-
Plenty of options
This credit offers a variety of strategies for residential, non-residential and mixed use projects. These strategies help to reduce the number of cars on the road, cut down on the sprawl of parking facilities, and decrease the negative environmental impacts of parking infrastructure, including stormwater runoff and the urban heat islandA densely populated area in which pavement and buildings absorb, store, and release solar energy, making the vicinity warmer than it would be if the pavement and buildings were not present. effect.
Getting mileage out of your efforts
Assess the location and context of your project to make sure that carpooling, public transportation (see SSc4.1), walking and bicycle commuting (see SSc4.2) are viable strategies for reducing single-occupancy vehicle use.
If all you do is limit parking capacity in an area where options other than driving aren’t viable, your efforts could prove frustrating to drivers rather than truly beneficial. You may also want to consider implementing a program to incentivize public transit and carpooling.
Consider no new parking
This credit is fairly straightforward for most projects. Projects that either have no parking or are not providing additional parking automatically qualify. To make this work from a practical perspective, it’s a good idea to locate in an area with good public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access.
You can also provide parking, with some caveats
Non-residential projects that will be providing new parking will need to reduce parking capacity to not exceed minimum zoning requirements and 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 carpools.
Residential projects that will be providing new parking will need to reduce parking capacity to not exceed minimum zoning requirements and facilitate programs to encourage carpooling among residents. Mixed-use projects have to meet both requirements, on a proportional basis.
Follow these basic steps when approaching this credit
- Identify the appropriate strategy based on your project type and the context of the individual project. If providing no new parking, go ahead and document the credit. If providing parking, follow the remaining steps.
- Confirm 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 the project.
- Confirm local minimum zoning requirements for parking capacity.
- Determine the number of preferred parking spaces required or develop a ride-sharing program for your project.
- Include parking locations in the construction documents to ensure that signage and additional markings are included in the construction budget.
- Consider earning 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 for a comprehensive transportation management plan.
- Document the credit and upload the documentation to LEED Online.
-
Don't double-count parking spaces
If your project is pursuing both SSc4.3 and SSc4.4, be careful not to double-count 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 allotted for those credits. The total number of preferred parking spaces must be equal to those required for SSc4.3, plus those required for SSc4.4. The same parking space cannot count for both credits (although they do not have to be distinguished through signage).
-
FAQs for SSc4.4
How does one account for off-site parking. Should the LEED boundary encompass this parking? Or alternatively may the project pursue the "no new parking" option?
The Minimum Program Requirements supplemental guidance document covers these situations in some detail. The boundary needs to include "contiguous land that is associated with and supports normal building operations."
The intent of the credit is to reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use. New parking provided off-site does not meet the credit intent. Although its applicability to LEED 2009 has not been considered (it wsa issued for NC-v2.2, LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. #2120 issued 5/23/08 states, “if there will be additional parking built as a result of the construction of the [project], even if this parking is off site, then the No New Parking option cannot be used.”
If a project does not provide parking onsite but provides a shuttle service to new parking offsite, is that considered “no new parking” since the new parking is not onsite?
See the previous question.
Does rebuilding an existing parking area with fewer spaces mean “no new parking”?
Yes. Rebuilding a current parking lot with fewer spaces will meet the credit intent.
If a non-residential project wants to use Option 4, which references the ITE Parking Generation Study, where does one upload and submit required documentation? There is no Option 4 choice in the credit form.
Since the LEED Online form doesn't have an Option 4 choice, you'll need to indicate with the checkbox under "Additional Details" that you're using an alternative compliance path. For more information, see LEEDuser's analysis of the ITE study.
How do you designate preferred parking if the parking facility is not under the owner's control?
You would need to work with the parking authority or management to designate the preferred parking.
How does one apply minimum zoning requirements to a project when it is part of a larger complex or campus?
The LEED MPRs require you to allocate parking between multiple buildings. Allocation may be determined by an "appropriate percentage" of use.
Are there standards regarding how to document the spaces that will be dedicated as reserved?
There aren't specific standards, but projects are expected to adequately communicate to occupants about the location and purpose of preferred parking spaces, typically by use of pole, wall-mounted, and/or pavement markings.
How does a carpool/vanpool relate to a shared car service/company when it comes to the preferred parking requirements of this credit?
If a proper contract agreement of two years and designated space are provided through an alternative compliance method, then a shared car service may be accepted as a “carpool or vanpool” substitute. See LEED Interpretation ID#3138, 1/26/2005, in which Reviewers define car share services, and LEED Interpretation ID#3137, 5/24/2004, in which Zipcar is discussed as a carpool substitute for residential projects.
