>> welcome to "culturewire." today we are at recology. they are celebrate 20 years of one of the most incredibly unique artist residency programs. we are here to learn more from one of the resident artists. welcome to the show, deborah. tell us how this program began 20 years ago. >> the program began 20 years

ago. our founder was an environmentalist and an activist and an artist in the 1970's. she started these street sweeping campaigns in the city. she started with kids. they had an exhibition at city hall. city officials heard about her efforts and they invited her to this facility. we thought it would coincide with our efforts to get folks to recycle, it is a great educational tool. since then, we have had 95 professional artists come through. >> how has the program changed over the years? how has the program -- what can the public has an artist engage with? >> for the most part, we worked with metal and wood, what you would expect from a program like ours. over the years, we tried to include artists and all types of

mediums. conceptual artists, at installation, photographers, videographers. >> that has really expanded the program out. it is becoming so dynamic right now with your vision of interesting artists in gauging here. why would an artist when to come here? >> mainly, access to the materials. we also give them a lot of support. when they start, it is an empty studio. they go out to the public area and -- we call it the big store. they go out shopping, take the materials that, and get to work. it is kind of like a reprieve, so they can really focus on their body of work. >> when you are talking about recology, do you have the only sculpture garden at the top? >> it is based on work that was done many years ago in new york.

it is the only kind of structured, artist program. weit is beautiful. a lot of the plants you see were pulled out of the garbage, and we use our compost to transplant them. the pathway is lined with rubble from the earthquake from the freeways we tour about 5000 people a year to our facility, adults and children. we talk about recycling and conservation. they can meet the artists. >> fantastic. let's go meet some of your current artists. here we are with lauren. can you tell us how long have been here so far and what you're working on? >> we started our residency on june 1, so we came into the studio then and spent mo

>> hello. welcome to "culturewire." we are here today with bay area artist jody chanel, and we are here to see the plaza where your piece has just been installed. >> i have been doing large-scale

paintings in the galleries and museums, and the idea that in the future, i could do something that would hang out a little bit longer than the duration of the installation the kind of appeal to me. i quickly found out about the san francisco arts commission school and realized there was a pre-qualified school you had to apply to, so i applied to the. >> how long did it take you to develop this work for the plaza? >> this was a fast track project. design development was about a month. >> let's look at the beautiful mural. i have never seen a mural created on asphalt. >> the heat of the asphalt, a new layer of asphalt. then, these wire rope templates that were fabricated for the

line work genow. >> for 6 52nd street. >> the project proposes to merge to existing units into one unit with an a six-story building. the proposal will involve interior renovations as the space has already been merged and operated as a single unit since the building conversion in 1996. the building was converted in 1996. the previous owner filed for application. the permit was withdrawn in january of 2009 after it was submitted. also the project sponsor purchased the unit in 2009 and continued to occupy as a single

unit. it will remain unoccupied. the sponsors are here as well, and they have documentation to further explain the process. the staff found that the project is applicable subjected to the general plan. the next density area with no limit, it will bring the unit into conformance with existing use. we recommend that the commission approve the project as proposed. >> and you want me to respond to questions? president olague: if you could describe the project and state your name for the record please.

>> my wife and i own the unit at 6 52nd street. in 1996, this building was converted from the warehouse to livable space. prior to build out of the interior length of the building, a man purchased units 401 and 402. they were never separate units. we purchased it as a single residence, lived in and from 1996 forward, >> is housed in a spectacular building described by the world

renowned architect. it isit was approximately 2950 e feet. we were looking for another,, and it fitted. we entered into an agreement to purchase if during the entire process. it was described to us as a single residents and as a matter of fact, it was believed to be a single residents by chicago titlethere was a single price pd for it. the real-estate appraisal that was submitted said, per legal description lived the original report, the subject units as separate parcel numbers.

we had no idea that it had not been legally merged. as a matter of fact, they signed the disclosure statement to us in which he said that the unit's work combined and that all necessary permits have been obtained. we bought the unit, we hired an architect and hired a contractor. a permit was issued by the city showing no separate kitchen either before or after the improvements were made. we went through and got the approval of water, the electrical sign-off. and at that point, the district oinspector gave us a notice of violation that came as a total shock to us and everyone else involved in the process. and that is why we're here

today. i looked at the rules that you operate under and it says that they are to preserve affordable housing and to avoid merging the units to lose the number of housing units that are available. this has never been to separate units, nothing is being taken off the market because from the day the building was first converted to today, there has only been one of owner and it has only been a single residents. as far as affordable housing, the unit, we bought it after our improvements, the appraised value plus the improvements are over $3 million. which isn't what i would call affordable housing.

if you look at the pictures submitted to, the cost of converting this to two separate units would not only be prohibited, we would probably just walk away because it would be more than our equity in the house. it is not physically really feasible to do it at this point. all i can say is that if i had known that there was any question about whether the legal approval had been obtained and not, we would have never bought it because at this point, it could wipe out my retirement if we had to do anything more than just live in the place that we've got to live in the rest of our lives. any questions? president olague: not at this time, but we might have some afterwards. we will open it up for public comment. i have one speaker card.

