CI 2009 SSc3.3: Alternative Transportation—Parking Availability

I can only answer your first question. The discount should be in effect indefinately. The discount must be a minium of 20%.

Ashley, if you clearly offer the program, and no one takes you up on it, there's nothing you can do about that. However, I don't think it would be sufficient to conditionally offer the program, i.e. "hey, is anyone interested in this... if so we'll offer a program." Rather you would have to say that the program is available.

Maria,
1st Q: It is seems confusing at first, but don't think it is a mistake…
For NC # of parking spaces and size of parking facility is in the building’s control and designed with FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. +visitors/transients in mind. For CI the project might not have control over all parking spaces, or even how many they are designated.
I would guess this change helps requirements across CI projects be more accurate by relating spaces directly to ‘people count’ (so that the Parking availability decisions are based on # of FTE, not how many parking spots the Building may decide to give the CI space).
In my head at least this somewhat justifies the change in Option-1 Case 1 & 2: 5% tenant occupants vs 5% building occupants….
2nd: If you take LEED’s literal definition of carpool in the manual as “an arrangement by which 2 or more people share a vehicle for transportation” your carpooling company may fit the bill? There was a discussion on opting for a US car-share system (ZipCar) in lieu of standard carpools here (http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/SSc4.4#comment-13748) for NC that may be useful. Seems like it may be worth the try/exploring more… others have ideas?

Regarding question 1:

Does anyone know an exception to the 5% of the FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. for preferred carpooling parking (LEED CI) when the project is in an urban environment and the preferred spaces number comes to more than the available parking spaces allocated to the LEED CI project? The LEED CS project is meeting SSc4.4 by not exceeding minimum zoning requirements.

Should we submit a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide?

Sheela, when you enter your percentag eon the LEED Online form, a set of checkboxes, etc., will open up that should be fairly self-explanatory.

And another clarification request, regarding the word "provided", does this refer to a) parking spots 'provided' to the tenant for their use for no charge in addition to the lease agreement, or b) the literal meaning, that no parking spots are 'provided' / available to our client in any manner, whether for additional charge or not (or in other words, the building does not even have a parking lot)?

In our client's case, there is a parking lot located within the building but it is available to them at the same charge per hour as it is to anyone. Anyone, such as a tenant, guests/customers of tenants, or local area users can park for $x/hour. And the lease agreement signed by our client does not include any free parking passes, designated parking spots, or discounted/subsidized parking.

Would this be sufficient to earn the credits under Case 1 Option 2?

I have the same question. The project is about 28% of the total building sf. There will be no new parking provided and no existing parking allotted to the new space. However, the landlord is the tenant's spouse, and no lease exists. However, on leedonline I can note that there will be no parking provided for the tenant AND that no lease exists, but that does not satisfy the credit. I can get a document signed by both parties saying that there is no parking being provided for the new space but will that be sufficient? Should I then document it under alternative compliance?

Raymond, that is for the tenant, not for all tenants.

Jessica, I think a letter would suffice.

I have this same question. We are renovating roughly 20% of a current warehouse into office space. There is an existing parking lot for the building, but no new parking will be provided. Does this qualify as Case 1 option 2?

I believe both of you would attempt the credit using Case 1 Option 2. If there is existing parking but nothing is being added because of your project, then it would be considered no new parking. As long as there are no subsidies for the tenants, you should be fine.

Susan, I think you should include this approach as part of a comprehensive plan for EP. I don't think that pursuing it as an innovative approach would work.

I don't think a car with a dedicated driver would count as a carpool if there is just the one manager as the passenger. The intent of the credit is to reduce the number of cars used to transport workers to and from the office, but in your situation it doesn't sound like that will necessarily happen. A carpool allows multiple employees to share a car instead of having one car per office worker, so if a company vehicle and it's driver regularly bring more than one manager to work or back home it might count as a carpool, but if each car is assigned to a single manager it doesn't sound like that would qualify as a carpool.

Are there any other similar cities that do have parking zoning regulations you could reference? If you can show several similar cities and establish what is "typical" for this kind of project, you might be able to convince the reviewers.