Legend
- Best Practices
- Gotcha
- Action Steps
- Cost Tip
Pre-Design
Expand All
This is generally a low-cost credit. Reducing built parking capacity can even reduce construction and maintenance costs. The only added cost might be signage for preferred parking spaces, if applicable.
Design Development
Expand All
Proceed based on your chosen compliance path:- Option 1: Check local zoning laws and make sure your project’s parking capacity meets but does not exceed minimum zoning requirements, and develop the infrastructure and support programs for minimizing single-occupancy vehicles. Consider incorporating programs for car-share, ride boards (or website), carpool drop off locations, designated parking for carpools, and shuttle services to mass transit.
- Option 2: Verify that the project is not providing any new parking spaces.
USGBC
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations
SS Credit 4.4: Alternative transportation - parking capacity
2 Points
Intent
To reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use.
Requirements
Case 1 - Non-residential projects
Option 1
Size parking capacity to meet, but not exceed, minimum local zoning requirements.
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.1 for carpools or vanpools for 5% of the total parking spaces.
OR
Option 2
For projects that provide parking for less than 5% of full-time equivalentFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 40 hours per week in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per week divided by 40. Multiple shifts are included or excluded depending on the intent and requirements of the credit. (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.) building occupants:
Provide preferred parking for carpools or vanpools, marked as such, for 5% of total parking spaces. Providing a discounted parking rate is an acceptable substitute for preferred parking for carpool or vanpool vehicles. To establish a meaningful incentive in all potential markets, the parking rate must be discounted at least 20%. The discounted rate must be available to all customers (i.e. not limited to the number of customers equal to 5% of the vehicle parking capacity), publicly posted at the entrance of the parking area, and available for a minimum of 2 years.
OR
Option 3
Provide no new parking.
OR
Option 4
For projects that have no minimum local zoning requirements, provide 25% fewer parking spaces than the applicable standard listed in the 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) “Parking Generation” study at http://www.ite.org.
Case 2 - Residential Projects
Option 1
Size parking capacity to meet, but not exceed, minimum local zoning requirements
Provide infrastructure and support programs to facilitate shared vehicle use such as carpool drop-off areas, designated parking for vanpools, car-share services, ride boards and shuttle services to mass transit.
OR
Option 2
Provide no new parking.
Case 3 - Mixed use (residential with commercial/residential) projects
Option 1 - Commercial and non-commercial requirements
Mixed-use buildings with less than 10% commercial area must be considered residential and adhere to the residential requirements in Case 2. For mixed-use buildings with more than 10% commercial area, the commercial space must adhere to non-residential requirements in Case 1 and the residential component must adhere to residential requirements in Case 2.
OR
Option 2
Provide no new parking.
OR
Option 3
For projects that have no minimum local zoning requirements, provide 25% fewer parking spaces than the applicable standard listed in the 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Parking Generation" study at http://www.ite.org.
1For the purposes of this credit “preferred parking” refers to the parking spots that are closest to the main entrance of the project (exclusive of spaces designated for handicapped persons) or parking passes provided at a discounted price. To establish a meaningful incentive in all potential markets, the parking rate must be discounted at least 20%. The discounted rate must be available to all eligible customers (i.e. not limited to the number of customers equal to 5% of the vehicle parking capacity), publicly posted at the entrance of the parking area, and available for a minimum of 2 years.
Potential Technologies & Strategies
Minimize parking lot/garage size. Consider sharing parking facilities with adjacent buildings. Consider alternatives that will limit the use of single occupancy vehicles.
FOOTNOTES
1 To establish a meaningful incentive in all potential markets, the parking rate must be discounted at least 20%. The discounted rate must be available to all customers (i.e., not limited to the number of customers equal to 5% of the vehicle parking capacity), publicly posted at the entrance of the parking area, and available for a minimum of 2 years. (For the purposes of this credit “preferred parking” refers to the parking spots that are closest to the main entrance of the project (exclusive of spaces designated for handicapped persons) or parking passes provided at a discounted price.)
Web Tools
Ride sharing site
This website helps to organize carpooling trips and rewards members for reduced single-occupancy vehicles.
Tips for Vanpooling
Provides general tips for setting up a vanpool program, and provides a template for writing a program for vanpooling.
eRideshare.com
Website set up to organize carpooling.
Software Tools
Carpooling network
For Short and Long Distance Carpooling: Through the Carpooling Network’s integrated software, you can find carpool mates for your single or long distance trips, whether in Canada or the United States.
Publications
Commuting Guide for Employers
This website outlines strategies employers can use to encourage employees to commute by bicycle.
