1) yes- it's listed right in the rating system
2) No - restaurants are the only basic service you're allowed to list more than once; you can have up to two restaurants

Thank you Kathryn!

The November 2011 addenda that is referenced in the above FAQs defines prevously developed sites as those that are altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated. Previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development." land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprintThe development footprint is the total area of the building footprint and area affected by development or by project site activity. Hardscape, access roads, parking lots, nonbuilding facilities, and the building itself are all included in the development footprint. and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agrigultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development.

You raise a good point, the original definition of previously developed specifically included sites that were graded but the above definition seems to reverse this when it says land that is altered by current or historical clearing or filling is considered undeveloped land.

Has anyone else dealt with or been affected by this new definition?

Thanks Ellen,

Just to add to the previous comment, I wonder what happens in the context of urban planning for which a state has authority. In our case, in Singapore, all the plots are part of a Master plan, controlled by state authorities. The site is graded by them, and the plot ratio and usage for the site (Industrial in this case) are pre-determined. Does it mean that basically none of the projects in this situation can be considered as 'previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development."', or all of them?
Thanks.

In my opinion, I would interpret this with some reference to time. If the grading, etc., occurred years in the past, in anticipation of development, it seems to meet the new definition of previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development.". If done recently with the relevant project being considered, it feels like the definition does not apply.

Tristan, can you please explain further why you think that the "reference to time" matters to site classification?
My interpretation to previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development." definition is that a site that had a permit issuance to some alterations that were actually done («altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting») can be considered as previously development regardless of the «alterations may exist now or in the past». It is the date of the permit issuance that should be used («The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development») but it's the actual alterations that qualify the site for this classification («but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development»).
Am I interpreting this right?

Pedro, since this is a hypothetical example, it would help to have some specifics to understand better. It's easy to get tied up in confusing knots with hypotheticals.

My reference to time is inexact, I admit. But I'm trying to use it as a proxy for LEED project scope, even if work on the site is done by a different entity. I would contend that is a site that is graded and then developed is not previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development.", no matter who does the grading. But if it was graded years ago, that simply seems different.

Tristan, I'm aware of the issues that can be raised by hypothetical assumptions, however, I believe my previous comment didn't have any "hypotheticals". I just tried to present my interpretation of the definition applied to this case in particular and was hoping that from here on, others could contribute with their view and actual experience. This is mainly because I don't feel very confident regarding the interpretation of previous developed definition when it comes to sites that don't have construction but had infrastructural alterations prior to acquisition. In that cases I don't understand why time of alteration matters...

Pedro, sorry that I haven't been able to clarify matters. Perhaps another person on the forum can help, or you could communicate with GBCI about it.

There is a thread about this in the CS forum for SSc2 (dated 12/11/12), although there was not a clear consensus. I would say that it depends on what the basement is used for and if it is included in your overall square footage calculations that you based your GBCI review fees on.

The 2 basements consists of car parking alongwith the Operation and maintence section for the health care building above ground (3 levels). We didnt register the project till now. Need your suggesstion on this. Thanks

Ellen, the above info i put is not very clear. There are 3 floors above the ground level housing the medical facilities. While in below ground 2 basement levels are there. Basement-1 has partially car parking area along with administration/ operation and maintenance rooms. The basement-2 is fully housed with car parking.
The project is going to be registered under LEED for Health care in coming week.
Thanks

I would think a reasonable approach is to exclude any square footage that is parking since you would exclude that portion of the building when registering with GBCI (price is based on square footage but excludes parking structures).

Hi Bob, we have a couple FAQs above that I think provide the guidance you're looking for. I'd suggest reviewing those.

On our project, we have the latest v4 formand it asks for the:
"Development density of the surrounding residential zone or neighborhood."
It sounds very much like they are asking for the entire residential area within the 1/2 mile radius of the site to be 10 units per acre or more. In fact, we probably have that, but it is going to be really difficult to document: this is a dense historic neighborhood with a mix of 1, 2 and 3 family bungalows on each 5000 SF lot. And there are several hundred lots. The only way I know of to document the density is to look up each lot on the county assessor's web site and there are well over a hundred lots. Aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!
Can I do a representative sample and extrapolate? How big do you think it would need to be?

For the development density option, you will need to document the density of all of the properties within the density radius to make sure that the average is greater than 60k sf. However, your radius is not necessarily a half mile. The example section in the reference manual will give you the formula for determining the radius and will walk you through the calculations. Just a note for clarification though, the community connectivity option for this credit only asks to you identify a single residential area with a density of 10 units/acre net and does not expect you to document the densities of all the buildings in your half mile radius.Obviously that is the easier option if you can come up with the 10 basic services.

