Francisco Martinez Terminal Studio Booklet June 2019

el 1

AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING FOR THE OUTER MISSION DISTRICT OF SAN FRANCISCO

HOGAR

FRANCISCO A. MARTINEZ / PROF. FIFIELD / HOUSING TERMINAL STUDIO 2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project is a representation of all the skills and abilities that I have developed over the years as an architecture student. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who have been there by my side through this vigorous adventure. I never would have made it this far had it not been for the wonderful people in my life who have supported me academically, intellectually, and emotionally. To all my professors, friends, and coaches who have motivated and believed in me I can’t thank you all enough.

A special thanks goes out to my family, specifically my father Francisco, my mother Hilda, and my younger brother Alex. They have always supported my ambitions, guided me through every challenge that has come my way, provided me with opportunities to further my education, but most importantly provided me with a loving and nurturing home. I would like to thank my closest friends, Zachary Sherrod, David Moreno, Josh Rosenthal, Westin Hill, and Steven Liang who without, I would not have survived my time in architecture school. They will forever be my closest friends. I wish them the best as we part ways and begin our individual careers as we enter the workforce. Additionally, my interest in architecture would have never have existed had it not been for my high school architecture teacher, Goranka Poljak-Hoy. I would also like to thank both Michael Fifiled and Alison Kwok for pushing me to surpass my limits and supporting my interests in Housing and Passive House. Lastly, I would like to dedicate this project to my late grandmother “Buevas” and late uncle “Tio Ca” who will forever be role models in life.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) PROGRAMMING

4) CASE STUDIES

THESIS STATEMENT PROPOSED BUILDING TYPE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES POTENTIAL CHALLENGES

C.S 1 - CAPITAL FLATS C.S 2 - BEACH GREEN DUNES C.S 3 - SOL LUX ALPHA

2) SITE SELECTION

5) DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

DISTRICT SELECTION NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES SITE PROPOSAL RENTAL RATES IN SAN FRANCISCO

FAIR HOUSING ACT UNIT PLAN COMPLIANCE MECHANICAL & HVAC FACADE STUDIES CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

3) BUILDING PROGRAM

6) FINAL DESIGN

DEMOGRAPHICS

HOUSING UNITS

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

BUILDING ELEMENTS

BUILDING CODES

UNITS FLOORPLANS

ELEVATIONS / SECTIONS

RENDERS

6

PROGRAMMING

7

THESIS STATEMENT Thesis:

This project explores the possibility of integrating Passive House Design into multifamily Affordable Housing to address the

affordability crisis in San Francisco. My proposal ties in a sense of opportunity and interaction in the form of community-oriented spaces and retail. These added amenities benefit the larger community by facilitating a greater sense of interconnection and creating pedestrian friendly environments.

Challenges Facing Housing in San Francisco:

Rent controlled units are becoming less affordable. Of the 160,000 rent controlled units in 2015, about 100,00 units were rented at rates that would be affordable to households earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Households of two that earn less than 80% of the AMI, according to the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, currently makes $75,750 or less a year, “9% of Households live in about 33,000 affordable housing units, where rents and sale prices are set so that they’re deemed to be affordable at low and moderate income levels by SF standards.” Meeting the housing supply is not the issue that SF residents face, it’s the lack of affordable housing supply.

While almost recently constructed housing projects were multi-family buildings, of those units built since 1990, 28% are deemed to have been affordable to low and moderate-income households. The number of households earning more than 120% of the AMI (for a household of 2 = $113,650) tripled since 1990. Today, 82% of them are now high income households earning 200% or more of AMI (for a household of 2 = $189,400. Households earning less than 50% of AMI ($47,350 for a household of 2) face a situation where housing costs consume 50% or more of income. The number of low and moderate income households earning less than 120% of AMI dropped more in San Francisco than in the region due to these households having left the city or increasing their earnings.

Solution: Find a way to keep these low and moderate income households within the city by offering enticing options such as cheaper housing and amenities that will revitalize struggling neighborhoods.

For my terminal studio project, my intent is to incorporate both sustainable and affordable design to address the demand for affordable housing in the Outer Mission District in San Francisco. I will integrate Passive House Principles, a set of explicit green-building design standards, to contribute to an improved quality of life and self sustaining building structure to maintain low rental costs. My intention is to utilize the Passive House Standard to aid low to mid income families with lower monthly utility bills. Energy reductions are derived based on the user’s energy habits and will in turn educate the user. Additionally, my intent is to also encourage future housing developments to integrate Passive House Principles as a means of creating sustainable, community oriented, and affordable housing situations.

8

PROPOSED BUILDING TYPE Affordable Multifamily Mixed Use:

My proposal for the building type used in my studio project would be a multifamily as a means of addressing the affordability crisis in San Francisco. In addition, I want to tie in a sense of opportunity and interaction to the building itself in the form of retail as a means of stimulating more variety in the the design. The added amenities would benefit users of the space and the larger community, facilitating a greater sense of interconnection and create pedestrian friendly environments due to its close proximity.

