You could always try and see, but that approach does not seem like it fulfills the intent of the credit, which is to reduce the environmental impact of automobile use to/from the site. I think the more straightforward approach is to look at providing 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. in the offsite lot that the athletes use, even if it is outside of your LEED project boundary.

Even if they were all electric I don't think it fits in very well with this credit even though it is a good thing to do.

See LEED v2.2 Interpretation #1959:

"While the provision of scooters for employee use is a laudable strategy, it does not meet the intent of the SSCr4.3. There are concerns that scooters do not have the same emissions control requirements as low-emitting cars and that, due to safety worries, some employees will be unwilling to use the scooters even in good weather. The project team is encouraged to explore the use of a car sharingA system under which multiple households share a pool of automobiles, either through cooperative ownership or through some other mechanism. service or the purchase of electric and/or low-emitting cars to meet the credit intent. Another possibility would be to apply for an ID credit for a comprehensive traffic demand management program, of which scooters could form a part. Applicable Internationally."

You will not need to document electricity consumption or billing, but you will need to know the fueling capacity per 8 hour day. There is a lot of discussion on this topic further down the thread.

Hi Ellen,
Thank you very much for your instruction. I found 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 stating 240V receptacle was acceptable, after I posted the former question. Actually we use 100/200V receptacles in our country. Do you think 200V receptacle is acceptable for this credit compliance?

I usually upload either a dimensioned drawing provided by the signage consultant or a sample sign from another project owned/operated by the same owner in the case of a university or healthcare system (for example). A good first step would be to speak with your client about what he/she intends to install and then from there, determine who can provide you specifics on signage.

It is more short sighted than nit picky to me. I can see how in many cases the ground floor is preferred (convenience, less driving). But I'm dealing with sick patients who would much prefer to be close to a building entrance on the floor that they are getting treatment. This will take me out of a credit rather than put me into a credit.

It's surprising, as ADA spaces are typically distributed at all levels of a multi-level garage and not all placed on the level closest to the entrance. As much as the criteria for "preferred" is not going to be identical to the criteria for accessibility, observations suggest that most people prefer to drive one more level to park closer to an elevator or stair, whether its because they are carrying things, concerned about safety, or trying to minimize their walking distance. "Preferred" is a fairly subjective term, and while it's helpful to get more clarity on what GBCI is looking for, it seems overly prescriptive.

Take note that the LI states, "The location 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. for structures with multiple entrances can be further evaluated during project review. For LEED submission purposes, the project team should provide a narrative with a detailed description of the building." I believe they understand there are specifics of each project that would make it more appropriate for the spaces to be distributed throughout the levels. The project that was asked about in the LI had everyone traveling to the first floor of the garage and then traveling to the main entrance of the building. It doesn't seem to have completely ruled out the option of distributing across levels as long as a project specific narrative describes why this is more appropriate for the project.

To me, the way that it is worded just sets the stage for inconsistency and uncertainty when attempting to locate preferred spaces somewhere other than the level closest to the main entrance. It seems that this ruling has recently been cited consistently on projects that have tried to break up 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. among levels, so I can't help but assume that it has become a standard rule. The most important thing to me as the LEED administrator is that I can't say with any degree of confidence that this approach will work any more. Waiting to just submit and see is not the best option when you are counting on getting this credit and not being able to provide a concrete direction makes me look like I don't know what I'm doing. This also sets the stage for one reviewer approving a strategy that another denied, which makes us all look bad.

I must agree with Ellen about the Admin role. I am in the SD phase of a CS building, and we are trying to solidify the parking arrangements. Our building will be a typical office, commercial building with multi-level underground parking. It seems most logical to the team to locate the 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. in the same locations of the ADA spaces.
While it may seem like space designations can be easily changed, that is not always the case. The building owner is in negotiations with a major tenant. Parking availability is one of the items in negotiations. If the owner promises the tenant spaces that will have to be changed later based on a LEED review comment, it could negatively impact all parties, and additionally reflect poorly on the LEED competency of my and my project team.