It doesn't sound likely to be accepted, since there is actually parking provided. Also, the shuttles appear to be just replacing the final leg of each person's commute to the building, so it doesn't appear to reduce the total number of cars that the users will drive in order to get to the facility.

We ended up submitting the credit claiming special circumstances rather than the alternate compliance path and we were awarded the credit.

Paola, I think your question is being lost in translation. Can you please try again to explain it? Please note which case you fall under for this credit.

Is there someone in the municipal planning office who could help you? In my experience the relevant information is found in the zoning regs for whatever zone you are in. Something like what you said might be roughly what one might find.

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but I think the answer is to be found in the zoning, and the planning office would be the go-to resource for understanding that.

Hi Patricia,
I agree w. Tristan - contact your local Planning and Development Dept. Some jurisdictions will determine zoning based on a ratio of one required parking space per x number of gross square feet (1:200, or 1:300, etc.) depending on the building type.

THANK YOU Tristan and Edgar. I'm going to do that. Thanks again!

Eric,

I'm honestly not sure what the reviewers are asking here. Can you provide more information. I assume you are following Option A? One thought - is the owner and the tenant the same for your project? If so, then the ratio would equal 100% and push you into Option B. Provide me some more info and maybe I can help you more.

Michael,

I think you may fall under the special circumstances choice on the letter template. My thoughts are that you are not adding new parking since these parking spaces existed prior to renovation and to the fact that the number of parking spaces is being reduced. I would think that in your narrative you explain your project and that even though your space is 75% less than the total building area, your project complies with Option 2 of Case 2. I would also reference a CIR ruling for NC SSc4.4 dated 5/23/08. The Ruling states, " In regard to the second question, the reduction in parking numbers as a result of the development of this project can be considered an equivalent approach to Option #4 – No New Parking. The submittal documentation should clearly identify the pre-development and post-development parking scenarios and numbers, demonstrating no net increase in parking as a result of this new project." In your case, it would be equivalent to Option 2 of Case 2. Either way, I think you can clearly argue you are meeting the credit intent. Good luck.

I think the "guaranteed" language creates an ambiguity here that might be opposite of the credit intent.

Assume this is a stand-alone office building with it's own parking lot on private property: the number of spaces provided is likely to be addressed by zoning. If the building provides parking, but doesn't guarantee it for any of the tenants, the parking is still "provided" and should be limited in keeping with the credit requirements.

Say a site is zoned for minimum of 100 spaces for a building of this size, but 125 spaces are provided. If the tenant occupies 76% (Case 2) of the building, I would think this credit would not be earned because the parking "capacity" exceeds minimum zoning, whether the spaces are guaranteed or not.

If the tenant occupies 74% of the building (Case 1), it seems the same rules should apply. That's my interpretation, though I'm curious to see how others would view this.

Kathy, sorry for the late reply but regarding your second paragraph, I would assume that your facts (of occupying less than 75% of the building space) would automatically slot you into Case 1 and Case 2 options would not be applicable in your case even if you may qualify under their stipulations. Does anyone disagree or has actually applied differently from my assumption?

Sorry, but I am having trouble with the LEED Online CI SSc3.3 form right now. It won't allow me to enter a percentage in the first input, to see how the rest of the form looks.

I would suggest you upload this documentation as an alternative compliance path, and/or check with your reviewer or GBCI.

I'm just looking into this for a project in a LEED-NC v2.2 base building that earned SSc4.3 and SSc4.4. There still appears to be no check-box on the LOv3 form for this credit, and the reference guide does not clearly state this opportunity. Can we confirm this with USGBC/GBCI somehow?

I would contact your reviewer, or GBCI using the feedback form on the site.

Please post back here with what you learn!

Hello All,
Any reply or feedback from the GBCI regarding this?
One of our CI projects is located in LEED CS certified building and we would like to comply SSc3.3 through this path as well.
"Projects located within a LEED-certified building that achieved this credit in another rating system (for example LEED-NC SSc4.4) automatically earn the credit based on existing parking spaces." The base building is LEED CS platinum and has earn SSc4.4 as well. Any advice is very much appreciated. Many thanks in advance.