Affordable Housing is scarce across San Francisco and a large reason as to why many people are leaving the city. Rental rates are continually rising to meet construction costs and have otherwise brought many affordable housing developments to a halt. To make up for these high construction costs, I propose the use of Passive House Principles as a means of maintaining low rent costs through energy reductions on monthly utility rates. Over time, the use of Passive House principles would support a self sustaining building that not only have affordable living conditions, but also educate the greater public of the benefits of Passive Design.

Why Passive House?

Integrating Passive House Design would offer maximum energy efficiency through a rigorous set of standards that result in an airtight and soundproof shell that can reduce energy bills by up to 90% It similarly classifies as a nearly zero-energy building standard that creates an airtight envelope by utilizing solar energy, insulation, triple-glazed windows, and a heat recovery ventilator.

Such elements, in addition to eliminating thermal bridges (areas with higher heat transfers), create a quiet and clean-air atmosphere with few temperature shifts. Passive House in general, is fairly rare, especially in multifamily buildings and in San Francisco. Utilizing this form of design would not only form a path towards popularizing the methodology but also encourage future housing designs to adopt the standard and thus strive towards solving the housing affordability crisis in San Francisco.

9

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goals: Create a sustainable and affordable housing targeting low to mid income groups to facilitate a revival of the Outer

Mission district in San Francisco that has become considered forgotten in terms of services and investment.

- Increase and promote affordable housing options for low to mid income user groups through energy reductions in utility costs - Create a self sustainable community and structure - Healthy dwelling, affordable housing, ample amenities - Educate both user groups and the general public on Passive House Standards as a means of continuing the development of affordable housing in San Francisco

Objectives:

Economical

- Through reduced energy consumption, the building will significantly reduce operational costs

- Selecting a site that is accessible to users and ample in amenities

- Promoting Passive House Principles throughout the design as a means of ensuring the user’s housing costs are

not too high and affordable

Social

- Educate and promote the role the user plays in reducing and maintaining affordable housing costs

- Providing retail opportunities to encourage a vibrant and active community hub

- Create a genuine sense of community through communal spaces

Sustainable

- Optimization of building to meet strict Passive House Standards 10

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES Challenges Facing Multifamily in San Francisco:

Recently multifamily buildings under development have begun rising construction costs, softening rents and increasing fees. Construction costs have increased significantly in the double digits over the last five years. This rise in construction costs have been outpacing rents, leading to units being made as small as possible in order to be developed. These rises in costs have been the result of not just material costs, but labor costs which are catching up after years of difficult construction conditions. This has sparked a discussion as to whether or not shifting from apartment oriented development to condo development would make more economic sense. This change has been further shown by variation in developments as 8,500 units of 10,000 were rent controlled development. With the recent affordability requirement, it has become more difficult for anything to be developed. According to Business Insider, “Rents need to go up in order to meet increased construction costs, the 25% affordability requirement and all of the various additional fees in order for the project to work.� Affordable multifamily development must continue in San Francisco in order to maintain a majority of residents that are being pushed out due to rising living costs.

Solution:

Utilizing passive house principles to create a net zero and self sustaining environment, Passive House design can bring down costs allowing for a more feasible and affordable project that can be completed and issued. For projects that demand dense development, Passive House can alleviate many issues regarding the lack of affordable housing options for low to mid income user groups in San Francisco.

Challenges Facing Passive House In San Francisco:

Some underlying challenges that face Passive House design return back to finding creative ways to minimize penetrations through the exterior walls in order to minimize thermal bridging. Although San Francisco is not the most difficult location to apply Passive House principles, solar heating strategies may struggle to be as effective due to the lack of meaningful sunlight.

Additionally some challenges may arise in determining where the thermal envelope is situated on the project as a whole.

Like most passive house projects, minimizing heat gain into the space can prove to be a challenge. However, Sol-Lux Alpha utilizes elegant cable-suspended, exposed tube steel balcony system to provide outdoor space at each unit in addition to help shade the west facing windows as a means of solving such challenges.

The larger the building becomes, the less attention to detail is implemented to the overall design of the vernacular language of surrounding buildings and the site as passive design principles are prioritized for efficiency and meeting set passive house requirements. The smaller the building, the more attention towards detailing the units can be integrated into the overall design while still implementing passive house strategies.

Solution:

A mid-rise structure would be the appropriate solution in both creating units that provide the user with an affordable and holistic experience within the Outer Mission.

11

12

SITE SELECTION

13

DISTRICT SELECTION WHY THE OUTER MISSION?

The Outer Mission is one of the last few remaining low-rent and middle class districts in all of San Francisco. Creating housing options in an area in desperate need of affordable housing would revitalize the neighborhood and create healthier spaces for the community. By developing affordable housing units that incorporate passive house principles in order to lower maintenance and utility costs, rent would be low enough to meet low to mid income level user groups in the neighborhood.

The district benefits from a large variety of transportation options such as Muni that runs throughout Mission Street, well marked and wide bike lanes, BART stations within walking distance, and its adjacency to one of San Francisco’s two major freeways the I-280. The Outer Mission as it stands, currently suffers from a high eviction rate and is in strong demand for affordable housing options.