U.S. EPA and Department of Transportation, Best Workplaces for Commuters
This program publicly recognizes employers who have exemplary commuter benefits programs. It provides tools, guidance, and promotions to help employers give commuter benefits, reap the financial gains, and achieve national recognition.
U.S. EPA, Transportation and Air Quality
This site provides information on the types and effects of air pollution associated with automobile use and links to resources for organizations interested in promoting commuter choice programs.
Organizations
Smart Commute
Smart Commute is a program of Research Triangle Park that has valuable information about telecommuting and carpool programs useful for any organization.
No New Parking
Pursuing the option to provide no new parking is straightforward to document, as with this sample narrative.
Samples
Site Plan – Parking Meeting Local Zoning Requirements
Option 1
Document Option 1 with a site plan like this one, showing parking meeting but not exceeding local zoning requirements.
Design Submittal
Documentation for this credit can be part of a Design Phase submittal.
LEED Online Forms: NC-2009 SS
The following links take you to the public, informational versions of the dynamic LEED Online forms for each NC-2009 SS credit. You'll need to fill out the live versions of these forms on LEED Online for each credit you hope to earn.
Version 4 forms: (newest)
- SSp1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
- SSc1: Site Selection
- SSc2: Dev. Density & Community Connectivity
- SSc3: Brownfield Redevelopment
- SSc4.1: Alt. Trans.—Public Trans. Access
- SSc4.2: Alt. Trans.—Bicycle Storage
- SSc4.3: Alt. Trans.—Low-Emitting Vehicles
- SSc4.4: Alt. Trans.—Parking Capacity
- SSc5.1: Site Dev.—Protect or Restore Habitat
- SSc5.2: Site Dev.: Maximize Open Space
- SSc6.1: Stormwater Design—Quantity Control
- SSc6.2: Stormwater Design—Quality Control
- SSc7.1: Heat Island Effect—Non-Roof
- SSc7.2: Heat Island Effect—Roof
- SSc8: Light Pollution Reduction
Version 3 forms:
- SSp1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
- SSc1: Site Selection
- SSc2: Dev. Density & Community Connectivity
- SSc3: Brownfield Redevelopment
- SSc4.1: Alt. Trans.—Public Trans. Access
- SSc4.2: Alt. Trans.—Bicycle Storage
- SSc4.3: Alt. Trans.—Low-Emitting Vehicles
- SSc4.4: Alt. Trans.—Parking Capacity
- SSc5.1: Site Dev.—Protect or Restore Habitat
- SSc5.2: Site Dev.: Maximize Open Space
- SSc6.1: Stormwater Design—Quantity Control
- SSc6.2: Stormwater Design—Quality Control
- SSc7.1: Heat Island Effect—Non-Roof
- SSc7.2: Heat Island Effect—Roof
- SSc8: Light Pollution Reduction
These links are posted by LEEDuser with USGBC's permission. USGBC has certain usage restrictions on these forms; for more information, visit LEED Online and click "Sample Forms Download."
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC.
193 Comments
LEED Canada 2009 option 1
Our project is a retail center and only option 1 is available to us for credit SS4.4. It requires :
- meet but not exceed local zoning
- not exceed 3.5 spaces /1000 sqft floor
- 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% NC or 3% CS of total parking spaces
We meet the first and third points, but cannot have the city reduce to the requirements of the second point (3.5/1000). In your opinion, are we eligible or not? Is the second point there in the event that there would be no local zoning? There really isn't much information for me to go on in the guide book and no canadian CIRs clarifying the situatiuon either. I know US has specific retail requirements. Could I use them as precedent?
Thanks!
Option 4 ITE Parking Generation - federal property
Our project is on Federal property that is not subject to local codes. Would we be able to use Option 4 even though local codes are available for the area but not applicable to the property?
Also, we can only find ITE Parking Generation, 2004 4th edition on www.ite.org. Does anyone know why the 2003 edition is referenced in the credit instead of the more current edition? ITE indicates major revisions from 2003 edition.
Is the project following any other local zoning codes? Therein lies your answer.
Mixed use <10% Commercial
Hello,
My project is pursing Case 2 for residential projects since it has less than 10% of retail space. I understand that a mix of infrastructure programs are required to support ride sharing, but is there a min. number of carpool spaces requried for this requirement?
Thanks,
Sara
I have the same question! We plan to meet the Credit via Case 2, Option 1.
The "infrastructure and support" requirement is incredibly vague -- there are no quantity requirements listed at all. I see the discussions from March 14th and May 6, 2011 below, and the reference under Bird's Eye View to 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 #3137, but still have questions, and CIR #3137 does not seem to quite apply here, if a project is using Case 2 Option 1.
