dedicating this, they wanted to find a work that was big and bold. he was so pleased with your participation that he made you an honoraria citizens of san francisco for the next 18 months. the public reaction has been very positive. what is your reaction of how people receive your sculpture? >> i think that san francisco has a long history. this gigantic sculpture is in front of the civic center. i know that that is not the kind of a go with whole environment.

there is an exchange with the american culture and the asian culture which has created this very strong power. this power was created by east meets west may be is exactly what our mayor or the public wants. they will start to be curious and wonder how this is here and how we look at the asian culture. >> you have lived internationally, you have lived in cities like new york and beijing, now shanghai. you made a very conscious decision to lend this culture to san francisco as opposed to having it premier as an exhibition at another museum. >> i am very satisfied with the

turnout and i lived in new york for 8 years and all of my children were born in new york. i already have the american spirit. i am proud to be here and i really appreciate the spirit of committing to things and being honored and being collaborative. when i flashed back to my career, i think about what an artist can do is a teeny tiny thing. i want to contribute to the hall human society. what art can do is just this tiny bit. >> your invitation has already proven to be a great success and we really look forward to spending time with your sculpture. thank you for being part of

"culture wire." >> thank you for being part of this project. >> thank you for watching. join us for future episodes. you can

>> let me remind everyone to turn off and the electronic devices that may sound through the proceeding. please speak directly into the

microphone, 32 6 inches away -- three to six inches away. if you feel the need to engage in a secondary discussion, please take the discussions outside as they become disruptive to this process. [roll is taken] vice president olague is expected later today. item one is case 2010.0788u regarded the structure feasibility study. this is proposed for a continuance to october 28, 2010. further on your calendar, just for information, please note that item 11, the san francisco

2009 housing element informational update is being moved on the calendar to later. it will not be heard before 4:30 p.m. today. we have posted that on the table by the door and on the bulletin board outside. also, commissioners, it is my understanding that the president of the board of supervisors, david chiu would like to continue items 14, 15, and 16. item 14 is case 2010.0556d. item 15 is case 2010.0557d. item 16 is case 2010.0558d.

although there has been a request for a continuance i do not have a date. >> i am here on behalf of president david chiu. heat respect to request a continuance. a month would be great. we have concerns regarding wireless telecom relations in san francisco. there are questions about determinations about accessory uses and whether the individual projects should be viewed in its entirety rather than as individual projects. we respectfully request a continuance of the items the secretary called. >> for the public, let me just say that would put it on november 18. that calendar is really fall. i suggest to continue it to

december 2. >> thank you. >> with that, i am not aware of any other item on the calendar that is proposed for a continuance. president miguel: is there any public comment on items being proposed for continuance? >> i am the outside counsel for t mobile. i was called 20 minutes ago to come down here and speak to this continuance request from the supervisor's office. it was a complete surprise to t mobile. but did you are quite familiar with the clock that requires that the local jurisdiction act within 150 days. we worry that a continuance would extend beyond that clock deadline. i am not fully familiar with this matter. i am very familiar with excess reuse.

i have spoken to this board in 2007 extensively, when supervisor peskin was reviewing this issue. it has functioned in the city since 1996, when we had the first accessory year use. we think discretionary review is not a good idea. if you continue the matter, we encourage you to continue it no more than two or three weeks. we think a clock problem would occur at the end of october. my name is paul albretton, outside counsel for t mobile. we are unfamiliar with this request. we heard about it in the last half hour. president miguel: just laid it on the rail, thank you. is there any other -- yes.

>> my name is joe panesha. i am also a representative of the project sponsor, t mobile. the projects were deemed to be complete early july. they have or even continued once. there is another request for a continuance. we respectfully ask that in fairness and the spirit of due process that we try to hear these items as soon as possible. we feel there has been ample opportunity to have these discussions, whether they be between us and telegraph hill dwellers, a meeting on june 30, or whether they be policy discussions between planning commission staff. we believe there has been ample opportunity for that. i hope you would agree that we would like to continue hearing this item soon, if not today. thank you. president miguel: is there further public comment on items for continuance? >> rick kirsh on behalf of t

mobile. it has already been continued from september 30 two today. we believe the appellants have had ample opportunity to prepare for today's hearing. president miguel: thank you. public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: i am a little confused. perhaps the aide from president chiu's office could answer some questions. is there a question of procedure where they should be on the calendar as one item? >> justin true again, from the president's office. i believe is an argument to be made that the individual projects should be considered as one project and we should look at all the installations going on. we have had some discussions with the company in the past and would be more than happy to speak with the gentleman out in

the hall after i finish answering your questions and arrange another conversation with t mobile or any other of the companies who are looking to fight for some of these facilities. i would say respectfully that with five commissioners and a request needing four supporters, that would be another grounds for requesting a continuance. if it was the commission's presence -- preference, we would be happy to have the original date of november 18 or the december date. i am not familiar with the shot clock issue and would be happy to hear from department staff about that issue. we are continuing to hear concerns from our constituents about these issues. i think it is a delicate balance of what our neighbors are asking us to work on and also what everyone wants --