Many of the existing housing units within the Outer Mission have constructed in-law apartments that have been rented out to supplement one’s own income or mortgage payment. This has lead to a relatively high percentage of renters in the neighborhood, resulting in an overall higher population density. In addition, this has lead to undesirable side effects such as streets and sidewalks filling with cars seeking parking that the neighborhood was not built for. The desire for both parking and affordable housing has left many of the streets less attractive resulting in homeowners paving over their front yards to make space for more parking spaces along sidewalks. While the Outer Mission has historically been a lively retail strip for food, entertainment, produce markets, dollar stores, cafes, and delis. Many of the once prominent mom-and-pop businesses have closed leading to the Outer Mission having the highest vacancy rate of any shopping district in San Francisco. Developing a mixed use affordable living building would not only alleviate the demand for living, but also support the revival of retail spaces in an otherwise forgotten part of the city. The integration of affordable housing units along with a dedicated retail space would generate not only foot traffic that would benefit existing businesses, but also support working-class families struggling to find appropriate housing conditions based on their income.

14

NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES Transportation:

Bart - Balboa & Glen Park Muni - F / J / KT / K / L / M / N / 6 / 7 / 9 / 9R / 10 / 12 / 14 / 14R / 19 / 22 / 27 / 33 / 36 / 37 / 47 / 48 / 49 / 55 / 67 / 90

Balboa High School Lick Wilmdering High School City College

Educational Facilties:

St.Johns

Grocery:

Casa Luca Safeway

The Outer Mission possess a variety of amenities that range from ample transportation options, parks, educational facilities, health centers, grocery outlets, social services, and community centers. The reasoning behind selecting the Outer Mission District as my site is due largely to the vast amenities it currently does and can offer the community. Because the proposed program would be directed towards individuals of low to mid income, I looked for the availability of a diverse set of amenities near the proposed site.

As mentioned previously, the neighborhood hosts an ample means of transportation that would allow for users to easily navigate throughout the city without the need of a car. Similarly, the site is located near a variety of educational facilities that range from daycares, pre-schools, middle schools, high-schools, and the local community college. The site has an easy access to a variety of services and spaces that can be accessed by a variety of different user groups. This data has not only aided me in determining the selection of my site, but one that would offer future residents ample opportunities and an enjoyable living environment.

15

SITE PROPOSAL

16

PARCEL AREA:

62,500 SQFT

LOCATION:

4840 MISSION STREET

JUSTIFICATION FOR LOCATION:

The site offers the most potential as it possesses an already large lot that could encapsulate the proposed housing project. The lot additionally has ample parking and follows code requirements regarding fire department access. However, while parking would be an additional amenity for residents of the proposed mixed use space, infrastructure surrounding the proposed site already provides an ample means of transportation. Additionally, zoning regulations do not necessarily require parking for new multifamily structures. With this in mind, the established parking lot could be eliminated, allowing for more of the square footage dedicated towards the proposed housing structure.

17

18

RENTAL RATES IN SAN FRANCISCO

When considering the selection of my site, I looked at the average rent rates across different districts within San Francisco. While the Outer Mission consists of a variety of different sub districts, it’s overall average rental costs were roughly in the middle. However, the site itself has been historically known as one of the last enclaves of working class families and remaining non gentrified areas in San Francisco. It similarly is one of the most vacant shopping districts in all of San Francisco and could tremendously benefit from a revitalization.

The logic behind integrating an affordable housing project within the site was to establish a means of providing housing to an already dense community of people without allowing for above 50% AMI user groups to take over and push them out. By creating affordable housing for low to mid income user groups, the community can focus on revitalizing their neighborhood without the risk of being pushed out. And thus begin to alleviate a lot of the pressures of potentially being pushed out by living in a neighborhood with an already abundant variety of amenities.

Many of the single homes that exist rent out their garages and have paved their front yards to make way for more parking, making the physical appearance of these streets an eye sore. If more affordable housing and opportunity was made more available for the current community, the risks of revitalizing the neighborhood could potentially diminish. The neighborhood has potential to be a very thriving and desirable district in San Francisco, but before these changes can be implemented, affordable housing must be secured for these residents as means of allowing the current community to have a sense of ownership over their neighborhood.

19

20

BUILDING PROGRAM

21

DEMOGRAPHICS

My proposed project would be designed to serve the low to mid income user groups in the Outer Mission District. While the selection process would be a lottery system, thus creating a wide variety of different types of individuals, my intent is to still generally allow for a tighter sense of community to form due to having similar income levels. My intent is to utilize not only the pre existing amenities provided by the neighborhood, but to also offer amenities through the proposed building itself through a dedicated community space.

The variety and ample resources offered in the neighborhood would be able to easily serve the intended user group. Thus, the proposed project would not only offer an affordable living situation, but one that is sustainable and readily available in meeting the demands of the intended user group.

22

HOUSING UNITS

Historically the range of family sizes in the Outer Mission range from 1-3.5 individuals per household, thus offering appropriate units sizes through studios, 1 bedroom, and 2 bedroom would be seemingly appropriate for the potential user groups. Ideally I would like to provide 50 - 60 units using these room types to offer the community an appropoiate supply of housing units.