Would a mix of the listed examples (e.g., 2 car/vanpool drop-off spaces, a 2-year zipcar contract for 2% 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., and a ride board) be acceptable? For a residential building, drop-off/pick-up areas seem more appropriate than designated parking for car/vanpools.
CIR #3137 requires zipcars for 5% of the occupants. SSc4.3, Option 4 requires zipcars for 3% of the FTE. And both require preferred spaces and a 2-year contract. However, both these options are "stand-alone", meaning there is no "second part" of the respective Option that must be met, whereas SSc4.4 Case 2, Option 1 is a 2-part requirement. Therefore, I would think we could provide fewer zipcars (perhaps 2%) along with the reduced parking capacity and a mix of other strategies such as the pick-up/drop/off areas and a rideshare bulletin board.
Any input is appreciated. Thanks!
Erica
LEED Interpretations 1444 and 518 both apply. You will need to use the ITE as the basis of your program to facilitate shared vehicle use. There is a lot of information included in the LI's regarding approach, etc. as they have basically set precedence for this credit.
Option 4 - ITE Land use type
I am working on a LEED NC 2009 project, which is only to build a head office building which is located inside the factory / manufacturing facility (the owner decided to certify only for its office). The construction of the factory and the office building will be performed simultaneously. This project is located in a suburban area, outside of US. There is no local zoning requirements, so Option 4 applies. My question is what kind of ITE parking generation's landuse should I take? Office building or Manufacturing (since its located inside manufacturing facility). Fyi, both facility will have its own parking spaces.
Existing Parking conditions
The existing conditions of the site have 55 existing parking spaces. Our plans show that we are taking out 14 parking spaces and adding 16 addition spaces, totaling 71 parking spaces. Three of the new spaces are going to be ADA compliance parking spaces. Four of the existing spaces will be for 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. only, and four other spaces will be reserved for carpool/vanpool spaces. Both the fuel-efficient and the carpool/vanpool spaces meet the 5% requirement for this credit. Is this still compliant?
Shaded parking required for preffered parking?
We are working on an outpatient clinicproject in Riyadh, we have provided preffered parking near to main entrance, is it mandatory to have preffered parking covered with shade structure and should be discounted and lottery system. Since ts a health care facility parking for visitor is free and there is no lottery system in KSA , yes we could provide shaded car parking probably for all the parking. Please clarify the Preffered parking term as by definition. Thanks
Babar, it should be sufficient to place 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. near the entrance. Additional features are not necessary.
ITE Study for use on Residential Projects
Hi,
I have a Residential project that is adding new parking and has a local maximum parking requirement but no minimum parking requirement. The reference guide states that Non-Residential projects that have no minimum local zoning requirements may provide 25% fewer parking spaces than the applicable standard listed in the 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) “Parking Generation” study, but it does not give that option for resiential projects. Has anyone successfully used the ITE Study approach for a residential project even though that option is not explicitly given in the reference guide? Or is my project just not eligible for this credit?
Thanks!
The ITE study is at my office so I'm not sure offhand, but it may simply not have residential data to offer. The trouble is, what is your baseline?
You may need to contact GBCI or get 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 to see if there is a path for this credit on your project, if you want to proceed.
Alternative Compliance Paths for projects Outside the U.S.
Hi all,
This alternative compliance path for projects outside US with no minimum parking requirements seems to exist
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10335
However the referenced Form which is supposed to be located under Credit Resources is not appearing on the LEED online site. I've registered the query with LEED online but wanted to check if anyone else has used this option previously?
Thanks.
Lewis, I believe the issue is that since the ACPs were originally introduced, they have been rolled directly into the LEED Online forms, so that the form you're looking for should no longer be relevant, as long as you have the most update to date version of the credit form. If there is a question of that, have GBCI update it.
Thanks Tristan. Worth noting that our project will be targeting Option 3 on the new for (no zoning requirements) which requires use of the 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Parking Generation" study.
Some background info on the ITE study here:
http://www.leeduser.com/topic/money-guesswork-ite-parking-generation-stu...
LEED Project Providing Replacement Parking
We have a LEED project that is taking a parcel used for an adjacent county building’s employee parking. As part of the agreement, the project will be building a parking deck that will have parking for both the project occupants and to replace the parking taken from the county. How are the county replacement spots counted toward the credit? The county spots will be the majority of the spots provided on the parking deck. Do we calculate the required parking by zoning for both buildings and 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 both entities or do we only count the parking for our new building with a narrative explaining the remaining spots and the agreement? The entire parking deck will be included in our LEED boundary as it is in the middle of the site and contains part of the LEED project occupied space below it.
