association. again, i think we all agree something should happen on this site and, of course, a lot of what you re hearing about are concerns about the current condition, which is largely the responsibility of the owner and the project sponsor, but we would all like to see this go forward but only with a project that is supportable inenvironmentally and under the planning code. at the outset, so i don t forget, i would like to see i don t see how the commission and hopefully the commission isn t going to approve this project anyway, but it certainly can t approve it if it needs variances that have not been evaluated in the review document. you can t approve it when it needs variances that you haven t been informed about, haven t had environmental review for, and aren t even approving, so you got a real problem there. but going beyond that, in terms of what could be approved tonight, commissioner sugaya was asking about, as i understood it, whether the commission had the power
have lived in the neighborhood since 1997 and, yeah, i have seen it deteriorate, but i think that the day i walked into the planning department and had a meeting with them, the zoning administration, larry babner that i knew i was going to take on this site. you know, gordon eakin will talk about a meeting that we had with neighbors in january of 2000. that was a tense meeting. we said to him, you know, there are lights on that property. turn them on. he said, you know, i m going to go back and i m going to look into that. you know, i saw an electrical contractor go out there. one day i got so tired checking d.b.i. records. i noticed this electrician. he set up for the lighting. he did the electrical work and the lighting was never turned on. i m just amazed that we have, you know, this football team of guys in here tonight, you know, saying there is no light. it s not safe. of course, it s not. that s by design. this is like textbook developer stuff. so i ask you tonight, ju
feel about the project itself and whether or not i think items to be discussed later tonight. on the eir itself, i felt comfortable that it is adequate, accurate, and objective. commissioner fong: additional comments? there is a motion on the floor to certify the eir. against public policy and comm sense and it would really be a terrible matter of public policy to do. importantly, the in order to approve this as is, you would need to make a statement of overriding considerations. the statement before you basically says that this project is consistent with planning and the general plan and various planning policies. and whether you agree or don t agree that it is consistent, that s step one for any project that would come before you. that s not a reason to override a significant environment impacts as you re supposed to be looking for something special, something that provides public benefit, not that is only required by law. so you can t make the findings and i would ask