Although sizing of each unit type has yet to be finalized, the approximate ranges for each unit type would be based off appropriate averages for similar units types in San Francisco:

STUDIO

1 BEDROOM *UNITS SHOWN ARE TAKEN FROM THE AVALON OCEAN AVENUE COMPLEX

2 BEDROOM 23

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

As it stands, my proposed building would be labeled as a Type 1B Fire Resistive Non Combustible structure due to my intent of creating a 5-7 stories mid-rise structure. In addition to meeting strict Passive House Standards, my proposed building would need to be airtight and avoid thermal bridging. Thus, an ICF (Insulated Concrete Form), would be the most appropriate and efficient means of constructing my building. However, because my building would also incorporate a commercial space on the street level, dictating where my thermal envelope begins would be another critical factor in the overall construction of the space.

Should the commercial space remain vacant, much of the energy produced by the structure would be wasted and drastically raise energy costs. In order to avoid such issues, my thermal envelope will surround the primary housing units and lobby entrance of the building. Similar issues could arise with balcony spaces along housing units, but thanks to precendant, Sol-Lux Alpha, I would have a means of designing around such an issue through their design detail of minimized penetrations through the envelope along the balcony’s structural connections to the exterior wall.

24

BUILDING ELEMENTS

My intent with the building elements offered by my proposed building is to offer residents not only a roof over their head at an affordable rate, but to create community and aid in the revitalizing of the Outer Mission District in San Francisco.

Because the neighborhood has access to an abundant variety of amenities, my building would similarly offer community oriented amenities and an improved quality of life through sustainable principles set by Passive House Standards.

Lobby:

In order for residents to access their housing units, the building would provide an accessible street entrance though a main lobby space along Mission St. The entrance would offer a convenient means of access to the main building and remain secure and separate from the proposed commercial space.

Housing Units:

Being that the main function of the building is to provide affordable housing to user groups ranging from low to mid income within the Outer Mission. Three types of units would be offered; Studio, 1 Bedroom, and 2 Bedroom units.

Common Rooftop Garden:

Providing the users with a rooftop outdoor space would not only facilitate a sense of growing community, but also contribute to the building’s goal of sustainability. It would provide users an opportunity to socialize, relax, or unwind outside of their respective units.

Community Room:

The community room would be an opportunity for residents to facilitate events, gather, or socialize with one another. It can be a meeting place to discuss and educate residents of their energy use habits or a general zone in which they can use for community sanctioned events.

Bike Storage:

The proposed building would offer residents storage for bikes as a means of addressing the minimization of the preexisting parking lot on the site. The current number of bikes storage spaces would be roughly 30 spaces.

Commercial Space:

The proposed commercial space would serve as a means of encouraging the return of active businesses along the Outer Mission and ideally garner more foot traffic into the neighborhood as a whole. While the specifics of space remain TBD, the general function of this space would be to offer residents an added amenity that is within proximity of their housing units and aid in maintaining lower rental costs through renting the space out to potential businesses.

25

BUILDING CODES Building Codes for San Francisco: Sec 503. Room Dimensions (a) Ceiling Heights. Unless legally constructed as such, no habitable room shall have a ceiling height less than seven feet six inches. Any room, other than a habitable room, shall have a ceiling height of not less than seven feet. (b) Superficial Floor Area. Every dwelling unit and congregate residence shall have at least one room which shall have not less than 120 square feet of superficial floor area. Every room which is used for both cooking and living or both living and sleeping purposes shall have not less than 144 square feet of superficial floor area. Every room used for sleeping purposes shall have not less than 70 square feet of superficial floor area. When more than two persons occupy a room used for sleeping purposes the required superficial floor area shall be increased at the rate of 50 square feet for each occupant in excess of two. Guest rooms with cooking shall contain the combined required superficial areas of a sleeping and a kitchen, but not less than 144 square feet. Other habitable rooms shall be not less than 70 square feet (c) Width. No habitable room except a kitchen shall be less than seven feet in width. Rooms used as guest rooms with cooking shall have a 10-foot minimum width.

Sec 504. Light and Ventilation General. For the purpose of determining the light or ventilation required by this Section, any room may be considered as a portion of an adjoining room when one-half of the area of the common wall is open and unobstructed and provides an opening of not less than one-tenth of the floor area of the interior room or 25 square feet, whichever is greater.

Exterior openings for natural light or ventilation required by this Section shall open directly onto a public way or a yard or court located on the same lot as the building.

EXCEPTIONS: 1. Required windows may open into a roof porch where the porch: a. Abuts a public way, yard or court; and b. Has a ceiling height of not less than seven feet; and c. Has a longer side at least 65 percent open and unobstructed.

2. Skylights. (a) Natural Light and Ventilation – Habitable Room. Guest rooms and habitable rooms within a dwelling unit or congregate residence shall have an aggregate window area of not less than one-twelfth of the floor area or 10 square feet, whichever is greater. In one-family and two-family dwellings not more than one story and basement in height, a skylight is permitted over a required court or side yard if the skylight ventilating area equals the minimum required window area for rooms ventilated by such court and where another source of ventilation to the court exists or is provided, e.g., a tunnel entrance.