Thanks, I didn't state it clearly but we are going for the connectivity option, and the wording of the v4 template is to provide "Development density of the surrounding residential zone or neighborhood" in units per acre, right above the field for listing services. This would constitute a major change in the requirements for the credit, but if that's not what they meant, why word it that way?

I will not even try to reason why it is worded that way and agree that it is confusing. I have submitted this form with only inputing in the denisty of a single apartment building or complex (as well as identifying it on my map) and had it pass successfully so I don't think it is meant to be a change in the requirements.

I read 'development density' and think 'zoning'. Luckily, some counties align the residential zoning with the units per acre allowed - for example R-10 means residential, 10 units per acre. Others are more obtuse, as is their way.

Now if you aren't zoned to the required level, you may need to prove actual density to the reviewers.

Careful - 'Zoning' does not equal 'Existing Density' in LEED's eyes. Typically, it seems like projects will be kicked back as pending when they try to provide just the local zoning regulations as that isn't really proof that the existing area actually meets LEED's minimum level of 10 units/acre (perhaps the zoning was just increased/changed, perhaps other types of development have gone in that have actually decreased that existing density level to below the zoned amount, etc). You need to make sure that you demonstrate that the existing actual density is at least 10 units/acre. Ellen's method of demonstrating the existing density of at least one apartment building/complex is probably the most common for urban projects.

I have not encountered this situation but my instinct would be to count the bus lanes and bays as excluded right-of-ways. My advice is to submit it and see what happens. Has anyone else had experience with this kind of situation?

One question - are you trying to submit the three buildings as a single LEED project? Even though GBCI released the Multiple Building Campus Guide in 2011 and stated that LEED online would support a multiple building application beginning the first quarter of 2012, that capability is still not available. Until it is, I believe that you will need to register all three of these projects separately even though you can set up a master project which allows you to have the documentation of some site credits applied to all three buildings. In this case the half mile radius will be different for each project site.

Within the Reference Guide, under Implementation - Option 2, there is a description of how to handle multiple buildings. You draw the circle from each building's entrances and the sum of all those circles is your usable area for the mutliple building project.

Good question....the half mile walking distance does pertain to SS4.1 for Public Transportation (or a quarter mile for buses) but for this credit, if it is in your half mile radius, it counts regardless of the walking distance.

Your gas station will qualify as a convenience grocery but the others are a bit of a stretch. You might be able to argue that the aquatic park qualifies as a park but I would have a back up service just in case.

It seems an often quoted distance that likely has the same root source. Tax information is interesting. From the DC WMATA website:

"Increases Property Value Around Transit: An analysis of parcel-level property tax assessments for all properties within a half-mile of Metrorail stations shows:

$235 billion of property value is within a half-mile of Metrorail stations.
This land generates $3.1 billion annually in property tax revenues.
This land represents 28% of the jurisdictions’ property tax base, but only 4% of their land.
Proximity to Metrorail increases property values by 7-9%."

Hi Gaston,
Your project can claim to be previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development." as long as there has been some sort of site alteration - earth work and infastructure included.

In regards to the NC certification within an ND framework, I'm not sure how to advise. The approach you are describing is similar to what block projects can do, but I don't know if it is allowed for ND as well. This question may be better posted on the ND forum where people may have more experience with that rating system.

Dear Ellen,

I thought that there were water & electricity pipings running across the site, but I have realized they are not.
So, our site has never had buildings before. Nevertheless, since it is located on a LEED ND, it is surrounded by 4 streets (one of them already existed and the other 3 where built by the ND owner).

Do you think we still can claim the site to be previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development."? Should we provide photographs for the submittal?

Thanks!

Gaston, what about earthwork and grading? Has that taken place on the site? Also, how large is it?

Normally, I think you'd only be able to count 1 of the services in the new shopping center, since this credit is intended to reward projects that are being built around existing dense development and services.

There is an option in the reference guide that allows 2 future, anticipated services to be counted if 8 are are ready open.

If you are in an area that already has a high density of development, but not the 10 services, you could try submitting as an "alternate compliance path," but you wouldn't want to assume you'd earn the credit. You could also 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 if you need to get a more definite answer.

Cat,
A typical 2 story downtown development has an approximate density of 60,000 sf/acre. It is only used as a way to provide an example of scale as to the minimum density a project would need to meet the credit requirements. The minimum density requirement of 60,000 sf/acre does not change based on project conditions.

