Log in
LEED v2009
Core & Shell
Sustainable Sites
Alternative Transportation—Parking Capacity

LEED CREDIT

CS-2009 SSc4.4: Alternative transportation - parking capacity 2 points

See all forum discussions about this credit »

Credit achievement rate

XX%

Upgrade to LEEDuser Premium to see how many projects achieved this credit. Try it free »

LEEDuser expert

Marilyn Specht

Integral group
Principal, US Sustainability Consulting Lead

LEEDuser’s viewpoint

Frank advice from LEED experts

LEED is changing all the time, and every project is unique. Even seasoned professionals can miss a critical detail and lose a credit or even a prerequisite at the last minute. Our expert advice guides our LEEDuser Premium members and saves you valuable time.

Credit language

USGBC logo

© Copyright U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved.

Requirements

Case 1 - Non-residential projects

Option 1

Size parking capacity to meet, but not exceed, minimum local zoning requirements.

OR

Option 2

For projects that provide parking for less than 3% of full-time equivalent (FTE) building occupants: Provide preferred parking1 for carpools or vanpools, marked as such, for 3% 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.

All cases

See Appendix 1 — Default Occupancy Counts for occupancy count requirements and guidance.
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 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.
Streamlined path available
Achievement of this credit can be documented via a LEED ND v2009 submittal. For more information check out this article.
SITES-LEED Equivalency
This LEED credit (or a component of this credit) has been established as equivalent to a SITES v2 credit or component. For more information on using the equivalency as a substitution in your LEED or SITES project, see this article and guidance document.
See all forum discussions about this credit »

What does it cost?

Cost estimates for this credit

On each BD+C v4 credit, LEEDuser offers the wisdom of a team of architects, engineers, cost estimators, and LEED experts with hundreds of LEED projects between then. They analyzed the sustainable design strategies associated with each LEED credit, but also to assign actual costs to those strategies.

Our tab contains overall cost guidance, notes on what “soft costs” to expect, and a strategy-by-strategy breakdown of what to consider and what it might cost, in percentage premiums, actual costs, or both.

This information is also available in a full PDF download in The Cost of LEED v4 report.

Learn more about The Cost of LEED v4 »

Frequently asked questions

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?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Does rebuilding an existing parking area with fewer spaces mean “no new parking”?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

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.

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

How do you designate preferred parking if the parking facility is not under the owner's control?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

How does one apply minimum zoning requirements to a project when it is part of a larger complex or campus?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Are there standards regarding how to document the spaces that will be dedicated as reserved?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

How does a carpool/vanpool relate to a shared car service/company when it comes to the preferred parking requirements of this credit?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Should I consider motorbikes and parking spaces for them under this credit? What about fleet vehicles?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

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 answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

See all forum discussions about this credit »

Addenda

11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Delete the following text in the subparagraph, "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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/3/2010Updated: 2/14/2015
Rating System Correction
Description of change:
Following the text of "Option 3," insert the following text:OROPTION 4For projects that have no minimum local zoning requirements, provide25% fewer parking spaces than the applicable standard listed in the2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Parking Generation"study at http://www.ite.org.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/6/2012Updated: 2/14/2015
Global ACP
Description of change:
Delete the Alternative Compliance Path for Projects Outside the U.S. box.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Rating System Correction
Description of change:
Delete the following text in the subparagraph, "Providing a discounted parking rate is an acceptable substitute for preferred parking for carpool or vanpool vehicles. In order 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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/3/2010Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Following the text of "Option 3," insert the following text:OROPTION 4For projects that have no minimum local zoning requirements, provide25% fewer parking spaces than the applicable standard listed in the2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Parking Generation"study at http://www.ite.org.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Rating System Correction
Description of change:
Add a superscript for footnote 1 to each occurrence of the term "preferred parking".
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Delete the following text in the subparagraph, "Providing a discounted parking rate is an acceptable substitute for preferred parking for carpool or vanpool vehicles. In order 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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Add a superscript for footnote 1 to each occurrence of the term "preferred parking".
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Rating System Correction
Description of change:
Add a superscript for footnote 2 to each occurrence of the term "preferred parking". Add a second footnote at the bottom of the Requirements: 2 "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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/6/2012Updated: 2/14/2015
Global ACP
Description of change:
Delete footnote related to ACP box.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Rating System Correction
Description of change:
Delete the following text in the subparagraph, "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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Add a superscript for footnote 2 to each occurrence of the term "preferred parking". Add a second footnote at the bottom of the Requirements: 2 "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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/1/2013Updated: 2/14/2015
Rating System Correction
Description of change:
"Add the following after “Option 2” in “Case 3”:
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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
12/2/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Background. Timber Ridge at Talus is an Owner-operated Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) in the Talus Development of Issaquah, Washington. Phase 1 of Timber Ridge will provide housing for 225 seniors and will employ 75 staff. The 365,691 square foot building comprises 184 units of residential apartments; 36 beds of skilled nursing; various commons areas for residents; and facility support spaces for administrative, laundry, commercial kitchen, and maintenance functions. The building is divided into a high rise tower (seven to nine stories) and a commons building (two stories plus mezzanine to five stories plus mezzanine). The project also provides a sub-grade parking garage and surface parking at the main entry and on-street. Our project is pursuing SS 4.4 as part of a comprehensive strategy for encouraging the use of alternative transportation by residents, visitors, and employees. In accordance with SS 4.4 requirements, we have sized our employee and residential parking capacity to meet, but not exceed, minimum local zoning requirements and will provide preferred parking for 5% or more of the 75 employees who will be commuting to work at Timber Ridge. The Owner has also developed a project-specific Transportation Management Plan (TMP). Our request relates to meeting the carpool parking requirements of SS 4.4 for residential parking. CIR ruling dated 4/28/2003 notes that carpooling is not normally applicable to residential projects and provides an alternative compliance path to meeting the carpool parking requirement. In this CIR, we are requesting approval of an alternate project-specific, compliance path for SS 4.4, which though slightly different from what is described in the cited CIR Ruling, completely complies with the intent of the credit and is more appropriate for our facility. Discussion. As a residence, Timber Ridge is an origin, not a destination, so providing carpool parking does not make sense. Even if we were to designate carpool spots, these locations may or may not end up being "preferred" depending upon which residents would be participating at any particular time. Further, Timber Ridge is a facility for elderly retired persons, so of course the residents do not make daily commutes to work. The average age of our residents will be 78 to 80, and while the residential parking capacity complies with the local code, the Owner anticipates that most residents will sell their cars before they move in. In addition, the building will provide most of the amenities that residents are likely to need. These include a restaurant, lounge, caf

Ruling:

