-
Credit language straight from USGBC
Need to check up on the exact LEED credit language from the LEED Rating System on the fly? LEEDuser includes the verbatim language. Members get:
- Easy access to the official LEED credit language with just a couple of clicks.
- On the jobsite without your bulky LEED Reference Guide? Check up on the credit language details here.
- Credit language content is used by permission of the U.S. Green Building Council.
- Rating System Schools 2009Schools
- Rating System SSSustainable Sites
-
Rating System
SSc9Site Master Plan
- SSp1Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
- SSp2Environmental Site Assessment
- SSc1Site Selection
- SSc2Development Density and Community Connectivity
- SSc3Brownfield Redevelopment
- SSc4.1Alternative Transportation—Public Transportation Access
- SSc4.2Alternative Transportation—Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms
- SSc4.3Alternative Transportation—Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles
- SSc4.4Alternative Transportation—Parking Capacity
- SSc5.1Site Development—Protect or Restore Habitat
- SSc5.2Site Development—Maximize Open Space
- SSc6.1Stormwater Design—Quantity Control
- SSc6.2Stormwater Design—Quality Control
- SSc7.1Heat Island Effect—Nonroof
- SSc7.2Heat Island Effect—Roof
- SSc8Light Pollution Reduction
- SSc9Site Master Plan
- SSc10Joint Use of Facilities
Schools 2009 SSc9: Site Master Plan
Get LEED Updates
Get LEEDuser's FREE email newsletter, On Your Team, for LEED updates, tips, and events.
15 Comments
Site Master Plan - Light Pollution Reduction
Has anyone completed the light pollution portion reductin of this credit?
Our project is an elementary school on a remote site that may accommodate future structures (classroom addition, staff housing, and a fire station). However, those structures are not within our scope.
Per signed resolution, the owner has agreed to uphold the requirements of SSc8 for all future development. The resolution included the SSc8 LEED requirements for reference, so future project teams could abide by the same rules as our LEED school. However, the LEED online form appears to assume we have already designed the future facilities, as it requests photometric plans/calcs for this hypothetical development...
Do you think our approach of getting the owner's commitment to uphold SSc8 requirements might work in lieu of submitting speculative plans/calcs?
Although the future building is yet to be designed, I think the reviewers may want to see the calculations. This could be as little as a rectangle on a site plan/photometric showing the likely building location and how it will meet the requirements. It couldn't hurt to try the approach you've indicated, but I would plan on being asked to provide speculative calculations after the review.
Master Plan vs. LEED Project Boundary
Does the master plan need to be the same as the LEED Project Boundary? We have a project where the public school district is adding a building to their existing 'junior high campus'. However, we are partitioning off just the area affected for our LEED Project Boundary becasue it is a completely separate use from the junior high. We're wondering if we are suposed to just use our LEED project boundary for the site master plan, OR the entire junior high site, OR all the school district's property for the master plan. Then, if we can just use our LEED Project Boundary, is it still considered a site master plan if the owner expects no changes to the site (they have planned into the proposed building future grouwth)?
My reading of this credit is that it is applicable only to projects where future expansion is likely within the LEED boundary. So then yes, the master plan should reference future development (and re-calcution of site credits) only within the LEED boundary. It sounds like this credit may not be applicable to your project, unless you can extend your LEED boundary to include areas where future development has been planned for, which may complicate your approach to other credits.
Retract Design Credits if Needed?
Is it possible to retract design submission credits if needed at the end of construction?
On a large school project, the owner has recently brought up the possibility of changes to the master plan that would effect our ability to achieve this and other credits (Stormwater and Max. Open Space). We would like to submit our design credits soon, but the owner may not decide on the master plan issues until the end of construction, which is three years out. Can we submit our design phase credits assuming that the project will stick with the original plan and meet the requirements of the credits, and then retract them if the owner changes the master plan?
Hi Elizabeth,
Yes, not only can you do this, but the rules specifically support that approach. When you do your final (construction) submittal, you also reconfirm your Design submittal items, or modify anything in the Design submittal that might have changed since you submitted it.
Defer to Construction Submittal?
Do you need to defer this credit until the construction submittal if SSc7.1 is one of your 4 master plan credits? Thanks.
Greg, I would say so, yes. Seems logical.
What constitutes a "Master Plan"?
Our project is essentially a build out of a school site. There is no capacity for new buildings however, we are showing the potential for small future classroom additions (4 classrooms). Will these small additions allow us to claim that we have a "master plan"?
The rating system does not set a limit as to how much "change" is necessary for a site to have a master plan. It seems as if the addition of four classrooms would be adequate to claim a master plan, as long as all of the other requirements of the credit are met. We are planning on pursuing this credit for a school in a similar situation where there will be a small addition and changes to the site hardscape.
Master Plan:Open Space
GIven that the requirement for Open Space is that it is to be "dedicated" over the life of the building, I'm having trouble deciding which plan (current, or master) to use for the SSc5.2 section. Under SSc9 we are required to show open space on a master plan basis, which includes additional building etc. on areas we would have originally counted as open space without master planning. Now that we have done master planning, those spaced are no longer "dedicated" open space. Shouldn't we use the master plan building footprintBuilding footprint is the area on a project site used by the building structure, defined by the perimeter of the building plan. Parking lots, parking garages, landscapes, and other nonbuilding facilities are not included in the building footprint. for the calculation of SSc5,2 now that we know of this potential future development? This would result in open space quantites for SSc5.2 and SSc9 to be the same.
What you are saying is indeed
What you are saying is indeed in line with the comments we received. However, what is the value in completing two calculations when, for stormwater, the Master Plan is a worst case scenario, and that is basis you're using to size the system as you're building it now. For example, if your retention ponds are sized for the full development, what is the value of completely re-doing the calcs for the current phase when the runoff quantity and rate are necessarily going to be lower?
I don't see much value in run the calcs either but unfortunately, those are the requirements and there is not much you can do to get around them. You could consider writing 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 it would probably be a month before you receive a response.
Site Master Plan - Recalculations
According to our review team for a Schools project, we are required to provide documentation for each selected Master Plan credit. For example, for stormwater, they are asking us complete two separate calculations and upload a copy of the revised templates and plans under SSc9. This seems rediculous since we completed the stormwater plan based on the Master Plan design which is a "worst-case scenario". Given the added development footprintThe development footprint is the 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., this clearly meets the requirements for the current phase of development as well as future development. The Reviewer is asking that we create an additional plan representing stormwater management for current plan only, which is essentially only extra work for the civil engineer. Has anyone else had this issue? We were under the impression that "recalculated" meant "revised" or "redone" for the Master Plan, not as in completing two separate submittals - esentially just a waste of everyone's time.
I may need a little bit more clarification on your question, however I will try to answer it. In our experience you will need to provide two calculations; one for SSc6.1 (or 6.2) and one again for SSc9. The calculations for SSc6.1 will include pre-development and post-development (what is actually being designed for - not the master plan) rate and quantity calcs. Then for SSc9, you will use the same pre-development calculations but different post-development calcs that deal with the site master plan. A few questions for you: What did you submit for the stormwater credit? This generally includes stormwater calcs for the current plan. Also, if you meet any of the other seven potential credits, you may want to consider providing that information too...we generally recommend that project try to avoid recalcs for the stormwater credits as they are the most complicated.
Please register to use the forum.