>> as a preliminary matter, i don't believe that commissioner antonini should be sitting on this case. this is a block from where he is. this is a live work use. that issue is a huge issue. ok? we were the group that challenged live work. when the projects were approved, they were exempted from the requirements because they were not housing. we do not have any inclusion area live work units because they were all supposed to be spaces where people work and spaces were people filed annual disclosure statements saying they were aware of the law and

they were in compliance with the law. and they had filed the necessary tax statement every year. the documents in this file cannot show any disclosure of the live work status at all. in your file, in your case report. it is not a small issue. it is a huge issue. with 3000 units of live work and mostly artists that people are saying now they are housing units. the city was cheated out of 300 affordable housing units because we have this section that these were places of business. you do not have anything in the file and the staff should have asked for it. how is this legally a live work unit? is the status restriction disclosed on the sale?

it should be in the file. it should have been asked for. was the purchaser told that he was purchasing not a residents but a live work unit, and he had to maintain the live work status. you cannot push this under the carpet. i understand that at a certain level, it is a minor issue. it is a huge issue if the staff just checked out, and doesn't ask the questions. what is the nature of the business being conducted in this unit? have they filed every year, the statements and the tax forms to show that a business is being conducted there? was this used described as a limitation when they bought it? if you allow live work units to

become residential units, we have been cheated out of affordable housing. it is true that this is not an affordable units, but this is a huge issue. housing affordability was ignored. i am asking you to get the additional information, continue this. if you don't have the information to show that this is live work, and they have continually kept of the status. you cannot find it is a legal live work canada. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i did check with the interest that i have, a very small interest in what is classified as a live work unit. it has occupied my family member and is more than 500 feet away and we have already established that. i am not quite sure if that is

what she was speaking to, but i believe that is the only reason why i would have to recuse myself from these proceedings. president olague: pat o'tellni? >> we are a building code and permit consulting firm. we are brought on project to investigate anomalies and permit histories. this building is one of them. but briefly, just to address her comment, this has been properly demonstrated as a live work unit. if professional author, employed as such, she does her business out of here. we're here to talk about the dwelling in a merger. hopefully you were given copies of this and if not, i am happy to provide copies.

there was never a consistent unit accounts. there is not a significant final completion. a lot of stuff was lost in the shuffle and the '90s. we have been involved to remedy this as the project sponsor mentioned, they have building permits for the remodel. i have personally met with the building and fire department, let them know the plan of action. the permits currently doesn't show any construction work and verifies the and it counted 24. the building department agreed to sign off on the applicable permits. this is a means to the end of finishing up with the construction project. i am happy to answer other questions. president olague: is there additional public comment? please come to the microphone.

you have already spoken. you can't speak a second time. is there anyone else that would like to speak? that is why i thought you might be motioning to me. it wasn't for you, but for someone else. >> i am co owner of this unit with my husband. i am a former professor at the city college of san francisco, a professional writer, and i also do public-relations writing on a pro bono basis. nothing has been filed because we have not lived there long enough. we were out of the unit for eight months while it was being renovated on legal permits given to us by the city of santa it is. as far as i know, if it is a

question, we are in compliance with the live work authorization and the necessity. i would also add that even though it is a live work unit, at no time from the beginning were these units of affordable housing by any san francisco standard. in 15 years later, there are far from being affordable and no unit has been removed from the market because this was never used except as a single unit by the original owner that purchased it from the developers. thank you. president olague: is there additional public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner moore: i asked for this project to be taken up for the very reason that the public has discussed. the applicant's position that is

obviously the very unusable story of data and procedures which i thought were alfaro and clearer, particularly san francisco has a large amount of former apartment condominium dwellers listening to this particular case could find themselves in very similar situations unless it is clearly verify that that in a conversion from single ownership, the recording of multiple ownerships are done properly. should somebody buys something, unbeknownst to the real history where the real recording, they might find themselves in violation at the second or third resale because the conversion was not properly recorded. there are still to tax bills coming to this owner, which

means in the tax assessor's records, this project has not been merged from two units into one. there is a huge potential for errors and omissions. i am only speaking out of concern rather than taking a position on the project. your respective of the issues that miss hester is raising . it needs to be vetted by this commission. that is not the reason why i am asking to take this project. i take this city needs to come up very quickly with providing certainty and credibility to owners in converted residential buildings that only had single ownership for those who thought

they went to an early conversion and might find themselves with an unclear history of what the conversion entailed. i live in such a building, it was a normal rental building and is still in normal apartment building except it is owner occupied by those people when we all scraped hour and come together and afford a unit like that. at that time, we created a stock of middle income people scraping by to affordability. i want to be sure that what they did is not threatened by some men consistent record. that is the purpose of why ask this to be taken out. commissioner antonini: i agree with commissioner moore.

the unit merger that has been presented as the fact that it has been used as a single unit from the very beginning, and probably the issue that was brought up was more about the entire handling of live work units and whether or not their business is taking place in those that legitimize their status. it is a much broader issue, and probably many of these have businesses going on. but what is before us is whether or not it is appropriate to legalize this use that has been the use of the situation since 1996. and as was pointing out, we are not costing affordable housing in making these -- legalizing the units into one legal unit. much of the permit has already gone forward from the city on this so it would seem to me