Maura, as you can see from past discussions on this forum, and the FAQs above, LEED is fairly strict about the letter of requirements here. You are probably stuck with the review standing as is. I definitely sympathize with your pont, in defense of the review requirement I would say that these facilities are similar enough that it could be argued there is not enough diversity in the 10 services you are listing, and that is one of the purposes of the list of 10.

Rosamaria, I am not aware of an alternative compliance path for this situation. I think in a campus Option 2 might be more suitable, anyway (although I'm guessing you don't have that option here).

Hi Lawrence,

I'd say yes based on this guidance under the Implementation section in the Reference Guide: "Consider renovating an existing building in an area where community revitalization is already underway and the required development density will be met by the time the project is completed."

The calculation must include all properties that are within or intersected by the radius. If the radius does not cross the hotel property you would not have to include it.

So it is the *property*, not the building, that counts? For example, if the circle intersects the edge of a property boundary, but misses the building, it still gets included in development density?

Yes, that's the terminology in the reference guide.

Thanks! Getting these details right will be important, I am just over the edge of getting 120,000 SF per acre and qualifying for an extra credit point, don't want to lose out on the details!

John, if there is no safe way for pedestrians to access these services, then the credit is not achievable. Safe is the key word here. A suburban site without sidewalks, crosswalks, etc. does not seem to meet the intent of the credit, even if there are sufficient services within the 1/2 mile radius.

What about non-contiguous sidewalks? ie If a sidewalk becomes part of a parking lot then back to sidewalk (or some variation) The reference guide clearly states "pedestrians must be able to walk to the services without being blocked by walls, highways, or other barriers." It seems that a parking lot would not qualify as a 'barrier' since it is common for people to walk thru parking lots.

Also, how is the sidewalk requirement documented in the form? It seems that this documentation requirement should be added in 2012. (if not planned already)

Thanks

Tony, it is common for a sidewalk to cross a parking lot outlet and for pedestrians to be able to cross that safely—particularly if there is a crosswalk painted. I would look for curb cuts, crosswalks, signage, and other indicators that a parking lot really is walkable, and that this isn't just wishful thinking.

As for how this is documented, not all credit requirements are documented in the LEED Online forms. That's true for many credits. I understand that in LEED 2012 USGBC is working to have more consistency with that kind of thing.

Alberto, sorry for the slow response here to your question—have you made any progress on this, or decided on a path (pun intended)?

If I were you, I would appeal this with reference to the language and the fact that an explicit requirement for ADA-compliant sidewalks is not stated. You could submit photographic evidence that the pathways in question are commonly used by all kinds of folks.

In the end, though, you might not earn the credit—hopefully it's not crucial for the project.

Shannon., I've had the exact same comment come up on college projects and on military installations. To me, the review comments are unreasonable, because it seems as if the definition of "gen public" should be within the context of the facility. However, I wasn't able to get these items resolved to my satisfaction when I was working on those projects.

Shannon and Edgar,

The key sentence in the credit requirments is "For mixed-use projects, no more than 1 service within the project boundary may be counted as 1 of the 10 basic services, provided it is open to the public." This indicates, albeit not very explicitly, that all services must be open to the public to qualify. 

I appreciate you guys posting these experiences here. I'm documenting university campus projects as well, and have been trying to steer clear of univ. buildings to satisfy the requirements. The point about the military base is very well put and I'd like to see a clarification come out in an addendum. University campuses are less clear, but in both cases campus facitlities are open to students, employees, staff and spouses. They provide a basic service thousands or tens of thousands in their surrounding community need, which includes access for the users of your project. If the service was there but excluded the users of your project or the majority of the surrounding community I would support the reviewer.
In the case of the health center, check and see if memberships are available to the general public or if it is only for employees & students. Perhaps they offer kids or community classes.

I really doubt it but double check the zoning.

I interpreted this credit the same way as you did. Average density is 6 units. acre around our project site, but it is within 1/2 mile. We believe to qualify for this credit. What was the actual comment from USGBC?

This is what our LEED reviewing team said:

The LEED Credit Form has been provided stating that the project site is located within one half mile of a minimum of ten community services and an existing residential district with a minimum density of ten units per acre. Additionally, a listing of the neighborhood services has been provided on the form. The site vicinity map has been provided showing the one half mile radius, the locations of the community services, and the existing residential districts.

However, the residential districts appear to be comprised primarily of single-family housing, and their actual densities have not been indicated to demonstrate that these areas have a density of at least ten units per acre.

If you look at the credit form and the reference guide, "and" is not stated. It says "or"...

In my opinion, changes the requirement that is to be submitted?