The combination of strategies described above meets the intent of the credit, provided that preferred parking for carpools or low-emitting/fuel efficient vehicles for 5% of the parking spaces allocated to staff. The description indicates that there are a number of strategies being proposed that will provide infrastructure and support programs to facilitate the use of mass transit and shared vehicle programs as suggested by previous CIR rulings. Upon submittal, documentation of each strategy outlined should be provided. However, there is concern that the project as described may have more parking than required. With so few cars expected to be owned by residents and with the ample transit options available to them, it seems that exemplary parking reductions (below those required by code) could be sought from local authorities. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
3/6/2006
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a high-rise multi-family residential project in New York City. We seek credit equivalency for Sustainable Sites cr4.4: Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity based on a previous CIR ruling, dated 11/1/04 that states, "... credit equivalency may be available for unique circumstances, such as projects in dense urban settings ... and that demonstrate achievement of the credit intent by reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use. Carpool/vanpool spaces typically are not appropriate for residential projects, as stated in SSc4 CIR rulings dated 12/27/2001 and 4/28/2003." Our project is located in Manhattan, and as the CIR dated 3/7/2003 notes, "In Manhattan, there are no minimum parking capacity requirements for residential buildings..." Per the same CIR ruling, we used the most recent ITE Parking Generation study to compare against our project\'s parking allotment. Our project has 460 apartments. The most recent ITE Parking Generation study (3rd Edition) lists the parking ratio as 1.03 spaces per dwelling unit. Using this statistic, the project could provide up to 474 spaces. Instead, our project will have 83 parking spaces available, but only 48 will be made available for residences as 35 will be used by an adjacent commercial project. Thus, the project is providing just over an 82% reduction (exemplary performance) compared to the new ITE Parking Generation statistic. Our project is located in an area extraordinarily well-served by mass transportation, with two major alternative transit hubs being located less than 800\' (much less than a 1/2 mile) from the site. One is a subway station serving 8 different lines: B, D, F, V, N, Q, R, and W trains, providing transfers between two of the busiest lines: the F and the N. The other is Penn Station, which connects subway passengers from the A, C, E, 1, 2, 3 lines to a commuter rail line (the Long Island Rail Road), state and nation wide Amtrak service, and the A subway line which connects to the Air Train service to JFK airport. In addition, there are 13 major bus routes within 1/4 mile of the site: bus line numbers 4, 32, 10, 20, 16, 34, 6, 7, 2, 3, and 5. By virtue of the extreme reduction in parking spots offered, the short distance to major subway lines and railways, and the close proximity to numerous bus routes, the project has already greatly discouraged the need for individuals to own or use a car to travel to and from the building. However, the owners have taken other important steps to encourage alternatives to the use of single occupancy vehicles. The project spans one city block, located in the center of a block between two major avenues, sandwiched between existing buildings. The main lobby of the building opens to only one of the cross town streets. To encourage use of the bus system through convenient access to bus stops, the owners are providing an additional entrance that offers direct access to the nearest bus stop which is directly adjacent to the back of the building. This will negate the need to walk to the nearest avenue and around the block, as would have been the case if only one entrance had been provided. Additionally, the owner will be providing a vending machine for tenants that will sell MetroCards, which can be used for both bus and subway travel. This is rarely done in private buildings, but the owner wants to provide a convenience to the tenants that will promote use of public transportation. Since the MTA does not provide MetroCard vending machines outside of their own facilities, the owner had to put significant effort into finding a private ATM company which could provide this service. In the Lobby, there will be a clearly marked, widely visible rider board. On this rider board, there will also be posted information about car sharing services in NYC. Each tenant will individually receive a tenant manual outlining the building\'s green features. In this handbook, there will be specific information about car sharing services, detailing where the nearest cars are located and how to use the service. To recap, our project: 1. provides an 82% reduction (exemplary performance) in parking capacity 2. provides tenants a special entrance which leads directly from the closest bus stop 3. gives tenants the convenient ability to buy MetroCard tickets in the building 4. provides a clearly marked, widely visible rider board 5. widely encourages and educates tenants about using car sharing services As stated before, in a CIR ruling, "Carpool/vanpool spaces typically are not appropriate for residential projects ..." Given the specifics of our building and site, we believe our efforts comply with the intent of the credit.

Ruling:

The combination of these strategies meets the intent of the credit. The project achieved exemplary parking reduction, as required by CIR ruling dated 4/28/03, and is providing infrastructure and support programs to facilitate the use of mass transit and shared vehicle programs as suggested by previous CIR rulings. Upon submittal, please provide documentation to support each of the strategies outlined.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
6/22/2009
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project scope is unique in that the building owner is currently seeking certification under LEED Core & Shell for the overall base building tower, while also requiring all tenants to attain LEED for Commercial Interiors certification. Due to this unique scenario it is unclear exactly how to address certain credit requirements for the Commercial Interiors projects when the space will be located within a Core & Shell building concurrently pursuing the same related credits, effectively making a LEED NC project. The below grade parking structure (for both LEED projects) is intended to serve the entire masterplan (not just our building) with a total of 2,115 parking spaces. To meet the LEED CS credit requirement for the office tower, a maximum of 1,500 spaces (not to exceed) can be "allocated" (demonstrated operationally and via parking passes) to the total project, such that the remaining 615 spaces will serve the additional masterplan facilities. While we understand that there is no requirement in LEED CS to provide preferred carpool parking spaces we would like to ensure that all tenants will be able to provide the appropriate number of preferred carpool spaces. LEED CI credit requirements for Case A (projects occupying < 75% of building gsf) state that the project shall not exceed minimum local zoning AND provide preferred parking for carpools for 5% of the occupants. Requiring the calculation to be based on occupancy rather than the number of parking spaces, such as in LEED NC, does not effectively address the ratios between the number of employees and the total amount of provided parking. For this project if we assume all tenants will pursue this credit, a default occupancy of 5944 would require 298 preferred carpool spaces or 20% of total spaces. Because the CS and CI calculations and requirements vary greatly, we would like to suggest meeting the alternate equivalent NC v2.2 Option 1 compliance path, whereby all of the registered projects can reasonably achieve the credit. In this scenario, we would provide preferred carpool parking for 5% of total parking capacity (1,500 spaces per local zoning), or 75 carpool spaces, which would be allocated among all of the tenants based on their total allocation of parking spaces in the deck. With this, please confirm that all registered projects will be able to earn the credit.