In no case shall a skylight be permitted when a sleeping room opens into an enclosed court or side yard.

Openable Window Area. In guest rooms and habitable rooms within a dwelling unit or congregate residence one-half of the required window area in all rooms and hallways shall be openable.

Clerestory windows are permitted, provided they meet the requirements for ventilation as set forth in this Code.

26

BUILDING CODES Sec 601: Construction, Existing Apartment Houses and Hotels Wood frame buildings three stories or more in height, constructed, altered or converted for use as an apartment house or hotel after September 1, 1947 shall be constructed of materials providing the entire building with a fire-resistive rating of one hour, as defined by the Building Code in effect at time of construction.

Wood frame buildings constructed, altered or converted for use as an apartment house or hotel prior to September 1, 1947 need not be constructed of fire-resistive materials except for the public exit corridors, the soffits of stair and landings, and any new construction added since September 1, 1947, except that in buildings not over two stories in height public exit corridors and stairways may be of unrated materials if each apartment or guest room has direct access to a way of departure from within the unit or room without entering a common corridor. An approved automatic sprinkler system may be substituted for required fire-resistive construction for exit corridors of buildings altered or converted prior to July 26, 1958.

Public exit corridor for this purpose is defined as those corridors which serve more than one apartment or guest room and which are not connected with any other exit corridor or stairway.

Interior wood construction of Type III (III-A and III-B) and IV buildings shall conform to the same fire-resistive requirements as for Type V (V-A and V-B) buildings. Type III (III-A and III-B) buildings five or more stories in height shall be of fire-resistive construction if constructed, altered or converted for use as an apartment house or hotel after August 17, 1923.

All wood shall be protected against termite damage and decay as provided in the Building Code.

Sec 801: Exits, Stairs and Occupant Load Each of the following buildings now in existence shall be provided with access for each dwelling unit or guest room to two exits which shall be accessible either directly or through a public hallway and shall be so located that if access to one be denied, the other shall be available (4) In all buildings, in basements, dwelling units, and sleeping units below the fourth story, said sleeping rooms shall have an emergency egress of 5.7 square feet with minimum of 20-inch width and 24-inch height and a finished height sill not more than 44 inches above the floor (5) Sleeping rooms below the fourth story shall have at least one operable window or exterior door approved for emergency escape or rescue . The units shall be operable from the inside to provide a full clear opening without the use of separate tools. Buildings with additional stories shall provide egress per Chapter 10 of the Building Code Sec 802: Stairways and Exit Corridors (a) Exit Corridors. Exit corridors in buildings constructed, altered or converted prior to July 26, 1958, shall have a minimum width of 30 inches (b) Stairways. Stairways in buildings altered or converted for use as an apartment house or hotel prior to July 26, 1958 shall have a minimum width of 30 inches. (c) Stairway Handrails. Every stairway shall have at least one handrail. All stairways more than 44 inches in width shall have handrails for each side, and every stairway required to be more than 88 inches in width shall have intermediate handrails dividing the stairway into portions not more than 66 inches in width.

27

Sec 806. Stairway Enclosures (a) Required. Every existing interior public stairway in an apartment house or hotel three or more stories in height shall be enclosed as set forth in this Section or with smoke barriers or shall be provided with sprinklers as set forth in Section 807 (b) Accessibility. Access to the stairway shall be available at each story level served by the stairway through a doorway.

When opening from an exit corridor, the door shall swing in the direction of exit travel Sec 810. Unobstructed Means of Egress (a) Required. Obstructions, including storage, shall not be placed in the required width of a means of egress, except projections as allowed by the Building Code. Means of egress shall not be obstructed in any manner and shall remain free of any material or matter where its presence would obstruct or render the means of egress hazardous.

Sec 1005.2. Door Encroachment (a) Required. Door, when fully opened, and handrails shall not reduce the required means of egress width by more than 7 inches. Doors in any poistion shall not reduce the required width by more than one half. Other nonstructural projections such as trim and similar decoorative features shall be permitted to project into the required width a maximum of 1.5 inches on each side.

Sec 151.1 Schedule of Permitted Off-Street Parking Spaces in Specified Districts (b) Controls. Off-street accessory parking shall not be required for any use, and the quantities of off-street parking specified in Table 151.1 shall serve as the maximum amount of off-street parking that may be provided as accessory to the uses specified.

