as you know the hpc came into being in january of that year. so as a way to get the document in front of you in anticipation of doing the ceqa review. in 2009 and 2010 we had funding for ceqa review in the element but the funding was eliminated from the economic down turn and budget cuts. the elements instead on the shelf for some time and most recently as you know from our budget discussions we were able to reinstate the funding for that ceqa review in our next fiscal year starting july first. 1st. at this time we felt there are a number of reasons to revisit the document 1 is when the hpc reviewed the document previously we didn't have an adopted article 10 and 11. with articles 10 and 11 and year 25 hearings on the details of those planning code amendments, there is a lot of policy changeers in there that could serve the element and be reflected in the element that we should probably revisit. also the one other thing with the spur report, the spur heritage task report has a lot of great recommendations that we all agree with can help improve

at this time we felt there are a number of reasons to revisit the document 1 is when the hpc reviewed the document previously we didn't have an adopted article 10 and 11. with articles 10 and 11 and year 25 hearings on the details of those planning code amendments, there is a lot of policy changeers in there that could serve the element and be reflected in the element that we should probably revisit. also the one other thing with the spur report, the spur heritage task report has a lot of great recommendations that we all agree with can help improve the historic city's preservation program and take those into consideration when we are considering these policies. this is just a refresher. this is part of sue's presentation just to give you some context of the general planning. we have about 10 different elements. the preservation element will be one of those. once it's adopted and as you know these elements are high level visionary best practices sort of document where every decision the department or commissions make or any part of the city of the family makes has to refer back to the

this is just a way for us to keep a tally and graphic manner of the hpc's accomplishment over the past several years or since the work program was last visited. it includes individual buildings and districts. it's a variant article designation. as part of this report, each quarter, you will also receive this appendix. this appendix contains two items. one is a graph that will show you graphically just how we are performing in terms of designations from literally the beginning of the program to current day and we have broken that down into landmark districts and individual designations. it maybe more useful to have this graphic produced every year rather than a quarterly basis given the process it takes to move these items through designation process. we are happy to provide it during each, as part of each report if you would like to. and we felt it would be helpful for the commission to understand a variety, the other projects that are in the cue as part of the survey teams day-to-day work. a lot of this work has to do with community initiated historic context statement for other proje

we are very excited that this is for the element moving forward and look forward to working with the hpc and with planning department staff through its adoption. with that said our board most specifically our issues policy committee has reviewed the draft and they do have significant reservations and concerns about the current status and direction of the draft as currently written on many of the same concerns raised by the planning department were raised by our issues policy committee. but we are encouraged that the planning department recognizes the need for policy regarding the need for social and cultural and social sources and working a lot on projects related to social and cultural heritage throughout our city concern the san diego's living history and the title and we have with restaurant projects and many latinos heritage activity and we would like to work with the city for drafting specific language for this policy. secondly, some of the sections of the report we found difficult to read. we think that this element should be approachable and it's currently written is not very appr

request for certificate of appropriateness to revise the rehabilitation project previously approved under hpc motion no. 0147, including: 11 modifying the configuration and location of the new garage; 22 modifying the location of window and door openings at the north and east facades and replacing windows at all facades; 33 replacing the historic wood siding at the north faÇade; 44 reinstalling a window at the west gable end at the attic level to match the previous condition; 55 increasing the height of the third floor deck and reconfiguring the elevator penthouse roof; 66 restoring the front doors and roof finials; 77 constructing a balcony at the east faÇade; and, 88 adding fencing and gates to the landscape. please note that many of the proposed changes have already been completed and that the applicant is requesting that the commission legalize the work performed without the benefit of a permit. the subject property is a contributing building within the alamo square landmark district. the property is zoned rh-3 residential, house, three-familyy and is in a 40-x height and bulk district. s