Ruling:

The project is asking if providing preferred carpool parking for 5% of total parking capacity is an acceptable alternative compliance pathway for achieving SSc3.3 under LEED CI. The answer depends on the amount of parking available to employees. Per a previous LEED CI SSc3.3 CIR ruling dated 1/27/2007, based on a scenario with limited parking access for employees, using LEED-NC v2.2 SSc4.4 Option 1 as a compliance path to determine the number of preferred parking spaces for carpools is reasonable for the LEED-CI project. "Limited parking access for employees" is defined as 20% or less of employees having access to parking. If more than 20% of the parking is available to employees then the requirements of SSc3.3 as defined in the LEED CI reference guide need to be met Project teams will need to adequately demonstrate how parking is restricted to employees to pursue this alternative compliance pathway. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
11/3/2006
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a 408 student residence hall in a campus setting sited on an existing commuter parking lot. It is in a moderately rural community with off-campus amentities within a 1/2 mile. Since the campus does not adhere to town zoning by-laws for parking, and existing parking is considered ample by the college, we are able to eliminate 350 parking spaces and add only 4 for building staff. In addition, there is a shuttle service for students and staff that services the campus as well as town amentities, (http://www.bridgew.edu/Transportation/campusshuttle.cfm). There is also a campus wide vehicle request system that provides vans and mini-buses for off campus trips within a 200 mile radius of campus, (http://www.bridgew.edu/Transportation/TransPolicy.cfm). In eliminating 346 net parking spaces and utilizing a campus wide shuttle service as well as a vehicle request system, we have encouraged students and staff to take advantage of what is a very walkable campus and town. Is the intent of this credit, (NC 2.1), satisfied?

Ruling:

Based on the provided description, the project meets the first requirement of this credit by reducing the number of parking spaces provided, assuming that additional parking is not being added elsewhere on the campus as a direct result of this project. However, the second requirement of this credit, to provide designated carpool/vanpool parking spaces for 5% of the building occupants, must also be demonstrated. Past CIRs have addressed ways to calculate the number of required carpool spaces based on full time equivalent occupants in the building (see SSc4.4 CIR rulings dated 7/16/03, 8/7/2002 and 6/28/2002). Please also note that per CIR ruling dated 2/2/2004, shuttle bus parking cannot be used to substitute carpool spaces. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
1/18/2005
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

A 10/15/04 CIR asked whether a metered 30 minute space could qualify for the carpool/vanpool requirements of SSc4.4 on a residential project (relying on the 4/28/03 SSc4.4 ruling). You rejected their proposal because their project did not incorporate parking, and also stated that "in this case, though, the 30-minute parking spaces are not clearly marked as a carpool drop-off and pick-up area." You also stated that the spaces "must be owned or leased by the building owner or tenant(s) to insure their availability to project occupants." Our project represents a variation on that theme with important differences. We propose to put a designated, metered, 30-minute carpool-only space curbside in front of our building, along with a riderboard in the building and possibly a web-based carpool sign-up system. The spaces would be owned by the city, but they would be designated carpool-only spaces, and would be curbside right in front of our building. Because the carpool space is right in front of our building, it would clearly meet the criteria of "insure their availability to building occupants." We do have parking inside the building but we feel spaces curbside are actually more useful for carpool drop-off parking. Please confirm that this approach meets the credit intent, and please confirm that getting a variance from the city to have less parking spaces in our garage than the city code minimum meets the exemplary parking reductions requirement.

Ruling:

It is possible for the project to achieve credit equivalency. Based upon your reference to the 4/28/2003 SSc4.4 CIR Ruling, it will be assumed that this is a multi-family residential project located in a dense urban setting. Credit equivalency may be available for such projects, given their unique circumstances, provided that achievement of the credit intent can be demonstrated by reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use, as stated in SSc4.4 CIR Ruling dated 11/1/2004. One such approach, as you reference, is described in 4/28/2003 SSc4.4 CIR Ruling. This ruling requires that the following combination of features be sufficiently documented: (1) a carpool rider board easily found and viewable by residents; (2) a clearly marked drop-off area (near the building entrance or nearest to parking garage elevator and/or stairs) that allows 30 minute parking for at least one vehicle - dedicated to carpool vehicles only (delivering or receiving passengers); and (3) exemplary parking reductions. In this case, the curbside space(s) must clearly be located in a preferred location and designated for carpooling with signage. Further, since any such space(s) will not be owned or leased by the building owner, documentation must demonstrate that the designated space(s) will remain available to the building\'s occupants. Such documentation might consist of an agreement letter from the City and signage restricting the carpooling parking to 30 minute parking for the building\'s residents only. Regarding exemplary parking reductions: Since an ordinance for parking requirements apparently exists, documentation must demonstrate that the project is providing 50% less parking than local requirements. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
4/24/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

The project is a new federal courthouse building located in downtown Richmond, Virginia. We are seeking the parking capacity credit under option 4: provide no new parking. The credit\'s stated intent is to reduce pollution and land development impacts from single occupant vehicle use. The project provides no parking for courthouse general staff. The building is located at a central node of greater Richmond\'s public transportation system, and is also near existing public pay parking lots for those who may choose to drive to the courthouse. There are, however, 65 vehicle spaces located in a secure area under the building; two in a sallyport area for transporting prisoners, 13 for federal judges and other staff with security concerns related to their work at the courthouse, and 50 spaces leased by the tenant agencies for official vehicles used in courthouse business. Government regulations prohibit the tenant agencies or GSA to lease parking spaces for vehicles except for mission essential business. Three layers of security protect this underground vehicle area, and the federal judge spaces are protected by a fourth layer of security within that secure area. During the design process, the number of secure sallyport spaces, tenant agency official vehicle spaces, and secure federal judges/staff spaces was set at the minimum required to support the courthouse\'s functions. It is an unfortunate fact that since 1970 seven state and federal judges have been killed in incidents related to their job duties; we trust providing the 13 secure parking spaces to provide a safe means of travel for public servants does not disqualify the project from pursuing this credit. The balance of the secure spaces provided on site are necessary to house vehicles that allow the courthouse to conduct its business. We seek confirmation that the decision not to provide visitor or general staff parking and the decision to locate the building at the center of downtown Richmond\'s public transportation network satisfy this credit\'s requirements and intent. With the above considerations, is the project eligible for the credit under the Option 4 "provide no new parking" compliance path?