Variances from accessory off-street parking limits, as described in this Section 151.1, may not be granted. Where off-street parking is provided that exceeds the quantities specified in Table 151.1 or as explicitly permitted by this Section, such parking shall be classified not as accessory parking but as either a principally permitted or Conditional Use, depending upon the use provisions applicable to the district in which the parking is located. In considering an application for a Conditional Use for any such parking due to the amount being provided, the Planning Commission shall consider the criteria set forth in Sections 303(t) or 303(u) of this Code. (c) Definition. Where a number or ratio of spaces are described in Table 151.1, such number or ratio shall refer to the total number of parked cars accommodated in the project proposal, regardless of the arrangement of parking, and shall include all spaces accessed by mechanical means, valet, or non-independently accessible means. For the purposes of determining the total number of cars parked, the area of an individual parking space, except for those spaces specifically designated for persons with physical disabilities, may not exceed 185 square feet, including spaces in tandem, or in parking lifts, elevators or other means of vertical stacking. Any off-street surface area accessible to motor vehicles with a width of 7.5 feet and a length of 17 feet (127.5 square feet) not otherwise designated on plans as a parking space may be considered and counted as an off-street parking space at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator if the Zoning Administrator, in considering the possibility for tandem and valet arrangements, determines that such area is likely to be used for parking a vehicle on a regular basis and that such area is not necessary for the exclusive purpose of vehicular circulation to the parking or loading facilities otherwise 28 permitted.

Sec. 130. Yard and setback requirements, General. (a) Required. Based on average of adjacent properties or if subject property has a Legislated Setback. When front setback is based on adjacent properties, in no case shall the required setback be greater than 15 feet Sec. 263.20. Special Height Exception: Additional five feet height for active floor uses in certain distrcits. (a) In order to encourage generous ground floor ceiling heights for commercial and other active uses, encourage additional light and air into ground floor spaces, allow for walk-up ground floor residential uses to be raised slightly from sidewalk level for privacy and usability of front stoops, and create better building frontage on the public street, up to an additional 5’ of height is allowed along major streets in NCT districts, or in specific districts listed below, for buildings that feature either higher ground floor ceilings for non-residential uses or ground floor residential units (that have direct walk-up access from the sidewalk) raised up from sidewalk level. (b) The special height exception described in this section shall only apply to projects that meet all of the following criteria: (1) Project is located in a 30-X, 40-X or 50-X Height and Bulk District as designated on the Zoning Map; (2) Project is located in one of the following districts: (A) In an NCT district as designated on the Zoning Map; (B) In the Castro Street, Inner Clement Street, Outer Clement Street, Excelsior Outer Mission Street, Irving Street,

Japantown, Judah Street, Noriega Street, Taraval Street, and 24th Street – Noe Valley NCDs; (C) On a NC-2 designated parcel on Balboa Street between 2nd Avenue and 8th Avenue, and between 32nd

Avenue and 39th Avenue; (D) On a NC-1 designated parcel within the boundaries of Sargent Street to Orizaba Avenue to Lobos Street to

Plymouth Avenue to Farallones Street to San Jose Avenue to Alemany Boulevard to 19th Avenue to Randolph Street

to Monticello Street and back to Sargent Street; (E) On a NC-3 designated parcel fronting on Geary Boulevard from Masonic Avenue to 28th Avenue, except for

parcels on the north side of Geary Boulevard between Palm Avenue and Parker Avenue; or (F) On a parcel zoned NC-1 on Noriega, Irving, Taraval, or Judah Streets west of 19th Avenue.

(3) Project features ground floor commercial space or other active use as defined by Section 145.1

(b)(2) with clear ceiling heights in excess of ten feet from sidewalk grade, or in the case of residential uses, such walk-

up residential units are raised up from sidewalk level; (4) Said ground floor commercial space or active use occupies at least 50% of the project’s ground floor area; and (a) One additional foot of height, up to a total of five feet, shall be permitted above the designated height limit

for each additional foot of ground floor clear ceiling height in excess of 10 feet from sidewalk grade, or in the case of

residential units, for each foot the unit is raised above sidewalk grade.

29

Sec. 401 Parking (a) No parking is required for dwelling units within affordable housing units. (b) Retail Spaces: Non required for retail spaces where occupied floor area is under 5,000 SF Proposed Changes to Current Zoning Classifications: Zoning Districts NCD - Excelsior Outer Mission Street Neighborhood Commercial District RH-1 - Residential- House, One Family Height & Bulk Districts 40-X Zoning Districts NCD - Excelsior Outer Mission Street Neighborhood Commercial District *RC-4 - Residential-Commercial Districts, High Density Height & Bulk Districts *65-A *** These changes would be implemented in order to accomodate an affordable housing project that would benefit the Outer mission District. “4840 Mission Street (6959/025, 026, 019); would be demolished to make way for a new, unique, mixed use development that will extend from Mission Street, the Excelsior’s commercial “Main Street”, through to Alemany Boulevard, a major residential boulevard. This +1.5 acre project site is currently occupied by the Valenti Marini Perata Funeral Home. This large site provides a unique opportunity to establish a mixed-use, affordable housing development that includes, quality public spaces, commercial spaces.”

