commissioner johnck. >> an i would move continuance. it seems like there is some overlap here and even though i agree that some of the issues don't exactly apply to our historic issue, i was unaware that the park was going to close -- even though i thoroughly read the entire document. that would be my persuasion. i don't see a problem with moving it a month really with the parks department so we can do more and hear more about this. >> yes? >> commissioners, it would be helpful for staff and perhaps for park department to hear about what you would like us to accomplish in that month. i think we're prepared to present today. we do concur with president wolfram's comments that the concerns, while i am sure very important and valid, seem to be better served to be addressed at the rec-park commission hearing rather than through a month delay or even a two-month continuance. it sounds like director ram mention there had will be a lot of community outreach. this is one step to keep the project moving forward. and certainly if the project were

. >> commissioner johnck. >> i really appreciate the staff's efforts to detail your outreach efforts,articularly your -- i'm going to call them house calls. explain the benefits of these designations, and what's been the success rate of reception to that? have you been able to, you know, contact and actually speak personally with all of them? >> not all of them. notification and we've recently had several meetings with property owners. we had conference calls and in person meetings in the office, answering questions, once this process got underway. so we've had a got bit of contact with property owners and provided additional information on the benefits and requirements through -- and tdr program, mills act, and minor and major permits. >> that's terrific. great. thank you. >> commissioner matsuda. >> just a follow-up to that. we received in our packet this memo from mr. lee about some questions that he had specifically regarding the benefits. were you able to touch base with him. >> we met yesterday. >> great. then another question about the information contained in the case report.

commissioners johnck will be replaced by black due to quorum issues. do you accept that?> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> very good. commission president, moving on item 4, consideration of adoption. draft minutes for the arc february 21,, march 21 hearings as well as the regular hearing from may 2, 2018. i have no speaker cards. >> commissioner, any comment on the draft minutes? >> does any member of the public wish to comment on the draft minutes of february 21arc, march 21arc, or may 2hpc? seeing and hearing none, we will close public comment. do i have a motion to adopt the amendments? >> yes, i so move. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners, on that motion to adopt the minutes for february 21 and march 21arc and the may 2 regular hearing of on that motion, commissioner black. >> yes. >> a commissioner johns. >> commissioner johnck. awe question question. >> commissioner matsuda. >> yes. >> commissioner hyland. >> commissioner wolfram. that passes unanimously 6-0. and that places us on item five, commission comments and questions. >> seeing no comments or questio

. >> commissioner johnck: i think this is really kind of ironic. as a new member of arc, commission hyland was there that day and commission pearlman, we were doing a great job of reviewing the adequacy of the presentation alternatives for the project. and they were good. they were great. and we were looking at the value of the historic -- not only historic buildings, but the historic landscape and the integration of that as significant in the integration of those elements. and we asked the owner and the project sponsor to go back and do a better job on that and give us a little more attention to particularly, i was interested in the landscape. and the relationship to the building. so i think we've already got a wonderful process going on. and i did not hear anything that -- of convincing to lend this to national register status. i mean, if anything, we should be looking at something local first or even eligibility, so to me, this is shock value. it's too shocking to -- i didn't hear anything really convincing to enable me to support a national reg

. >> thank you >> commissioner johnck: when i first read the staff report, i thought these are good solutions, these are good remediation for what i saw as the problem, but hearing this discussion so far, i'm thinking, you know, i really don't know. all we know is there is laws and how broken is this? we know this was not approved. and the violations, i think that may be the biggest thing. we shouldn't be approving where there are violations. but i don't know whether this has gone too far. the point is, i don't know. either we could try some things out, and see what happens. as you say most of them can be approved at the staff level. that's one way to approach it. but i'm just looking back saying i really don't know what is the right thing to do. you know. that's a good start. >> thank you, >> commissioner matsuda: i have some concern about the board or just the ability to be so discretionary. i think there needs to be some kind of guarantee or some kind of minimum criteria that you definitely are going to be seriously considering. people, we support the mills act program because we want to e