Ruling:

The project team is requesting whether they may use Option #4 (Provide No New Parking) of this credit for a project that, for security and other reasons, still includes 65 parking spaces. The answer to this question is no; there are no exceptions to this No New Parking credit requirement. However, the project could pusue either Option #1 or Option #2 of this credit as a method of compliance as long as it can figure out a way to provide preferred parking for carpools and/or vanpools. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
11/7/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a 360,000 sq.ft. hospital located in an urban setting on a University campus. This 9 storey building was constructed overtop of an existing hospital Emergency ward. During construction 56 parking spaces that serve the Emergency were taken over for site enabling and will be reconstructed on site using 13 less spaces than what originally existed. This parking is for the purpose of serving the Emergency not our project, however the construction of this parking is part of the scope of work for our project. Since the project is located on a University campus there are 4 existing campus parkades located adjacent the site that can be used to serve the project\'s parking needs, so our project has not added any additional parking for this building. Also an existing bicycle storage area located in one of the parkades will also serve the project. Based on previous CIR Rulings, LEED allows some flexibility in determining the extent of the site area for purposes of LEED. However, a specific site area must be defined and used consistently for achievement of all credits. Typically, campus projects define an area associated with the specific construction site as the site area, rather than addressing the campus as a whole. Our project has planned to exclude all existing campus parkades from our LEED site boundary and therefore from our calculations as they are not part of our scope of work for construction. Can we do this considering building occupants will use these parkades to park vehicles and store bicycles? Can we also exclude the parking spaces that are for the existing Emergency not our project? Please note we are submitting for certification under LEED-NC v2.1.

Ruling:

The approach of excluding the existing campus parking areas from the LEED project boundary is permissible for the project. In campus situations, designated carpool parking spaces may also be located in campus lots elsewhere on the same campus. Please note that the credit requirements for parking capacity (whether inside or outside of the project boundary) must still be followed. Refer to the LEED-NC Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects (AGMBC) for more information. It is also permissible to exclude the parking areas dedicated to the Emergency ward.Update April 15, 2011: Please note that all 2009 projects in multiple building situations must follow the 2010 Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects, located here: https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7987. 2009 project teams should check this document for up to date guidance on all multiple building issues.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/1/2012
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project follows the design guidelines set forth in the United Facilities Criteria (UFC). The specific UFC that we are required to follow contains a minimum requirement for VIP parking stalls to be placed along the entrance driveway and/or the area in closest proximity to the facility. Our site layout has a very small parking lot that contains the handicapped stalls and VIP stalls, and this parking lot is the closest to the building entrance. Further away (but within 1/4-mile distance) is a large parking garage that serves a majority of the facility, but this garage does not fall within the LEED project boundary. Two questions, (1) We are unable to locate the LEED "preferred parking" stalls in this small parking lot, but will locate them in the parking garage with the most convenience to the elevators/stairs/exits. Is this approach acceptable? (2) Our parking total count is 1100 stalls, so we have designated 55 carpool/vanpool stalls. Of the 55 stalls, we have located 5 vanpool stalls right outside the parking garage, as these are meant for larger sized vans that may not make the height clearance within the parking garage. The location of these stalls fall within the 1/4-mile distance from the building entry, but are approximately 60-ft further to the side of the parking garage. Is this acceptable?

Ruling:

The project is inquiring if SSc4.4 Option 1 can be earned by designating preferred parking spaces in a parking garage outside of the LEED Project Boundary, but within one-fourth mile of the project, even though an on-site surface parking lot contains handicapped and VIP stalls (per the Unified Facilities Criteria). The project is also inquiring if preferred spaces can be located on multiple levels of a parking garage, adjacent to elevators/stair/exits. Finally, the project is inquiring if locating 5 of the 55 required carpool/vanpool spaces adjacent to the parking garage for use by vans that will not fit in the limited height of the parking garage is acceptable. While LEED Interpretation 5147, states that it is acceptable to have all or a portion of the parking stalls dedicated as preferred parking outside the LEED Project Boundary, Consistent with LEED Interpretation 2516 dated 3/31/2009 which further clarified the previous ruling, it is acceptable to have both VIP parking stalls (within the on-site handicapped and VIP parking lot--per the Unified Facilities Criteria) and parking outside the LEED Project Boundary in the adjacent lot dedicated as preferred parking, consistent with credit requirement. Parking not included within the LEED Project Boundary should be within 1/4 mile of the building entrance(s) or served by a shuttle bus and these preferred parking spaces are to be designated for the LEED project building occupants. Because VIP vehicles are not precluded from SSc4.3 & 4.4 requirements, the project must designate 5% of the VIP parking and 5% of the main parking area or garage as preferred parking space for this credit. Preferred parking spaces in a garage are those that are the shortest combined driving distance from the parking garage entrance and walking distance to the project building\'s main entrance(s). While locating ADA accessible parking spaces adjacent to elevators on multiple levels of a parking garage may be preferred for mobility/access reasons, these are not always considered preferred within SSc4.3 and 4.4 for carpool or low-emitting/fuel-efficient vehicle users. These spaces should be located on the main vehicle entrance level. The location of preferred parking 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 occupants\' parking needs which are unique to the project.Accommodating the height of full-sized shuttle vans by locating 5 of the 55 required carpool/vanpool stalls outside of and immediately adjacent to the parking garage is an acceptable approach. Please ensure the location of all spaces is clearly communicated to all building occupants.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/28/2003
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

We are submitting the following appeal to the USGBC Project Manager\'s Ruling of a CIR in the Sustainable Sites category, Credit SS-4.4. The Credit Interpretation Request was submitted on 12/27/2001 for the 20 River Terrace Project. The CIR asked for clarification on the requirements of this credit in the context of an urban project with no minimum parking standards, and in the context of a multi-family residential building. We are appealing the ruling based on the following additional project information. In Manhattan there are no minimum parking capacity requirements for residential buildings in our zoning classification; rather, there is a parking capacity allowance, which is one space for every 5 residential units (20%). For our project, the number of parking spaces provided is 48, and the number of apartment units is 292 (Note: the number of parking spaces and apartment units has changed since the initial CIR was submitted). The project therefore has provided approximately 20% fewer spaces than zoning allows. We assume this meets the first requirement of this credit. For the second credit requirement (preferred parking for carpooling), the Council agreed with our designation of carpooling as a destination concept, rather than an origination concept. However, the Council states in the Ruling that the project should provide means for encouraging increased HOV usage (e.g., through flex car parking, carpool drop-offs, rider boards) and provide a calculation that indicates how increased HOV utilization is accomplished. In our project, the parking garage is leased to a separate operating company (a typical practice in New York City); therefore the parking spaces are not reserved for the building residents. The spaces will be available to the general public, and are not under the control of the general building management. We will provide rider boards in the building to encourage carpooling to other destinations and provisions for a drop-off area; however, we cannot make a direct correlation as to how this will increase the use of HOVs - this depends on the actions of the residents themselves. In summary, we believe that by reducing the number of spaces below what is allowed by zoning, and by providing rider boards and a drop-off area for the building residents, we have sufficiently met the intent of this credit in a multi-family residential context.

