i think it would be important to look at the california building code because anything we are doing, the california building code in title 24 that just went into effect in july that is the most advanced and restrictive in the world. there already is that requirement even if you are dealing with the historic building. anything you are touching replacing windows or insulating the walls and things that may not affect the building are required any way. i don't know if the wording is correct. do we want to go beyond if building codes or do we want to encourage people when they are coming in for a project to also then do more. for instance they have come to do an addition on the back, do we want to encourage them to insulate their walls and double pane windows and their attics because we want to help them maintain their buildings and be more efficient and more green. i'm not sure the wording of that but some how to encourage beyond what might be proposed. >> commissioner hyland? >> yeah. i was on that same thought path. you are mentioning the energy audit and somehow in these last two addit

the air pollutant exposure zone, and establishing document review fees; amending the building code to correspond tthe health code changes, and making environmental findings, and findings under the california health and safety code; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to forward this ordinance to the california building standards commission upon final passage. preliminary recommendation: adopt a recommendation for approval 13b. 2014.1296u w. wietgrefe; 4155 575-90500 administrative and environment code amendment - amending clean construction ordinance [board file no. 140805] - ordinance amending the administrative code to require a construction emissions minimization plan and monitoring for public projects within the air pollutant exposure zone, as mapped pursuant to health code, article 38; amending the administrative and environment codes to reflect these requirements; and making environmental findings 1234 >> good afternoon commissioners i'm from environmental public staff and the office of supervisor >> cohen. >> the ordinances introduced by supervisor cohen achieved this by aligning city law with measures by california environmental quality act as ceqa. before i presen

require that a building changing to a school occupancy classification comply with the evaluation requirements; making environmental findings and findings under the california health and safety code; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to forward this ordinance to the california building standards commission upon final passage. city clerk: sf 91234 >>president david chiu: supervisor wiener? >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you. i want to thank everyone who helped this legislation become possible. we are embarked on a major effort over a period of years and years to make sure that our city is prepared for the in evitable big one and specifically to make sure that our infrastructure and our building stock is able to withstand a major earthquake. last year we passed a ground breaking legislation to require soft story retro fits for certain apartment buildings. that was a huge step forward and we have other legislation moving forward as well as various stages of the process to make sure our building stock will with strand and earthquake to keep people safe and that we are a resilient city. this legislation addresses our significant number of private schools in san fra

the neighbors property they'll not be able to go below the neighbors foundation they'll have to get 3307 of the building code and 32 of the california civil code 10 days notice to any property line and take into consideration there will be test holes are they going below the neighbors foundations that's the permit holders responsibility the site plan didn't show the location of property so i wasn't able to determine that but if they brought i bought it up it would be will have to be addressed i--i don't know what the foundation was was but it is on the permit holders property. >> such for clearing that up. >> actually mr. duffy i'm not sure i read it the same way it appears the foundation is for the post of the deck then the sketch they have that centered probably across the fence line. >> i saw that. >> it's annexed to me symmetrical so whether you dig a hole for it a foundation for a post is not a huge technical issue. >> fittings that's not a technical issue but the code says if you excavate property lines the neighbors property it didn't say a post or you'll have to see how it impacts the neighbors property the it is not huge bu

california register of historic resources. this less distinction is pretty important since certain code requirements only apply to listed buildings or buildings that might be listed as a contributor to a district. thememo provides additional detail as to how and where the specifics of the historic status applies. looking at 22.9 e, this allows for non-residential use for residential district. the examples of residential district in general and most residential district for example retail uses would not be permitted, but if you are in an article landmark allow conditional use authorization to allow non-residential uses. for example landmark 29, the old firehouse, in 2009, this property received authorization for a change of use from an element ary school to an office use. the baseline zoning would not permit either one of those uses but the department did receive a conditional use to allow this type of property. within mixed use districts, i apologize again for the copies, our precipitator is -- printer is not working great. this provides for within certain mixed use districts for certain commercial uses would not be permitted. for example at the hamilton building for landmark no. 193. this property