This project is a residential apartment building with ground-level retail which is not included in the LEED boundary because the spaces are tenant build-out. The LEED boundary/site itself has no new parking, but a new parking garage (a separate project under a separate permit) is being built across the street which will serve not only the tenants and retail visitors, but also the general public and visitors to the adjacent university. A CIR dated 05/23/08 indicates that Option 4 cannot be used in this case. Under this assumption the project will attempt Option 3. The site has no parking requirement per local zoning codes. According to the Portland, Oregon Zoning Code: Title 33, Chapter 33.266 (Parking and Loading), page 3, point #3, this site has no minimum required parking because it is "less than 500 feet from a transit street with 20 minute peak hour service." Due to submittal requirements for SS 4.1, this submittal also will include maps and schedules demonstrating the proximity to mass transit service. Does this reading of the referenced standard appear to meet the requirements for SS 4.4, Option 3? If so, the following describes the infrastructure designed to meet SS 4.4: - Car sharing: The parking facility features 2 spaces for a car-sharing service (both of which will be hybrid LEVs). The LEED boundary's FTE is 388, and 2 car-sharing spaces serve 3% of the FTEs with a ratio of one car per 8 FTEs (as calculated in a SS 4.3 CIR dated 12/17/07). - LEV: The facility features 8 spaces for LEVs - Of the 184 parking spaces in the lot, the 10 spaces described above constitute 5.4% as set aside for reduction of personal transportation impact. - Ride share: The LEED building features a posted and web-based ride-share board for use by FTEs. - Carpooling: The LEED building features curb-cuts to allow for carpool pick up and drop off directly in front of the building entrance (the local zoning code only allows for 15 minute standing rather than the 30 minutes required as stated in a CIR dated 04/28/03 under LEED NC v 2.1.) Does the infrastructure described appear to achieve the requirements for credit under Option 3? Additionally, does this infrastructure - featuring spaces for car sharing, carpooling, the ride board, and LEVs - combined with meeting SS 4.2 and 4.3, constitute the "multiple alternative options" as required for exemplary performance?
The project team has raised five questions in reference to compliance with SSc4.4 as well as achieve-ment of an innovation credit for SSc4. 1. Can the ground level retail space be excluded from project boundary and credit calculations? The project team is indicating that the ground-level retail is not included in the LEED boundary because the spaces are tenant build-out. This is not an acceptable way to draw the project boundary for LEED purposes. The project team should treat the building as LEED for New Con-struction project and include the retail space in the credit calculations; tenant guidelines should then be provided for the retail and other tenant spaces. There are numerous CIRs that deal with this situation including SSc4.4 CIR dated 2/18/2005 which states that if the retail component is less than 10% of the total building area, it is to be considered within residential requirements, if greater than 10%, it is to be considered under commercial requirements; and an IDPc1.1 CIR dated 12/19/2007 providing guidance on credit calculations and Rating System selection for mixed-use projects. 2. Can off-site parking be used to achieve compliance with SSc4.4? Per the NCv2.2 SSc4.3 CIR Ruling dated 8/22/2008, it is acceptable to have all or a portion of the parking stalls used by a project be located outside the LEED project boundary. Please reference this CIR for additional information. 3. The project team is asking whether their interpretation of the Portland, Oregon Zoning Code: Title 33, Chapter 33.266 (Parking and Loading), page 3, point #3 is an accurate interpretation and whether, therefore, they do not need to provide any parking because they are less than 500 feet to a transit street? LEED projects should refer specifically to Tables 266-1 and 266-2 of Title 33 to establish the maximum number of spaces allowed when no local zoning code is available. The other portions of the Portland Code are not relevant for LEED compliance purposes and therefore the project team does not have to interpret the code to apply it for LEED purposes. Please note, however, that Tables 266-1 and 266-2 of the code reflects a parking maximum for LEED projects rather than a parking minimum. Parking minimums, if any, would be based on local code allowances. 4. The project team is asking if the measures listed above are sufficient to show compliance with the second portion of the credit requirements for SSc4.4 Option 3. Please note that points for credit achievement are not awarded during the CIR process, so the following is offered as guidance only. a. The LEFE vehicles provided via vehicle share mentioned above contribute to SSc4.3, not SSc4.4. However, designated parking spaces for vanpool or carshare spaces will contribute to the infrastructure. b. The provision of a posted and web-based ride share board and carpool drop-off spaces is consistent with credit intent. The curb side carpool drop-off can be limited to 15 minutes if that is what code allows. Documentation of this code restriction must be provided with the project documentation. c. As the narrative indicates that the project is not seeking SSc4.1, the team should also consider the establishment of shuttle services to mass transit. 5. The project team is also asking whether the measures listed above are sufficient to show com-pliance with an innovation credit. It should be noted that innovation credits are awarded during the certification process, not through the CIR process. a. Detailed requirements for Innovation points in Comprehensive Transportation Manage-ment Plan are spelled out in CIR rulings dated 6/19/2008 and 5/9/2003, as well as page 7 of the ID Credit Catalogue which can be found here http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3569. The measures listed in the credit interpretation request do not appear sufficient to meet the standard for an innova-tion credit as listed. b. For compliance with an innovation credit for exemplary performance for SSc4, per CIR rulings dated 4/28/2003 and 3/6/2006 residential projects must show exemplary parking reduction. Exemplary parking reduction requires a 75% reduction compared to the rele-vant ITE Parking Generation statistic. There is insufficient information about the project to determine if compliance is likely.
Related Addenda (Corrections & Interpretations)