Ruling:

Your appeal presented a challenging case. LEED credits do not necessarily apply to all types of projects. Carpooling is not normally applicable to residential projects. Further limitations of this project, due to the garage\'s operation being leased to a third party, contribute to this issue. The Credit Ruling Committee has decided to approve your appeal. The point will be awarded if sufficiently documented, based the following combination of features: (1) a carpool rider board easily found and viewable by residents; (2) a clearly marked drop-off area (at the building entrance or nearest to parking garage elevator and/or stairs) that allows 30 minute parking for at least one vehicle - dedicated to carpool vehicles only (delivering or receiving passengers); and (3) exemplary parking reductions. Exemplary parking reductions have been achieved for this project, as described below. Recent rulings for LEED certifications have established a minimum LEED requirement for use in localities with no minimum parking requirements: (1)the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Parking Generation" study (at www.ite.org) is to be referenced to find the applicable parking use statistic, per building type; and (2) the LEED project must have at least 25% less parking spaces than the statistic in order to comply. The most recent ITE Parking Generation study was published in 1987. LEED practitioners must reference the new edition when it is released in 2003. Exemplary performance requires a 75% reduction compared to the relevant ITE Parking Generation statistic. The statistic for observed high-rise residential parking is 0.88 spaces per occupied dwelling. Your project beats this statistic by 83%. Other types of projects (commercial, etc.) may also apply this ruling as appropriate.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
9/14/2006
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a 94,334 square foot research facility located on a university research campus. Most building users arrive in the morning around 8 AM and leave around 5 PM. The building is connected by a new lobby to an existing building, with the new building occupying land that was previously parking for the original building. Although new parking was constructed, it does not exceed the original number of spaces (pre-construction =327 spaces / post-construction parking for both buildings = 309 spaces). We believe we have greatly exceeded the first half of the credit intent for SS4.4 by providing no net increase in parking spaces. This parking arrangement is within University guidelines for parking requirements, which has jurisdiction on the site. The University has a carpool policy which grants carpool applicants reduced rates on their parking passes for surface lots, several free days of parking a month in University structured garage parking, and inclusion in a Guaranteed Ride Home program. Due to extreme parking limitations it does not, however, provide dedicated reserved parking for carpool participants. Participants may park in any available spot allowed by their original parking permit. This policy is in effect because the University has observed that the majority of reserved carpool spaces sit empty, and the Parking System managers feel this is unacceptable since parking on a campus that has over 70,000 users is a very delicate and politically charged issue. Nevertheless, the school is very much interested in pursuing LEED on this and other projects. The school is willing to provide preferred dedicated carpool spaces for 5% of the building occupants, provided that the signage for each indicates that such reservation expires at 10 AM each weekday. The Parking System managers feel that this satisfies the intent of the credit while making full use of parking resources. Does this approach satisfy the credit intent of credit SS4.4?

Ruling:

The project is seeking clarification on the requirement to provide "no new parking" and the marking of carpool spaces. New parking is being constructed as part of the project, but it is replacing existing parking and has slightly fewer spaces than the existing lot. The project can achieve this credit through Option 4 in the LEED-NC v2.2 version of this credit, which requires that no new parking is provided. The other carpool incentives proposed are commendable, but no designation of carpool parking is necessary for credit achievement in this case, since no new parking is being provided. Because the CIR references other projects on the campus in similar situations which may or may not be adding new parking, this ruling also clarifies the question of whether carpool spaces can be used to achieve the credit if the carpool "reservation" expires after 10 am: In this situation, the expiration would disqualify these spaces from counting towards credit achievement. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
2/7/2005
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a renovation of an existing residential student complex in the center of the Clemson University campus. The site is within a 5 minute walk to the academic core areas of campus and to downtown Clemson. The project will house 442 students and resident staff. Campus parking policy requires resident students park their cars in a perimeter campus lot approximately 1/2 mile from our project site. Thus residents use their cars selectively. In order to create a more pedestrian friendly quadrangle, the proposed design will eliminate all existing on-site parking (11 spaces) and provide only 3 new metered spaces, and 10 scooter spaces adjacent to the buildings. Our question is regarding the carpool/vanpool requirement for 5% of the building occupants. The LEED Application Guide for Lodging states "In some cases, lodging facilities are located in close vicinity to the workplace and carpools and vanpools are not necessary. Such a strategy would likely comply with the intent of the credit." We would like to confirm that our project meets the requirements of this statement and would therefore receive credit for this item without providing carpool/vanpool parking. Also, what documentation is required? We should also point out that in order to provide carpool spaces for 5% of the occupants (12 spaces), we would be increasing the amount of parking over the existing. We believe that providing the 12 carpool spaces on-site would likely encourage the use of cars, as students will park in these spaces short-term, and risk getting a ticket.

Ruling:

Based on the description above, the project is meeting the first requirement of this credit by reducing existing parking area. As the project meets the definition of a lodging facility as stated in the LEED Application for Lodging, the Application Guide can be applied to this project. The Application Guide states, "Carpool and vanpool programs should be adopted for the lodging facility to service commuting between the residence and other amenities. In some cases, lodging facilities are located in close vicinity to the workplace and carpools and vanpools are not necessary." There are two scenarios that would need to be addressed by projects commuting to the workplace and to amenities. Given the nature and siting of this project, it is clear that all of the residents are within a short walk of their "workplace (i.e. the academic core). It is not apparent however if the project would be in close proximity (within a mile) to basic amenities (for goods and services useful to students such as convenience grocery or supermarket, pharmacy, bank, post office, etc.). If the project\'s LEED submittal demonstrates that the amenities are within a mile, it is eligible for this point. Furthermore, a rideshare bulletin board (for those trips where a car is necessary, e.g. specialty shopping, recreation, various road trips) must be posted in a high-traffic common area (e.g. entrance or lounge), actively maintained, and introduced as part of resident orientation. To document this credit, the project would need to provide a narrative and a site plan demonstrating that no new parking has been added to the project, and that the workplace and amenities are located in close proximity to the project. Include details on the rideshare bulletin board and its management. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
8/2/2001
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our building will occupy a whole city block with no parking on that particular block. We are defining our LEED project as the building plus approximately 26% of a parking deck (and of the landscaped area around it), with the parking deck located in a block diagonally across from the building. The new parking deck will serve four buildings by the same owner, with zoning requiring 1,358 spaces total, and the deck providing 1,550 spaces. Zoning for our building requires 407 spaces. We are planning to allocate 407 parking spaces operationally (with parking passes for the building occupants and a set-aside for visitors within the 407 spaces) rather than with physical barriers in the parking deck. Please let us know whether this operational allocation is acceptable for obtaining SS Credit 4.4, or what else we need to do. We also want to use the 407 spaces as a basis for the total vehicle capacity for SS Credit 4.3, Alternative Fuel Refueling Stations. Is this acceptable for the base number in this question?