consistent cell phone coverage in san francisco. we are committed to working with the industry on that goal. commissioner antonini: i do not understand the need to have a full month to work this out. it would seem to me like something that could be done in a week or two. >> a lot of things could be done in a week or two, but i think a month or five weeks is a more realistic time line because of the complicated issues involved and the challenging schedules of the individuals who need to work on it. commissioner antonini: thank you, sir. my feeling would be that since this issue was raised regarding the period in which a decision should be made by the industry representative -- i am not saying that is accurate, but i would say that we should maybe continue this to an earlier date. it could always be continued after that time, but you cannot hear it any sooner if it is continued further out. i might suggest that we continue

this to two weeks from now. do we have anything on our calendar? >> your calendars are such that you are booked through the 21st. the 28th could possibly accommodate this. november 11 is a holiday. the 18, you have a full calendar. the 25th is a holiday. the next available dates would be the second. you can continue it to october 28 and then continue if further if need be, but those are your only choices. commissioner antonini: i would continue into october 28 with the understanding that it might have to be continued again, but perhaps might be resolved by that time.

that is a motion. >> we have a motion to continue item 1 as proposed? commissioner antonini: i was when to break that up and deal with items 14, 15, and 16 at this time, and then i will make a motion for item one. >> the motion is to continue items 14, 15, and 16 to october 28. >> i will second, but i do not agree with the date. commissioner antonini: would you like to make an amendment? >> city attorney, are you familiar with this 150 day trigger they are talking about? i would just like to know if that means if it is scheduled and we take any kind of action whether that suffices or whether they need an approval or denial. sorry.

>> i am the deputy city attorney. i am not familiar with this provision. i need to go back and look at that. >> i think some type of continuance in this case is warranted. i am really uncomfortable with three and cannot requests coming within a relatively small area and the ruling about micro antennas being accessory uses i think in this case needs to be reconsidered. i think there has also been community input, to various supervisors on this particular issue, but i think also to supervisor at the los on his legislation -- supvervisor avalos with respect to his proposal on antennas in public spaces, and expanding that to other situations, including the

2006 ruling. i do not know for effect -- i have heard from other people that they may be talking to supervisor avalos's office as well. if those policy issues are being considered or would be considered, it seems fairly likely that another continuance is going to happen. commissioner moore: i would strongly support a more robust conversation between the board and current legislation about city-wide right of ways, including how that affects the distribution on private buildings. that needs to be said in light of the fact that we have seen new companies that show desires for expensive new networks coming on line. i think it is really a question of fairness to all instead of

just particular companies racing to take up every part. i am personally concerned about how we deal with the aesthetics of how we change the environment. i am an avid cellphone user. i am for the industry. i love great coverage. i just think it has to be done in a manner which meets a number of objectives, not all of which have been fully looked at. >> i very much agree with your statement. i have been in contact with a number of providers. -- president miguel: i have been in contact with a number of providers and also some supervisors. i think it is altogether possible that some revised policy be put together. things are getting a bit out of hand. commissioner borden: i just want to reiterate and support what my

other colleagues said. i think that when i read the packets i was concerned about three antennas being put in a very small radius. i think there is a larger issue about how we place in tennis in a neighborhood that has coverage areas, and the issue of other carriers having similar needs to do so. i think it is important for us to resolve these issues. realistically, i do not think it will be resolved by october 28. i would support along a continuance. realistically, i think we are going to be back in the same position and we are going to be down at least one commissioner for a while. commissioner sugaya: secondary to the motion i would like to propose going back to the date ms. avery suggested, december 2.

>> i think we should stay with the first day. commissioner antonini: i withdraw my motion. can i make a substantive motion? -- a substitute motion? >> is there a second for the original motion? president miguel: 9 appearing. commissioner antonini: i will motion to continue to december 4 for items 14, 15, 16. >> to december 2? and item 1 to october 28? >> i second. commissioner antonini: for practical reasons, i will vote in favor of the continuance, but once again i think we are adding more process by not allowing

this to come before us sooner, and perhaps encouraging industry and the supervisors and others to get together and resolve this particular issue on these three items, not dependent on a global solution for the entire cell phone antenna issue. i think this could be handled as an individual item and should not be held up for having a solution for the entire thing. that being said, it looks like given the structure of the votes today it is probably going to be december 2. commissioner borden: i would love if the city attorney could look into this shot clock issue. i would like to be aware of it. is it a requirement on the legislative body? is it a requirement on the industry? i am not sure. it would be nice to know what the issue really is here so that in future circumstances we know. commissioner moore: i would have

to assume that the supervisor suggesting he is not available until december 2 is not a capricious suggestion but reflects the reality that even for us these obligations are coming like a tsunami. that illustrates the fact that i feel i need more time to understand this. in the past year, i have reiterated my big questions. >> the motion on the floor is to continue item 1 as proposed to october 28, 2010, and items 14, 15, and 16 to december 2, 2010. [roll is called] >> those items are continued as we have discussed. thank you. you are now on the consent calendar. items two and three con