Looks like the LEED Online form still does not recognize this path. I would use the Alternative Compliance Path.

Thanks Tristan. We will sumbit throught compliance path.

Alex, LEED-CI SSc3.3 does not look at who is using the parking — it only looks at how much parking the project has, relative to the minimum required by zoning.

In other words, it doesn't give you an "out" if you want to focus on limiting parking for staff while providing lots of parking for customers.

Does that answer your question? Are you seeing something about signage somewhere?

The retail rating system requirements for SSc3D only focuses on having 5% of employee parking designated as preferred carpool parking (as it may not be likely / make sense to have customers carpool). As for appropriate signage to help communicate meeting these requirements, the project can designate an area specifically for employee parking, and within this area have the preferred carpool signage for 5% of these spaces. All other parking can include signage designated for customers only.

thanks Tristan - i think that answers it. I didn't see anything about signage, no...i think i may have been just projecting hope
Devon - i'm a bit confused by the wording you used "The retail rating system requirements" . I don't see anything in CI that singles retail out as anything different.
The way i read it, we need to have both limited overall parking (no more than code) as well as the carpool priority. Our space is less that 75%, BTW.
I'd prefer to be wrong...?

Alex, I didn't mean to confuse things - there is a LEED rating system particular to retail that is currently in the balloting phase (LEED for Retail-NC and LEED for Retail-CI). If your project is registered under LEED CI then you would need to comply with the CI requirements.
Does that clarify things?

thanks Devon - all clear now.
cheers

If there is no parking designated for the radiology suite, it seems like the conservative approach here (and LEED usually smiles on conservative approaches) would be to follow Case 2 and approach this credit as if you were the whole hospital. But if that approach seems problematic to you, I would check with GBCI. If you do that, please report back what you learn.

It seems that the appropriate approach to the credit would be to follow Case 1, Option 1. Although the parking area is shared, the project team should still be able to quantify the number of tenant occupants, then designate the appropriate number of preferred parkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system. spaces in the parking area based on that number. While this may be difficult because there are no spaces designated to individual programming spaces in the hospital, consider working with the building management to designate the appropriate number of spaces for your project. At some level the parking is designed to meet the needs of the hospital's occupants, so the team should be able to drill this down and determine a number of spaces for the clinic. If this isn't feasible and there is no way to designate spaces for the clinic, this credit may not apply to your project. However, as the previous comment suggests, follow-up with the GBCI to confirm your approach.

This credit is quite a challenge for hospitals in general, because there are often requirements or recommendations unrelated to local codes which cause a hospital to install more parking than they might if they took the code literally. Regardless of the option selected, if your sense is that a significant amount of the campus population uses transit, then you should follow through with this credit; otherwise it's less likely that the hospital will have a parking capacity at or below code minimum.

You may want to ask your client if they have done a formal parking study in recent years unrelated to your project -- this will tell you the source and justification of parking numbers. In my region, one common practice is to use local code to determine parking requirements for MOBs, but ITE values for inpatient square footage.

To follow-up, It may also be possible for the radiology suite project to use an FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. approach to determine the number of preferred parkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system. spaces. As noted in the CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide below, the USGBC has recommended this approach for past campus projects with shared parking facilities. Although old CIRs cannot be referenced for v2009 compliance, they are good to look to for general guidance. It may be worth contacting your project’s Certification Body (CB) to ensure this approach meets the requirements.

5/25/2008 - Ruling
The project is seeking clarification on how to determine the number of parking spaces allocated as preferred parking for low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehiclesFuel-efficient vehicles have achieved a minimum green score of 40 according to the annual vehicle-rating guide of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy., for a building with shared parking on a multi-building campus. The proposed calculation methodology of using Full Time Equivalent (FTE) numbers and providing 5% of the FTE number with preferred parking is acceptable for this credit. As this is a campus project, preferred parking can be provided in the existing multi-level parking structure, even though it is not a part of the LEED Project Boundary. The skywalk and pavilion, which are additions to an existing building, can also be excluded from the LEED Project Boundary.