Kellie, the most conservative approach here would be to include both buildings in your LEED requirements, so that you are sure to have enough complliant capacity.
I'm curious if the buildings are in different locations relative to the parking lot, so that 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. would logically be separate? In that case, I could see providing preferred parking for the project building, and leaving the other building to its own devices.
If the preferred parking for one building would also be located in the same area as for the other building, it seems safest to me to combine them. Also, that way there is no resentment from the non-LEED building. Does this make any sense?
Thanks for the response. The building we are providing replacement parking for is at the complete opposite corner of our parking structure from the building we hope to certify. The building is not connected to the garage, though seperate vertical circulation is provided to provide easy access.
In previous projects where we had a parking structure and did prefered parking, the parking structure was existing so we had to verify that the parking spaces of the structure did not exceed the allowable by zoning for the 'campus'. We only provided prefered parking quantity (on the first level) for the CI project space by calculating the allowable spaces by zoning and from the landlord based on project SF. If it comes down to it, the cost of a few additional signs if requested by GBCI wont be too bad in the grand scheme of the total project.
No new parking VS local regulations
We are targeting SSc.4.4-Alternative Transportation-Parking Capacity for a New Construction project.
The project will not provide any parking. However, the local regulations ask that disabled parking spaces be provided. Can the project still go for Option 3 (no new parking) for this credit?
If not, how can the project approach options 1 and 2 (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 carpools) to achieve this credit as all the parking will be for disabled people.
Many thanks
Michael, I would suggest explaining your situation with the alternative compliance path approach as suggested in earlier post 2/14/11. Disabled parking spaces are exempt from being designated for 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. and since this is the only type of space you are adding, and it is required by local regulation, you have a good case for meeting the intent of the credit. Make sure you upload any documentation you have that shows the disabled parking spaces are required.
Hotel project has public parking space
Hotel project has total 287 parking spaces (35 for Hotel, 252 for Public).
and maximum local parking space limit is 85 for Hotel. There is no any requirements for Public parking. In this case, can our project earn SSc4.4 Option 1. ?
I don't think your question provides enough detail. Is this an NC or CS project? For NC projects 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 vanpools and and carpools is also required. There is no mention of this type of parking in your question. However, if I were a LEED reviewer and I saw that you had 287 parking spaces with 252 for "public parking" where there is no requirement for that type of parking I would most likely view the allocation as a work-around not having to meet a maximum parking capacity of 85.
LEED definition of Parking for Airport projects
What is LEED definition of Parking? Is it public parking? or private parking would qualify for this credit?
We are designing a new airport extension and there are already existing parking structures in the airport, but are not included in our LEED project boundary. With no minimum local zoning requirement for parking, we are striping and providing some stalls at the air-field side which will be for the airplane vehicles and few stalls for the department of agriculture employees; no public stalls. How do we go about achieving this credit?
Pouy, all parking should be counted for the credit. However, the one exception that some LEED projects have used is parking designated for vehicle maintenance. I am not sure if the parking you describe goes that far, however—you may need to include it.
what if minimum parking required is not met?
I was wondering whether LEED would ask for a official document that states that local authority authorizes the project not to meet the local requirement of minimum parking.
or... Would that be unnecessary concerning LEED documentation?
Any thoughts or experience?
Johanna, it sounds like you are meeting the requirement (as modified by the local authority), which is what LEED asks you to do. I would only document the credit according to what LEED Online asks for, and not worry about additional documentation.
Signage Shared?
We are required to designate 12 carpool spaces for our LEED project and plan to install pole mounted signs. Would it be possible to provide (1) sign with an arrow at each side of the bank of designated spaces or does each space require an individual sign?
Thank You!
If you think about the overall length of a row of 12 parking spaces (100 feet or more), it would be very easy for someone to park in a space in the middle without noticing a sign several spaces away -- especially if a van or SUV is in the 'sign' space.
You might be able to reduce the number of required intermediate signs by placing a sign between two spaces, with diagonal arrows towards each space. (But I don't have any experience with submitting this idea.)
You could also try using one sign at each end and a simple pavement marking (such as "CP") on all stalls - that would perhaps meet reviewer comments and save cost over 12 bollards & sign posts. I have never attempted this personally however.
Should parking counts include handicap stalls?
Parking counts for the school project I am working on include handicap stalls. It appears that based on comments I have received based on the review that handicap stalls are not allowed?
All automobile parking spaces should be included in your parking calculations (typical, handicapped, reserved, etc.), so it appears that you're doing the calculations correctly...