30

Califonia Housing Code

Space and Occupancy Standards (a) Natural Light and Ventilation: Habitable rooms within a dwelling unit shall have an aggergate window area of no less than 1/12 the floor area or 10 SF (b) Operable Window Area: 1/2 the required window area in all rooms and hallways within a dwelling unit shall be operable (c) Mechanical Ventilation (dwelling units): Mechincal Ventialtion may replace openable windows in dwelling units. 2 ACH in all rooms exceppt 5 ACH required in bathrooms, laundry rooms, etc. (d) Mechanical Ventialtion (exit corridor): Must provide 2 ACH (e) Enclosed stairways: Each enclosed stairway must be ventilated by a skylight with 8 SF of glazing and not less than 400 SI of ventilation

31

32

CASE STUDIES

33

CASE STUDY 1: CAPTIAL FLATS

The Capital Flats is considered one of the most successful instances of Passive House Design incorporated into Affordable Multifamily Housing. This project balances both meeting passive house criteria and providing affordable units in a gentrified environment. Like San Francisco, the Nothern Liberties District has faced severe gentrification over the years. This project not only demonstrates how to incorporate Passive House Principles into Multifamily Design, but how to maintain low rental rates by being self sustaining.

The Battery is heavily influenced by its desire to zero out its carbon footprint, but more importantly provide attainable and well designed housing with rents below gentrified market values. The Battery does not sacrifice the experience of the units themselves through the use of translucent materials and panes that define the space and allow it to feel larger than its “microunit� labeled typology. In addition, the building takes into consideration the vernacular language of the city’s row house style housing allowing for modular manufacturing.

While it only provides 25 micro-units, the structure is able to effectively incorporate passive house strategies without altering the experience of the units. The flexibility in meeting rent costs below gentrified market values is met by incorporating all utilities within the overall monthly rent. Similarly, it emphasizes its mission in minimizing its global warming impact by providing its residents with energy monitoring systems that educates them regarding their own consumption and directly impacts the overall yearly rent of individual units should they exceed established standards. The roof terrace additionally provides views throughout the Northern Liberties District despite being set within a dense site.

34

CASE STUDY 2: BEACH GREEN DUNES

The Beach Green Dunes addresses how to incorporate passive house principles on a large scale. While my terminal studio project would be significantly smaller both in levels and square footage, the case study nonetheless provides an understanding of how to tie together both affordable living and passive house design principles in a cohesive manner. Being situated in the open site of Rockaway Beach and away from dense surroundings, the building is able to easily expand out as needed to meet Passive House standards despite its expansive size. The building is able to scale up to seven floors due its separation and location along the beach. Design wise it takes into consideration not only the views towards the beach, but the environmental hazards that can potentially affect the maintenance of the building itself. Structure’s intent is to provide affordable housing to those of mixed income, it heavily emphasizes the utilization of passive principles to lower the overall housing cost to provide 101 units across seven floors.

Although it is one of largest multifamily housing structures in the United States, the building feels separated from vernacular established by other buildings within the neighborhood. Due to being pushed along the end of zoning codes along the beach, the Beach Green Dunes lacks integration of site outside of designing towards environmental hazards and sustainability rather than fitting into the site.

The building incorporates passive strategies such as insulated concrete forms, energy recovery ventilation, large rooftop solar-photovoltaic systems to create on-site renewable electricity, variable refrigerant flow central air source heat pumps to provide both heating and cooling, and a natural gas fired cogeneration system to produce electricity, all of the building’s hot water needs as a means to serve as a backup emergency generator to supply power to systems throughout the building in the event of a power grid outage. These strategies contribute to the building’s overall ability to be self sustaining which in turn allows for lower overall operating costs and affordable mixed income housing ranging from $653 studios to $1,587 three bedroom apartments per month.

35

CASE STUDY 3: SOL-LUX ALPHA

The Sol - Lux Alpha Building is one of the first examples of Passive House Design in San Francisco. The significance of utilizing this project in designing my own project would be in understanding the construction methods taken into consideration and the attention to meeting specific climate requirements set by Passive House Standards base on the specific region of San Francisco.

Due to the variety of different climate conditions throughout the world, Passive House requirements and standards change in accordance to specifc zones. The Sol-Lux Alpha would provide a clear and informative standard for how I could specifically construct and meet such standards set by PHIUS for the zone that my site falls into. Additionally, this case study uses a “nanogrid� structure that is unmatched globally and would serve as another potential design choice that I could incoporate into my own termainl studio project. This case study would serve as a means of understanding more ways of creating a self sustaining multifamily structure, but also how to design specifically for my site in San Francisco.

36

37

FAIR HOUSING ACT ADA: Doors

Toilet Rooms:

Elevators:

38

FAIR HOUSING ACT Requirement 1 - Accessible Building Entrance on an Accessible Route

1) Building with Elevators

In multistory units the story that is served by the elevator must:

a) Be the primary entry to the unit

b) Comply with Requirements 3 through 7 of the Guidelines for all rooms located on the entry floor level,

c) Contain a usable bathroom or powder room.

2) Buildings with Ground Floors Over Shops / Garages

All units on where the first floor containing dwelling units in a building is above grade must be served by a

building entrance on an accessible route Requirement 2 - Accessible and Usable Public and Common Use Areas

1) The public or common use areas of the building can be approached, entered, and used by individuals with

physical handicaps.

