess i will take the same position that commissioner honda did that if it's her livelihood, we need to

find a better way to track problems and document it accurately in terms of further action. >> okay. i would move to uphold to grant the appeal and allow the appellant to have her renewal on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to have denied it. >> okay. mr. pacheco when you are ready? >> we have a motion then to over rule the denial by the arts commission and issue the street artist permit and this is with the finding that there was insufficient evidence to support the denial. on that motion to over rule and issue

this permit, commissioners fung? aye, commissioner hurtado is absent. commissioner lazarus, the decision is 4-0. >> i would like to take a short ten minute break, please.