Perhaps it's confusion on the wording of the review comment and the specifics of your project regarding where you've located the LEED preferred spaces? Note that your designated preferred spaces must be those closest to the entrance AFTER all of the required handicapped spaces required by code.
For example, if you were building a school, the order of closeness would need to be: handicapped, LEED preferred, reserved principal/vice principal, and then general public. If you put the principal's reserved space closer to the entrance than your LEED designated spaces, those spaces then wouldn't meet the LEED definition of preferred (as there would be a non-handicap space closer) and you're receive a comment that might include working about handicapped spaces.
Again - I don't know if that helps at all, but that's where I've seen a comment related to handicapped spaces appear. If the issue appears to be something else, please feel free to reply.
No minimal local zoning - ITE
To achieve credit SSc4.4 we are using ITE study to determine the number of parking lots required. However we are facing a different situation, we have a project that includes together a warehouse and a commercial building. The ITE Study provide references for both of them alone, but do not specify a rule to determine if I should use the more restrictive usage typology for calculation or an weighted average between then both to determine the number of parking spaces when we have different usage typology’s in the same LEED project. Does anyone have experience with this situation?
Is the parking generation study from ITE available online for free?
Parking Capacity - Service/City Vehicles
We are working on a city animal shelter that meets the zoning requirements for staff and guest parking on the site. As part of an animal shelter, in addition to the staff/guest parking we must also provide parking for the animal control vehicles that are necessary for the facility to function. There are no specific code requirements for these parking spaces. Because of these excess "parking spaces", would we still be eligible for this credit? Could these spaces be exempt from our overall parking calculation?
We see these extra vehicles as necessary for the facility to function and would be similar to ambulances, firetrucks, or other city utility vehicles - as workers drive their personal cars to work and use them only while on duty. We are aware of 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 regarding the rental cars - but unsure whether it could directly apply to us.
I had a similar situation with a college campus building that provided no new parking with the exception of 10 service vehicle parking spaces for campus-only vehicles. I didn't 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, but rather just wrote a narrative of special circumstances explaining that these parking spaces did not affect the intent of the credit since single-occupant vehicle usage will not be affected and the credit was accepted. Make sure to emphasize that the spaces are for service vehicles only and and any signage to verify this would help.
Parking Capacity
I am working on a hotel with two separate buildings. Since the parking will be used for the same hotel, the local zoning requirements were met. As they will combine the number of parking spaces for both buildings.
But as two separate projects with LEED. One building does not meet the local requirements and the other building exceeds it. As per LEED the building cannot exceed or have less than the local zoning requirement.
In this case, what can be done to meet SSc4.4?
Thank you for your assitance.
Hi Vital,
Let me just clarify that I understand what is going on in the project. The hotel complex (both buildings) meet local zoning requirements for parking. However, when you look at them separately, as they are being submitted for LEED, they fail to meet/exceed the zoning requirements on their own.
Are the buildings being submitted separately because on is lagging the other?
If the parking is in between the two buildings, is there any way to alter the LEED boundary to include more parking in the building which is failing to meet zoning (Without gerrymandering of course)?
I have a few ideas, but just clarify the aforementioned.
Mr. Mlotek:
Thank you for responding.
Yes when you look at them separately, as they are being submitted for LEED, they fail to meet/exceed the zoning requirements on their own.
The buildings are not next to each other. One is on the west side of an avenue and the other one is across the street.
From my understanding, they chose to submit them separately instead of doing them as a campus.
Thanking you in advance for your assistance.
Parking Capacity
I am working on a hotel with two separate buildings. Since the parking will be used for the same hotel, the local zoning requirements were met. As they will combine the number of parking spaces for both buildings.
But as two separate projects with LEED. One building does not meet the local requirements and the other building exceeds it. As per LEED the building cannot exceed or have less than the local zoning requirement.
In this case, what can be done to meet SSc4.4?
Thank you for your assitance.
Vital, it seems that you could earn SSc4.4 for one building but not for the other, on the basis of zoning. Then you would also have to examine the other credit requirements.
PARKING BUILDING
Hello,
I'm working on a project where 90% of the building (3 storeys high, 529 parking spaces) is a parking lot that covers the needs of different buildings next to it and 10% is a community centre. All the design is thought to be as sustainable as possible. My questions are, do we have a chance to get a LEED certification with this scheme? are there certifications for parking buildings? if not, could the community centre be certificated even when its within the parking building?
Thank you in advance!
Rosamaria, I would focus on LEED certification of the community center, and if anything, the parking building could be included within the LEED boundary of the center.
