i have no idea. i was talking tauk taking your hypothetical. i don t know that to be true or false. but when you have an application, you follow ceqa which gives you the obligation to apply feasible mitigation and alternatives. now, if something s legally infeasible because you don t have the right to impose it, that would not be a feasible mitigation or alternative. but you certainly don t have all that information here today. maybe i could ask the question to the city attorney. president chiu: i think supervisor avalos wants to follow up on a question. supervisor avalos: similar question but it s a follow-up on that. the categorical exemption as far as 726 boxes, yet we re looking at a piecemeal way. how is that? isn t that a violation of ceqa? that would have to look at the project in its entirety rather than the piecemeal fashion? john from the city attorney s office. i think this i would disagree with how this is being characterized as somehow piecemealing or s
of them talked about locating them and one talks about installing equipment in them. that was my interpretation. i do not think it matters very much. the limited number i think is important. but even if it fits even if there is substantial evidence to support your staff that that is a reasonable interpretation, especially if there is a case i am not aware of on this particular point, there are exceptions. this exemption is in applicable is is not applicable when there is cumulative impact. all of the lists on class 3, they talk about three things, not 726 things. it is not just a trigger. the whole idea of a category is that these are things that should not create a problem. if there is a reason to think that there is some other environmental problem, that there may be a problem, supreme court case law says if you have evidence that there could be a significant impact, do not do the categorical exemption. i do not know if through the chair i need to wait for a question. p
your hypothetical. i don t know that to be true or false. but when you have an application, you follow ceqa which gives you the obligation to apply feasible mitigation and alternatives. now, if something s legally infeasible because you don t have the right to impose it, that would not be a feasible mitigation or alternative. but you certainly don t have all that information here today. maybe i could ask the question to the city attorney. president chiu: i think supervisor avalos wants to follow up on a question. supervisor avalos: similar question but it s a follow-up on that. the categorical exemption as far as 726 boxes, yet we re looking at a piecemeal way. how is that? isn t that a violation of ceqa? that would have to look at the project in its entirety rather than the piecemeal fashion? john from the city attorney s office. i think this i would disagree with how this is being characterized as somehow piecemealing or seg mentation. that s a concept in ceqa that if