Ruling:

It is acceptable to allocate a portion of the parking deck to the LEED project. Allocate a proportional amount of the parking deck from the ground up, including both the covered and top deck spaces. You will need to provide convincing documentation that limits the number of parking spaces to the code minimum, and that the other spaces in the parking structure are not providing capacity beyond the LEED requirement. If the parking deck is included in one credit, it must be included in all other applicable credit calculations. The alternative-fuel refueling stations should be calculated from the allocated parking space total. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
4/2/2014
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Can a project located in California achieve Option 1 of SSc4.3: Alternative Transportation - Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and/or SSc4.4: Alternative Transportation - Parking Capacity by meeting the requirements of the CalGreen building code?

Ruling:

New construction projects in California can use CALGreen’s “Clean Air/Vanpool/EV” signage as a substitute for both the low-emitting and fuel efficient vehicle signage and the carpool/vanpool signage requirements of SSc4.3: Alternative Transportation - Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and SSc4.4: Alternative Transportation - Parking Capacity. Projects must meet a 10% threshold for “Clean Air/Vanpool/EV” parking, since CALGreen signage refers to both vehicle classifications, to ensure the appropriate parking capacity has been provided. Note that this requirement also applies to LEED-CS and LEED Schools projects. For additional information, reference LEED Interpretation 2292. All other applicable LEED requirements must be met to achieve SSc4.3: Alternative Transportation - Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and/or SSc4.4: Alternative Transportation - Parking Capacity.

Campus Applicable
Yes
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
2/20/2003
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Harley-Davidson is currently building a new addition to its Product development Center in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. There are1128 existing automobile and 276 motorcycle parking stalls on the current Harley-Davidson campus site serving two existing buildings. The PDC expansion will provide an additional 125 automobile and 13 motorcycle stalls. City of Wauwatosa Ordinance 22.44.090 requires 1 stall per 350 GSF of building area. At 75,958 GSF the new PDC would have required 218 new stalls. However the design team was able to demonstrate to the City that sufficient parking capacity could be maintained with fewer stalls by recognizing the diversity in peak hours of occupancy between the 3 buildings. In terms of parking numbers Harley-Davidson meets the first half of this credit\'s requirements. While Harley-Davidson has no van pooling policy, they do have a disproportionately high motorcycle ridership, a natural consequence of their business that they encourage and have capitalized on in their site parking. With 276 existing bike parking stalls and 13 new bike stalls planned, the smaller stall size (4\'-6" x 10\'-0") does reduce the site-parking footprint. It should be noted that these stalls are accounted for as part of the required City parking numbers and not as additional parking. While motorcycles can neither substitute for the pollution abatement benefits of bicycle riding (Credit 4.2) nor qualify as an alternatively fueled vehicle (Credit 4.3), its associated smaller footprint can reduce parking surface area which seems to be the root intent of this credit (Credit 4.4). According to the LEED Reference Guide\'s calculation methodology this credit is achievable by providing 7 carpool spaces (5% x 276 FTE

Ruling:

Based on the above description, the parking provided will not exceed zoning requirements, thus meeting the first requirement for achieving this credit for new projects. The second requirement is providing carpool/vanpool parking for 5% of building occupants. Although motorcycle use in designated motorcycle spaces could reasonably be considered to be a form of carpooling, the TAG has concerns that motorcycle use is seasonal, especially in the cold climate where this project is located. The project would need to demonstrate that the motorcycle/carpool program adopted achieves the same annual result as a more typical carpool program to achieve the credit. For example, if motorcycle use is reasonable for 1/3 of the year, program participation would need to be three times as high during that period to achieve the same annual result as a year-round carpool program. Also, the project would need to demonstrate that there is a program in place to encourage employees to participate in the high-occupancy vehicle program, so that the designated spaces are utilized to the fullest extent possible. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
See all forum discussions about this credit »

Checklists

Step by step to LEED certification

LEEDuser’s checklists walk you through the key action steps you need to earn a credit, including how to avoid common pitfalls and save money.

See all forum discussions about this credit »

Documentation toolkit

The motherlode of cheat sheets

LEEDuser’s Documentation Toolkit is loaded with calculators to help assess credit compliance, tracking spreadsheets for materials, sample templates to help guide your narratives and LEED Online submissions, and examples of actual submissions from certified LEED projects for you to check your work against. To get your plaque, start with the right toolkit.

Credit achievement rate

XX%

Upgrade to LEEDuser Premium to see how many projects achieved this credit. Try it free »

LEEDuser expert

Marilyn Specht

Integral group
Principal, US Sustainability Consulting Lead

Get the inside scoop

Our editors have written a detailed analysis of nearly every LEED credit, and LEEDuser premium members get full access. We’ll tell you whether the credit is easy to accomplish or better left alone, and we provide insider tips on how to document it successfully.

USGBC logo

© Copyright U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. All rights reserved.

Requirements

Case 1 - Non-residential projects

Option 1

Size parking capacity to meet, but not exceed, minimum local zoning requirements.

OR

Option 2

For projects that provide parking for less than 3% of full-time equivalent (FTE) building occupants: Provide preferred parking1 for carpools or vanpools, marked as such, for 3% 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.

All cases

See Appendix 1 — Default Occupancy Counts for occupancy count requirements and guidance.
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 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.
Streamlined path available
Achievement of this credit can be documented via a LEED ND v2009 submittal. For more information check out this article.
SITES-LEED Equivalency
This LEED credit (or a component of this credit) has been established as equivalent to a SITES v2 credit or component. For more information on using the equivalency as a substitution in your LEED or SITES project, see this article and guidance document.

XX%

Upgrade to LEEDuser Premium to see how many projects achieved this credit. Try it free »

Got the gist of SSc4.4 but not sure how to actually achieve it? LEEDuser gives step-by-step help. Premium members get:

  • Checklists covering all the key action steps you'll need to earn the credit.
  • Hot tips to give you shortcuts and avoid pitfalls.
  • Cost tips to assess what a credit will actually cost, and how to make it affordable.
  • Ideas for going beyond LEED with best practices.
  • All checklists organized by project phase.
  • On-the-fly suggestions of useful items from the Documentation Toolkit and Credit Language.

In the end, LEED is all about documentation. LEEDuser’s Documentation Toolkit, for premium members only, saves you time and helps you avoid mistakes with:

  • Calculators to help assess credit compliance.
  • Tracking spreadsheets for materials purchases.
  • Spreadsheets and forms to give to subs and other team members.
  • Guidance documents on arcane LEED issues.
  • Sample templates to help guide your narratives and LEED Online submissions.
  • Examples of actual submissions from certified LEED projects.

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?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Does rebuilding an existing parking area with fewer spaces mean “no new parking”?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

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.

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

How do you designate preferred parking if the parking facility is not under the owner's control?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

How does one apply minimum zoning requirements to a project when it is part of a larger complex or campus?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Are there standards regarding how to document the spaces that will be dedicated as reserved?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

How does a carpool/vanpool relate to a shared car service/company when it comes to the preferred parking requirements of this credit?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

Should I consider motorbikes and parking spaces for them under this credit? What about fleet vehicles?

The answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

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 answer to this question is available to LEEDuser premium members. Start a free trial »

(If you're already a premium member, log in here.)

11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Delete the following text in the subparagraph, "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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/3/2010Updated: 2/14/2015
Rating System Correction
Description of change:
Following the text of "Option 3," insert the following text:OROPTION 4For projects that have no minimum local zoning requirements, provide25% fewer parking spaces than the applicable standard listed in the2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Parking Generation"study at http://www.ite.org.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/6/2012Updated: 2/14/2015
Global ACP
Description of change:
Delete the Alternative Compliance Path for Projects Outside the U.S. box.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Rating System Correction
Description of change:
Delete the following text in the subparagraph, "Providing a discounted parking rate is an acceptable substitute for preferred parking for carpool or vanpool vehicles. In order 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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/3/2010Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Following the text of "Option 3," insert the following text:OROPTION 4For projects that have no minimum local zoning requirements, provide25% fewer parking spaces than the applicable standard listed in the2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Parking Generation"study at http://www.ite.org.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Rating System Correction
Description of change:
Add a superscript for footnote 1 to each occurrence of the term "preferred parking".
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Delete the following text in the subparagraph, "Providing a discounted parking rate is an acceptable substitute for preferred parking for carpool or vanpool vehicles. In order 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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Add a superscript for footnote 1 to each occurrence of the term "preferred parking".
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Rating System Correction
Description of change:
Add a superscript for footnote 2 to each occurrence of the term "preferred parking". Add a second footnote at the bottom of the Requirements: 2 "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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
7/6/2012Updated: 2/14/2015
Global ACP
Description of change:
Delete footnote related to ACP box.
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Rating System Correction
Description of change:
Delete the following text in the subparagraph, "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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
11/1/2011Updated: 2/14/2015
Reference Guide Correction
Description of change:
Add a superscript for footnote 2 to each occurrence of the term "preferred parking". Add a second footnote at the bottom of the Requirements: 2 "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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/1/2013Updated: 2/14/2015
Rating System Correction
Description of change:
"Add the following after “Option 2” in “Case 3”:
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."
Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
12/2/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Background. Timber Ridge at Talus is an Owner-operated Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) in the Talus Development of Issaquah, Washington. Phase 1 of Timber Ridge will provide housing for 225 seniors and will employ 75 staff. The 365,691 square foot building comprises 184 units of residential apartments; 36 beds of skilled nursing; various commons areas for residents; and facility support spaces for administrative, laundry, commercial kitchen, and maintenance functions. The building is divided into a high rise tower (seven to nine stories) and a commons building (two stories plus mezzanine to five stories plus mezzanine). The project also provides a sub-grade parking garage and surface parking at the main entry and on-street. Our project is pursuing SS 4.4 as part of a comprehensive strategy for encouraging the use of alternative transportation by residents, visitors, and employees. In accordance with SS 4.4 requirements, we have sized our employee and residential parking capacity to meet, but not exceed, minimum local zoning requirements and will provide preferred parking for 5% or more of the 75 employees who will be commuting to work at Timber Ridge. The Owner has also developed a project-specific Transportation Management Plan (TMP). Our request relates to meeting the carpool parking requirements of SS 4.4 for residential parking. CIR ruling dated 4/28/2003 notes that carpooling is not normally applicable to residential projects and provides an alternative compliance path to meeting the carpool parking requirement. In this CIR, we are requesting approval of an alternate project-specific, compliance path for SS 4.4, which though slightly different from what is described in the cited CIR Ruling, completely complies with the intent of the credit and is more appropriate for our facility. Discussion. As a residence, Timber Ridge is an origin, not a destination, so providing carpool parking does not make sense. Even if we were to designate carpool spots, these locations may or may not end up being "preferred" depending upon which residents would be participating at any particular time. Further, Timber Ridge is a facility for elderly retired persons, so of course the residents do not make daily commutes to work. The average age of our residents will be 78 to 80, and while the residential parking capacity complies with the local code, the Owner anticipates that most residents will sell their cars before they move in. In addition, the building will provide most of the amenities that residents are likely to need. These include a restaurant, lounge, caf

Ruling:

The combination of strategies described above meets the intent of the credit, provided that preferred parking for carpools or low-emitting/fuel efficient vehicles for 5% of the parking spaces allocated to staff. The description indicates that there are a number of strategies being proposed that will provide infrastructure and support programs to facilitate the use of mass transit and shared vehicle programs as suggested by previous CIR rulings. Upon submittal, documentation of each strategy outlined should be provided. However, there is concern that the project as described may have more parking than required. With so few cars expected to be owned by residents and with the ample transit options available to them, it seems that exemplary parking reductions (below those required by code) could be sought from local authorities. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
3/6/2006
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a high-rise multi-family residential project in New York City. We seek credit equivalency for Sustainable Sites cr4.4: Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity based on a previous CIR ruling, dated 11/1/04 that states, "... credit equivalency may be available for unique circumstances, such as projects in dense urban settings ... and that demonstrate achievement of the credit intent by reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use. Carpool/vanpool spaces typically are not appropriate for residential projects, as stated in SSc4 CIR rulings dated 12/27/2001 and 4/28/2003." Our project is located in Manhattan, and as the CIR dated 3/7/2003 notes, "In Manhattan, there are no minimum parking capacity requirements for residential buildings..." Per the same CIR ruling, we used the most recent ITE Parking Generation study to compare against our project\'s parking allotment. Our project has 460 apartments. The most recent ITE Parking Generation study (3rd Edition) lists the parking ratio as 1.03 spaces per dwelling unit. Using this statistic, the project could provide up to 474 spaces. Instead, our project will have 83 parking spaces available, but only 48 will be made available for residences as 35 will be used by an adjacent commercial project. Thus, the project is providing just over an 82% reduction (exemplary performance) compared to the new ITE Parking Generation statistic. Our project is located in an area extraordinarily well-served by mass transportation, with two major alternative transit hubs being located less than 800\' (much less than a 1/2 mile) from the site. One is a subway station serving 8 different lines: B, D, F, V, N, Q, R, and W trains, providing transfers between two of the busiest lines: the F and the N. The other is Penn Station, which connects subway passengers from the A, C, E, 1, 2, 3 lines to a commuter rail line (the Long Island Rail Road), state and nation wide Amtrak service, and the A subway line which connects to the Air Train service to JFK airport. In addition, there are 13 major bus routes within 1/4 mile of the site: bus line numbers 4, 32, 10, 20, 16, 34, 6, 7, 2, 3, and 5. By virtue of the extreme reduction in parking spots offered, the short distance to major subway lines and railways, and the close proximity to numerous bus routes, the project has already greatly discouraged the need for individuals to own or use a car to travel to and from the building. However, the owners have taken other important steps to encourage alternatives to the use of single occupancy vehicles. The project spans one city block, located in the center of a block between two major avenues, sandwiched between existing buildings. The main lobby of the building opens to only one of the cross town streets. To encourage use of the bus system through convenient access to bus stops, the owners are providing an additional entrance that offers direct access to the nearest bus stop which is directly adjacent to the back of the building. This will negate the need to walk to the nearest avenue and around the block, as would have been the case if only one entrance had been provided. Additionally, the owner will be providing a vending machine for tenants that will sell MetroCards, which can be used for both bus and subway travel. This is rarely done in private buildings, but the owner wants to provide a convenience to the tenants that will promote use of public transportation. Since the MTA does not provide MetroCard vending machines outside of their own facilities, the owner had to put significant effort into finding a private ATM company which could provide this service. In the Lobby, there will be a clearly marked, widely visible rider board. On this rider board, there will also be posted information about car sharing services in NYC. Each tenant will individually receive a tenant manual outlining the building\'s green features. In this handbook, there will be specific information about car sharing services, detailing where the nearest cars are located and how to use the service. To recap, our project: 1. provides an 82% reduction (exemplary performance) in parking capacity 2. provides tenants a special entrance which leads directly from the closest bus stop 3. gives tenants the convenient ability to buy MetroCard tickets in the building 4. provides a clearly marked, widely visible rider board 5. widely encourages and educates tenants about using car sharing services As stated before, in a CIR ruling, "Carpool/vanpool spaces typically are not appropriate for residential projects ..." Given the specifics of our building and site, we believe our efforts comply with the intent of the credit.