- 60” diameter wheelchair turning space

- 36” wide accessible routes Requirement 3 - Usable Doors

1) Must provide 32” minimum clear width

2) Usable doors include all secondary exterior doors at dwelling units that open onto private decks, balconies, and

patios must have an accessible route within the unit

3) Not required to meet the ANSI 4.13 Doors Requirement for maneuvering clearances Requirement 4 - Usable Bathrooms

1) Must provide 30” x 48” clear floor space outside the swing of the door as when it is closed

2) Must provide 30” x 48” clear space at lavatory which must be parallel to fixture if knee space is not provided. The

Basin centerline must be at least 15” from the adjoining wall or fixture.

Requirement 5 - Usable Bathrooms

1) Clear space must adjoin to accessible route that must pass into and through the kitchen.

2) U- shaped kitchens must have 60” diameter turning circle when sink or cooktop is located at the base. The

Refrigerator may not encroach onto this space.

3) 30” x 48” clear floor space is required at each kitchen appliance or fixture.

4) Clear space must be centered on centerline of fixture or appliance.

Requirement 6 - Parking

1) New housing projects in San Francisco no longer requires developers to build designated parking spaces.

39

UNIT PLAN COMPLIANCE 30” x 48” clearance at kitchens and bathrooms

2- Bedroom Plan

1- Bedroom Plan

Studio Unit Plan

*Units plans show compliance with the Fair Housing Act for kitchens and bathrooms in each unit type.

3’ - 0” Circulation Paths 40

BUILDING PLAN ACCESSIBILITY

Accessible Routes

41

R - VALUE RANGES

- Building is located in Zone 3 (Marine) - R-Values are designated by PHIUS R-Value Guidelines along the thermal envelope to approach Passive House Standards

42

HVAC DESIGN

HSART

HSART

- 4 HRV Zones - Cook ERVs serve each zone - Continuous 50 cfm supply air per bedroom

.TNIAM

YRDNUAL

YRDNUAL

.TNIAM

- Continous exhaust at kitchen and bath

43

TRASH ALEMANY BLVD.

UP

TRASH ROOM

UP

TRASH ROOM

UP

- Trash is continuous throughout the entire building and meets on the ground floor - Trash is picked up along Alemany Blvd. as opposed to Mission St.

44

PLUMBING / DUCT RUNS

TRASH

TRASH

MAINT.

LAUNDRY

LAUNDRY

MAINT.

- Balanced / Centralized Ventilation, 4 Ventacity 2000 cfm ERVs

45

FACADE EXPLORATION

46

FACADE EXPLORATION

47

PASSIVE HOUSE INTEGRATION

48

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

49

50

FINAL DESIGN

51

STATISTICS:

52

Location: Type: Units: Program: Site: Density:

San Francisco, CA; Outer Mission District Affordable Multifamily Housing with Retail Studio, Single, Double Bedroom Apts.

Residential – 199 Units 1.43 Acres 139 units / acre

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

N

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

61

62

N

LEVEL 2 / COURTYARD PLAN

63

64

N

LEVELS (3-4) / TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL

65

66

N

LEVEL 5 / ROOF DECK PLANS

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

SPECIAL THANKS FRANCISCO M. MARTINEZ (DAD) / HILDA E. MARTINEZ (MOM) / ALEX M. MARTINEZ (LIL BRO) / “BUEVAS” (GRANDMA) / “TIO CA” (UNCLE) / CARLOS JOSA (COUSIN) / CHARLI / CANELA / PACO GORANKA POLAJAK-HOY / MICHAEL FIFIELD / ALISON KWOK / JIM GIVENS / JUDITH SHEINE / PETER KEYES / KEVIN NUTE / SIOBHAN ROCKCASTLE / OSCAR KING / SUZANNE SHIMEK ZACHARY SHERROD / DAVID MORENO / JOSH ROSENTHAL / WESTIN HILL / STEVEN LIANG / VIRGINIA BAILEY / ROWAN ATHERLEY / ZACH BRADBY / JASMINE MARTINEZ / McKENZIE KINNEY MIKE KWILOS / KEVIN SO / MORGAN SMITH / JOEL LAURENT MBALA-NKANGA / VALERIA MASCIOTTI / DAVIS SABATINO / LAUREN SONOMURA / NICK MCGUIRE / PAYTON NARANCIC ALBERT LADE / TIM WALSH / AMY HICKEY / OLIVER / ELI METCALF / DANIEL MATALLANA / CLAY TILTON / KYLE TAN / POGI ELBUHEL / NICOLAS KUGEL / AVERY ROCK / ALEX SHEEHAN CONNOR JORDAN / MICHAEL KREHER / VINNY LOPES / WILL PAGE / STEVIE PAGE / CAMERON ROSEN / CONNOR ROSEN / ZAC OJI / MADDY NAKADA / YOSHI NAKADA / BRIAN EBISUZAKI DANIEL SITU / OSCAR H. / ANDREW NGUYEN / OSCAR TA / KANEEM THORNTON / AINSLEY DANKORT / JEFFREY GARDINER / ALEX WU / SEAN SHARP / KARL OWENS / ANNE TORNEY / JOHN ELLIS TO ALL THOSE WHO’VE TOUCHED MY LIFE IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER THANK YOU

79