Any additional clear guidance on preferred parking locations would be much appreciated.

I have a great example of how this is problematic....we have a big developer client who is very upset about this change. They will now have to put all 62 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 on ground level, which is not only inconvenient for employees who will actually have to walk farther to get to the building entrance, but it also means that the entire first level is dedicated to preferred parking for LEFEVs, which is a tough sell when you are trying to attract potential tenants. We had a call with GBCI to address this issue and they cited the caveat that each project will be evaluated on a case by case basis and suggested a detailed narrative explaining our approach. So that is exactly what we did when submitting our design review. To no one's suprise, the credit was questioned citing LI #10202 and we were told that we must adhere to the formula of driving plus walking distance. It was very clear that the reviewer was not evaluating on a practicallity standpoint, but was just checking a box on a list. This LI is ridiculous - it is making the credit harder for the sake of being harder and is adding zero value from a sustainability standpoint.

Interesting question Albert. Common sense tells me that Spanish or Catalan would be more appropriate to your project, but experience with LEED reviewers tells me that common sense does not always prevail when it comes to the letter of the law. In reading the FAQs above, it sounds like international projects are evaluated on a case by case basis in terms of verbaige. If you need to know for sure, this may be a good candidate for 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. Or if you have the luxury of time, you could submit it with the Spanish verbiage and see what they say.

Lee, I am not aware that there is a definition with the level of technical specificity that you're looking for. Maybe if you shared what the review comment was about, we could help advise.

From your questions, I wonder if you have provide a row of preferred spots in which some spaces are close to the entrance, but some spaces in the row are farther than non-preferred spots. I think this would lead a reviewer to question the plan.

Thanks Tristan.
"The location of all of the designated spaces does not appear to meet the LEED definition of preferred, as required. Preferred spaces are those spaces located closest to the main entrance of the project (exclusive of spaces designed for handicapped)"
Our original submission had a quantity of spaces that far exceeded the minimum, however, at the Owners request a small portion of these were located so that an adjacent building outside the LEED boundary could benefit. (we have since removed these spaces) The remainder of the spaces are in blocks of 5 with the block thats closest to the entrances. Technically measuring spaces would mean 2 spaces from several rows are 'closer'.

I might add that this campus does not have attendant or machine parking at the lots, all parking is by permit/sticker only, so i'm not sure the benefit of posting it at the entrance of the lots.

Hi Norma, I found an example that might be helpful for your research. The Kroc Center in Quincy, Illinois uses a parking sign in their parking lot to distinguish regular parking spots from reserved parking spots for employees driving low emission or fuel efficient vehicles. Maybe a good way for you to distinguish low emission or fuel efficient vehicles with your company is to color-code your parking permits so that only specific color-coded permits are allowed to park in the designated low emission/fuel efficient parking spots. Please follow the link for further reference: http://quincyjournal.com/emissions-favoritism...what-a-kroc!.html

Thanks James, we are not pursuing the reserved spaces, but the discounted parking rates for this credit. My real question is whether "publicly posted" means it has to be a sign at the parking lot or does posting it in the student handbook and online in the parking section enough? anyone know?

Hi Norma, I did a little more research into what would fulfill the "publicly posted" signage for the discounted parking rates. Although I could not find any definitive answer, I think that the USGBC stays pretty vague on what constitutes an appropriate "publicly posted" sign for credits such as discounted parking rates in order to prevent the rating system from becoming to uniform or prescriptive. I may be wrong but I think it would be beneficial to not only publish the discounted parking rates credit into the student handbook but also place a large sign at the entrance of the parking area informing the students of the incentive.
I too am interested in getting a more definitive answer to this question so I'll keep checking back for other user posts/updates.

I appreciate the feedback. because these are residential buildings on campus, the only "users" of the building are those that live there, so i think i could argue that for this LEED project, putting it on the website and in the student handbook would be sufficient. for academic buildings, i think a sign would be appropriate, since a variety of students would visit have classes in the buidling and could take advantage of the discount for the semeseter if they drive a LEFE vehicle. i think we will try it this way, i will let you know how it turns out.