Legal parking capacity vs. LEED
Greeting folks,
The local code requires 1 parking spot per 100m². Our project has 17,890m², which leads to 178,9 parking spots. Not sure how LEED would face that because to comply with the legal requirement we should round this number to 179 parking spots. Would 179 comply with LEED then or should we leave 178?
Those are the regular spots for cars. But the project also has spots for private buses and for trucks. Should we count those in as regular parking spots or LEED do not take those into account?
Thank you for any light you can shed on that matter!
Marcio, are you referring to the LEED requirement to provide parking not exceeding minimum zoning requirements? If so, LEED would generally want you to provide less parking, not more, so you can round down for LEED, and go lower if possible.
With your question about bus and truck parking, I'd have to understand which part of the LEED requirements you're grappling with.
Tristan,
Yes, that's the requirement I'm referring to. The problem is that, if I round down for LEED, I won't be compying with my local requirement.
Still looking at the same requirement, when I'm counting this "minimum" for LEED, should I include parking for buses and trucks or I should only count the spots for cars? For instance, the minimum by law is 178,9 (which I have to round up to 179 to comply with local code) but besides these I have 10 more spots for trucks and 5 more spots for buses (this is a industrial plant). How many spots does LEED understand as my parking capacity so I can comply "not exceed minimum local code requirement", 179 or 179+10+5=194?
Thanks!
Marcio, LEED wouldn't require you to round up in this case. You only have to round up when calculating things like LE/FE parking spaces for LEED requirements. In setting the number of overall required spaces, you should follow the local rules.
The same goes for the truck and bus spots—how does the local code consider them?
No new parking?
We have a "zero lot line" LEED project, where the LEED project boundary is essentially the same as the footprint of the building. There is no new parking provided within the LEED boundary. However, we are building adjacent to a parking garage, with 15 spaces reserved for us, and tenants would be free to rent as much parking as they want. Is this type of project eligible for "no new parking?"
If the adjacent parking garage was previously existing, it sounds reasonable to say that no new parking is being created. If that garage was built with an agreement to provide 15 reserved spaces for the project you are working on, it seems hard to claim "no new parking."
Have you looked at MPR Supplemental Guidance revision #2 pages 24 and 25? That may address your situation; if the parking is just an optional lease for individual employees, and not being provided as part of any other leases, contracts or development agreements it seems ok to exclude the area.
Dormitory project with no parking
We are working on a project in Boston. A new dormitory on a college campus. The project is the 17 story dormitory building, there is no new parking as part of this project. The campus does have some parking away from the dormitory that the prospective students living in this dorm could indeed park if they wanted to. My question is this: Do the dynamics of this being a building on a college campus skew this point? Or does the fact remain that our project, the 17 story dormitory, will not have any parking associated with it and we get the 2 points for that alone?
Hi Jay,
You are eligible for points under the No New Parking Option.
Existing Parking Lot
For a NC 2009 project we are building an addition to a building on an which will replace part of an existing campus parking lot. The campus provides parking in existing parking garages on the campus, and all the spaces had previously been used for hospital valet. Although this existing parking lot will be connected to an a roadway with our building entrance, the parking spaces do not support the new building connection. Do we need to count this existing parking lot in our LEED Boundary line if we are not taking account for the spaces and we are not ripping up and putting down a new parking lot in this area. We ask because it makes our LEED boundary a little funky to exclude this space but lose some credits by including the additional areas which are not a part of our scope.
Daniel, if I'm understanding this correctly, the parking lot that will end up being adjacent to your building is not part of your construction scope and will not service your building. In that case, I don't see a need to include it in your LEED project boundary.
If you haven't already, you might review the LEED MPR supplemental guidance document offered by USGBC. This goes into some detail on setting project boundaries, including some situations relative to parking.
FTE or School population?
The ITE Parking Generation Study refferences school population for units in determing # of parking spaces for University/college buildings. For LEED review purposes does ou school population need to be our 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.? We have 10 full time and 19 part time students in our university research facility so could we use 29 for our school population. Any thoughts?
Nena, I would be surprised if LEED would expect that your 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. count used for all kinds of LEED credits, including water efficiency, would have to line up with the school population count as defined by ITE. So I would go ahead and feel comfortable with them diverging.
Hotel and counting drop-off spaces
Hello - we have a hotel project and are attempting Option 1. The question is - we are meeting the zoning requirement for number of spaces, PLUS we have 3 drop-off (15 minute) spaces. Do the drop-off spaces count in total number of parking? (therefore requiring us to lose 3 total spaces to keep to the zoning #) Do they count in the total # of spaces in order to calc the % 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.?
