>> lisa gibson at the planning department. is a common thread your project and specific elements have not been defined or certain locations have not been defined? i can tell you is not. -- it is not an exceptional circumstance. the intent of ceqa is that the environmental review will occur early enough in the process, those can be addressed through mitigation measures and consideration of alternatives. it is really difficult to change course. it is a requirement that the review occur before and the entitlements are issued. -- any entitlements are issued. if we don't know the details, it was to clarify the misunderstanding. it was prevented by some of the speakers that the project -- presented by some of the speakers that the project is the exclusive replacement and the cabinets of the public right of way. the project proposed, we evaluated the placement of the right of way. because of the requirements, and there could be locating these in the private properties. it requires that the applicant consider placement of the faciliti

i am lisa gibson, a senior environmental planner with the planning department. joining me is john lewis, who prepared the categorical exemption that is the subject of today's appeal. also, we have guests from the department of public works. we sent to two appeal response memos. one of them arrived today because we were responding to an appeal letter we received late friday. if you need extra copies, we have them available for you now. after careful consideration of the issues raised in the appeal and public testimony today, the planning department continues to find the project is exempt from environmental review. the decision is whether to uphold the planning department determination that the product is exempt and deny the appeal or to overturn the cadx and return it to the environmental planning department. in our assessment, the planning department reviewed at&t's upgrade and determined it is categorically exempt under one of the classes of the exemption that is provided by the ceqa guidelines. there are 33 clauses of projects that are exempt. these generally

various definitions and to see the case laws, but one of the issues that is in dispute, don lewis and lisa gibson from planning will be presenting in a moment, but i just wanted to ask ms. brent holly to respond, it seems that san francisco beautiful is arguing that the project of the 726 new metal cabinets should not have been categorically exempted because under class three which you're arguing, they're not considered 726, they're definitely not lamented number. but mr. lewis and mrs. gibson may be arguing in a moment, i don't want to put words in their mouth, but my understanding is they're going to claim that of the three types of projects, that it's not that first type that you're arguing but it's the second type of project which are the installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures that should apply and not -- doesn't involve limited numbers but i'll just ask to you respond, why does your type one apply and not type two of this class three of categorical exemptions? .my point is that if you read those they are almost an identical. one is to locate in limited number

various definitions and to see the case laws, but one of the issues that is in dispute, don lewis and lisa gibson from planning will be presenting in a moment, but i just wanted to ask ms. brent holly to respond, it seems that san francisco beautiful is arguing that the project of the 726 new metal cabinets should not have been categorically exempted because under class three which you're arguing