Eamon, you can pursue any of the options under this credit with "no new parking." The only question is which option and how many spaces to allocate, as you note. The credit language gives a default way to go about this—if circumstances mean that that won't work for you, please say more.

Thanks you for the quick & helpful response Tristan.

Judging from the credit language: "Provide 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. 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 5% of the total vehicle parking capacity of the site."

The project site has no direct parking spots included in it's LEED boundary, how should this be framed to the review team? Essentially, I'm nervous that they will want us to provide 5% preferred parking for the entire campus (which we don't control at all). We are able to petition the site owner for a couple spots near the building but there is no way we will get 5% of the hundreds of pre-existing spots.

Eamon, you may be able to use zoning calculations from your local jurisdiction to estimate how many parking spaces you would be required to provide for this building if it wasn't on a campus. You could then take 5% of the zoning required number. I have had success with this approach, but the specifics of every project are different. Be aware that in cases like this it is required that these spaces would then need to not only be reserved for LEFE vehicles but also clearly state that they are reserved for LEFE vehicles visiting the LEED certified building. However, in some campus situations this does not fit into the standard operations of the campus (e.g. a zoo where a person visiting the "campus" is not just visiting the LEED certified building). Hope this helps.

Lindsey, thank you for your insight. The building has no local zoning but I think you are spot on with your comment "reserved for LEFE vehicles visiting the LEED certified building" and will follow this approach. This really helps. Thank you again.

Tristan,

I have a similar question. The project I am working on is a New Construction Hotel. There is no new parking, so we will claim credit 4.4. Ownership is interested in negotiating a deal with a near by garage for LEV. Is there any 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 where it indicates that this is possible? Can you have off site parking from a neighboring garage that is not part of the LEED boundary, negotiate the 20% discount & still be able to claim both credits?

Is this garage where employees and guests will likely be parking? If so, you should be able to implement the 20% discount program in that garage, even if it is outside of your boundary, and get credit for both SSc4.3 and SSc4.4.

Thank You Ellen.

The typical way to meet the intent of this credit is to provide 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. for 5% of the total parking capacity. This would include parking for both staff and visitors.

Thanks, Ellen for the clarification. One more thing. LEED concept is still not common in the KSA markets, Low efficient fuel vehicles are very rare. So, do we comply with this credit by fullfilling the 5% requirement as a preffered LEV parking. Thanks,

Then is this the best credit for your project? Who is going to enforce the 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. for the life of the project? Is this being driven by the owner and the users or by the LEED consultant? You could set aside a few spaces as a demonstration project / encouragement but not the full 5%.

Just want to clarify that we can easily provide the prefferd 5% parking in our project and since we dont have any low efficient fuel station near by the site, so can we achieve points under this credit, might be we can have the designated parking spaces today and will have the fuel stations in the future. Thanks

I think you are in a gray area between the number of parking spaces in your scope of work and the number of spaces serving your LEED project. It is hard to say without seeing the layout of these spaces and determining if there is a clear case to only include the 32 spaces. The conservative approach to ensure that you get this credit is to provide for 3% of the 105 spaces. However, if it is very apparent that the additional 73 spaces are far enough away that they would never be used by the library occupants, it may be worth a shot.

Jennifer, this sounds a lot like Option 4—see the credit language above.

Patrick, sounds to me as though if only students have access to this parking, and they get the dicount for LE/FE, then it meets the LEED requirements.

Jaida, this credit is simply one of those areas where the credit language hasn't caught up all the international locations where the credit is being used. See the FAQ above for a related issue. You would need 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, most likely, to deal with this.

Hi Susan,
I believe that there is some discussion on this approach further on down the discussion forum - if memory serves, the consensus was that 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 is the only way to know for sure. If it were me, I would just submit it in the design phase and see what comes back. I think you have a good chance as this approach appears to fulfill the intent of the credit. Let us know what happens!

