ID#
li-2595
| Credit Name | SSc4.3 - Alternative transportation - low emitting and fuel efficient vehicles |
|---|---|
| Credit Category | Sustainable sites |
| International Applicable | No |
Rating System
LEED BD+C: New Construction
Rating System Version
v2 - LEED 2.2
Inquiry
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. There are 205 spaces in the lot. 10 of the 205 spaces are designated for a neighboring facility and have a separate entrance. 11 of the 205 spaces are dedicated to one of the retail tenants. We believe this leaves 184 spaces as our project\'s total parking capacity. Of the 184 spaces, 8 spaces (4.3%) are designated for use by LEVs. Of the remaining 176 spaces, 2 spaces (1.1%) are set aside for a car-sharing service, for which the project has a two-year contract and the shared vehicles will be hybrid LEVs. These 10 spaces constitute 5.4% of the total parking capacity of the facility. The LEED project\'s FTE is 388, so having two car-sharing vehicles provides this service in a ratio of 1:8 for 3% of the FTEs, following the calculation shown in a CIR dated 12/17/07. We find confusion between two relevant CIRs. Our reading of a CIR dated 02/26/07 indicates that the project will not achieve credit under Option 2 because the LEV spaces are not designated for the sole use of the LEED building tenants; the lot is shared by the tenants, retail visitors and general public, and there are no special passes issued to any parkers granting them sole use of the LEV spaces. However, under the 12/17/07 CIR requiring the 1:8 ratio of car-sharing vehicles to 3% of FTEs, the 2 car-sharing spaces will qualify the project for credit. Plus, with the two designations combined, the lot does feature at least 5% of spaces set aside for LEVs as required under Option 2. We seek clarification as to whether or not this strategy may achieve credit under SS 4.3.