Lauren, they sound like parking spaces to me. I might think differently if it were a "drop off zone" but I don't see a clear argument for saying that these are not parking spaces.
1 FTE
Is it possible to achieve this credit if there is only 1 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 example, how would you develop a carpool management plan?
Curtis, a project with 1 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. would be eligible for this credit. You should pick an option that makes sense for the project—carpooling might not be the best option—and with any of the options make adaptations so it works. In a case where you have to provide spaces for 5% of FTEs, you would round up, so there would be 1 space for your 1 FTE.
Combined Stalls
I know you cannot double-count between carpool/LEV/FEV to reduce total designated stalls. However, can you combine these stalls if you still provide the same total number? I.E. if you need 5 carpool stalls and 5 LEV stalls, can you provide 10 stalls that all say Carpool/LEV/FEV? The credit language seems to hint at this but I'd like some concrete evidence before making signs. Thanks.
Curt, see the section "Don't double-count parking spaces" above for an answer to this question.
Tristan - I see that the "Bird's Eye View" is clear on this question. But, has this ever been confirmed in a review or by the USGBC? I can't find anything in LEED Interpretations on this issue. I don't have the time (or money) to submit a formal inquiry, but I don't want to risk creating custom signs I have to toss out either. Is there an informal way to ask this minor question to the USGBC, or is LEEDuser's overview a valid argument if questioned by a reviewer?
I remember seeing combined parking signs on older LEED projects (v2.0 era). Have you called the GBCI? It seems like if you are providing the capacity who cares where the LEV people park versus the carpool people? Both need 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. and both are getting their full amount in your proposal. It sure makes signage easier on the owner. One last thought if you are submitting this for the credit, include the signage as you want it to be installed and have the reviewer comment.
I agree with Susan—I don't see this as an explicit ruling, but projects have had this approved. If there is any doubt, submit this as part of the Design submittal and get feedback before you buy your signs.
Parking Capacity overflow to Gravel Lot
We have a research building that shares an asphalt parking lot with a warehouse (used by the researchers but not being certified). We have limited our parking capacity to 25% fewer that the ITE guidelines, but the client wants to have extra space in a gravel lot in case of unforseen events. The gravel lot doesn't have 2/3 of the major environmental impacts of the asphalt lot (facilitating carbon emission, storm water runoff and the heat island effectHeat island effect refers to the absorption of heat by hardscapes, such as dark, nonreflective pavement and buildings, and its radiation to surrounding areas. Other sources may include vehicle exhaust, air-conditioners, and street equipment. Reduced airflow because of tall buildings and narrow streets exacerbate the effect.). Would these gravel lots for emergencies be permitted by the intent of the credit? Because of their reduced negative impact, would they be permitted in non-emergency situations?
Interesting question - in some jurisdictions, gravel lots may not be allowed as designated parking areas. If these are new lots being created for overflow parking, it seems like they would have to be included in the total area and stall count of parking being provided, even though they have less impact than impervious paving. You might 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 to see if a weighted average or reduction might be allowed -but you might need scientific data to compare the impact of a gravel lot with an asphalt one.
I agree David. From a critical perspective, gravel lots for typical uses still promote private automobile use, which I think is the most important intent of this credit.
No new parking except for 3 LE/FE spaces
I'm working on a campus building where we have added only 6 new spaces (3 of which are ADA) I understand the ADA can be exempted, but since the other 3 new ones are being added to be reserved for LE/FE do you think it would be possible to be considered No New Parking?
We have a lot with 120 spaces within our site boundry, but that lot serves the surronding existing bulidings (that are not being certfified).
Any feedback on the best approach? Thanks!
Nena, I'm afraid I don't see the logic. Looks like you have a tradeoff between SSc4.3 and SSc4.4. Since SSc4.3 is an optional credit, I don't see how you could argue under SSc4.4 that the spaces don't count as new because "LEED made me do it."
Existing Parking on a developed site.
My question is related to SS credit 4.4 and SS credit 4.3. We have a 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." site, including existing parking spaces, with an empty building pad where a new health clinic will be constructed. Our LEED project boundary will include 40 of those existing parking spaces, 2 of them will be used to comply with SS credit 4.3. Do we need two more reserved spces for option 1, or can we claim option 3, since there are no new parking spaces, but there was no new building to go along with the parking spaces when the parking was originally built.
Rod,
Can you provide a little more information? Is your project being built on this empty pad site? Why is your project only accommodating 40 spaces - is that per zoning code? Is your parking area segregated from the remaining parking spaces?
Start a new LEED comment thread