Alternatively, maybe someone can help me with this car share question, which is why I'm asking:
The client is a large university with an urban campus, with buildings all over the city. They are looking to use their existing zipcar program to achieve SSc4.3, Option 4. There is no parking at the building, so the zipcars are located in a central lot, and are available to the entire campus (staff, faculty, students).

My guess is they would have to either
a) have additional qualifying zipcars somehow dedicated soley to this building's occupants, OR
b) treat this as a campus credit, which would entail vastly increasing the quantity of zipcars in order to meet the 1 car / 267 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. requirement.

In other words, they must use the entire campus FTE (i.e., all potential users) when calculating the cars required, or dedicate use to the building.

Am I correct? Thanks!

Hi Erica,
I am not sure if this was based on an interpretation or if it is one of those "phantom" requirements, but I have had pretty consistent review comments stating that the car share cars (or reserved spaces for that matter) must either be reserved for the specific LEED project or there must be enough cars to supply the whole campus. I'm guessing that this is an effort to eliminate the potential for double dipping with future LEED projects on campus.

For your specific project, I think that either one of your A or B options would work. Also keep in mind that if there is no parking as part of your project scope, the reviewers are going to want to see your zipcars parked in the closest available lot to your site.

Thank you Ellen -
I honestly don't remember where I think I previously saw that requirement... and I haven't been able to find it again.
Thanks for the feedback -- that pretty much confirms my expectations, written requirement or not.

Unfortunately, the credit requires a minimum of 5% of spaces reserved so you have not fulfilled the intent of the credit - you must always round up. There is a tread about this dating back to April of 2011 and I also believe that it is addressed in the Interpretation database.

Ellen, thanks so much for the quick response.

Now that the credits have been denied as part of the final review, would there be a way for the project to earn this point back? Would we have to provide 1 additional spot (one for LE/FE and one for HOV) and then appeal the credit?

Yes, you would need to provide a total of 4 spaces for LEFEVs and 4 spaces for carpooling vehicles in order to meet the intent of both credits. If you are willing to do this, you will have to appeal both unfortunately ($500/each).

The current draft of LEED v4 contains a requirement that charging stations "Be networked or internet addressable and be capable of participating in a demand-response program or time-of-use pricing to encourage off-peak charging," but LEED v4 is currently not expected to be out before 2013, and this requirement would not effect LEED 2009.

Gaston - I have been able to successfully use the approach you have described above. The direction we have seen from reviewers is that you must include any parking that will serve your building in SS4.3 calculations, but you can claim the No New Parking option of SS4.4 if there is no parking being constructed in your project scope. Using the adjacent lots for SS4.3 seems like a reasonable solution as long as it is apparent that those lots can meet the vehicular demand of your building.

I think the bigger issue is whether you can add a restriction to a required ADA parking space legally.

Caroline - you raise a good question. I am guessing that you could not get an additional point for the EV charging stations because that is already accounted for as one of the options for SSc4 and you have already hit the 10 points for that credit. What is not as clear is whether an exemplary performanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements. point is available in this category as it is in BD+C for "instituting a comprehensive transportation management plan that demonstrates a quantifiable reduction in personal automobile use." If this kind of plan is something that the team is considering doing anyway, I would suggest submitting it and seeing what the reviewers say. However, if the extra effort is only to earn the point, you may save yourself a considerable amount of time submitting the question to GBCI first.

Thank you for the feedback. We'll still include the EV charging station because the Owner wants one for their staff but I won't be placing it anywhere on the credits. We won't be completing the TMP but it does seem if we were to do one we could achieve EP (assuming it met the reviewers requirements).

Because you are proposing a somewhat non-standard path to achieving this credit, I am not sure you will find a definitive answer outside of a credit interpretation request (or you can just try it and see). It is unclear from your description if the project also includes parking for employees/students/staff. If so, then I'm guessing that the charging stations and/or FE vehicles need to be available to them as well in order to have a convincing argument.