Ruling:

The combination of these strategies meets the intent of the credit. The project achieved exemplary parking reduction, as required by CIR ruling dated 4/28/03, and is providing infrastructure and support programs to facilitate the use of mass transit and shared vehicle programs as suggested by previous CIR rulings. Upon submittal, please provide documentation to support each of the strategies outlined.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
6/22/2009
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project scope is unique in that the building owner is currently seeking certification under LEED Core & Shell for the overall base building tower, while also requiring all tenants to attain LEED for Commercial Interiors certification. Due to this unique scenario it is unclear exactly how to address certain credit requirements for the Commercial Interiors projects when the space will be located within a Core & Shell building concurrently pursuing the same related credits, effectively making a LEED NC project. The below grade parking structure (for both LEED projects) is intended to serve the entire masterplan (not just our building) with a total of 2,115 parking spaces. To meet the LEED CS credit requirement for the office tower, a maximum of 1,500 spaces (not to exceed) can be "allocated" (demonstrated operationally and via parking passes) to the total project, such that the remaining 615 spaces will serve the additional masterplan facilities. While we understand that there is no requirement in LEED CS to provide preferred carpool parking spaces we would like to ensure that all tenants will be able to provide the appropriate number of preferred carpool spaces. LEED CI credit requirements for Case A (projects occupying < 75% of building gsf) state that the project shall not exceed minimum local zoning AND provide preferred parking for carpools for 5% of the occupants. Requiring the calculation to be based on occupancy rather than the number of parking spaces, such as in LEED NC, does not effectively address the ratios between the number of employees and the total amount of provided parking. For this project if we assume all tenants will pursue this credit, a default occupancy of 5944 would require 298 preferred carpool spaces or 20% of total spaces. Because the CS and CI calculations and requirements vary greatly, we would like to suggest meeting the alternate equivalent NC v2.2 Option 1 compliance path, whereby all of the registered projects can reasonably achieve the credit. In this scenario, we would provide preferred carpool parking for 5% of total parking capacity (1,500 spaces per local zoning), or 75 carpool spaces, which would be allocated among all of the tenants based on their total allocation of parking spaces in the deck. With this, please confirm that all registered projects will be able to earn the credit.

Ruling:

The project is asking if providing preferred carpool parking for 5% of total parking capacity is an acceptable alternative compliance pathway for achieving SSc3.3 under LEED CI. The answer depends on the amount of parking available to employees. Per a previous LEED CI SSc3.3 CIR ruling dated 1/27/2007, based on a scenario with limited parking access for employees, using LEED-NC v2.2 SSc4.4 Option 1 as a compliance path to determine the number of preferred parking spaces for carpools is reasonable for the LEED-CI project. "Limited parking access for employees" is defined as 20% or less of employees having access to parking. If more than 20% of the parking is available to employees then the requirements of SSc3.3 as defined in the LEED CI reference guide need to be met Project teams will need to adequately demonstrate how parking is restricted to employees to pursue this alternative compliance pathway. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
11/3/2006
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a 408 student residence hall in a campus setting sited on an existing commuter parking lot. It is in a moderately rural community with off-campus amentities within a 1/2 mile. Since the campus does not adhere to town zoning by-laws for parking, and existing parking is considered ample by the college, we are able to eliminate 350 parking spaces and add only 4 for building staff. In addition, there is a shuttle service for students and staff that services the campus as well as town amentities, (http://www.bridgew.edu/Transportation/campusshuttle.cfm). There is also a campus wide vehicle request system that provides vans and mini-buses for off campus trips within a 200 mile radius of campus, (http://www.bridgew.edu/Transportation/TransPolicy.cfm). In eliminating 346 net parking spaces and utilizing a campus wide shuttle service as well as a vehicle request system, we have encouraged students and staff to take advantage of what is a very walkable campus and town. Is the intent of this credit, (NC 2.1), satisfied?

Ruling:

Based on the provided description, the project meets the first requirement of this credit by reducing the number of parking spaces provided, assuming that additional parking is not being added elsewhere on the campus as a direct result of this project. However, the second requirement of this credit, to provide designated carpool/vanpool parking spaces for 5% of the building occupants, must also be demonstrated. Past CIRs have addressed ways to calculate the number of required carpool spaces based on full time equivalent occupants in the building (see SSc4.4 CIR rulings dated 7/16/03, 8/7/2002 and 6/28/2002). Please also note that per CIR ruling dated 2/2/2004, shuttle bus parking cannot be used to substitute carpool spaces. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
1/18/2005
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

A 10/15/04 CIR asked whether a metered 30 minute space could qualify for the carpool/vanpool requirements of SSc4.4 on a residential project (relying on the 4/28/03 SSc4.4 ruling). You rejected their proposal because their project did not incorporate parking, and also stated that "in this case, though, the 30-minute parking spaces are not clearly marked as a carpool drop-off and pick-up area." You also stated that the spaces "must be owned or leased by the building owner or tenant(s) to insure their availability to project occupants." Our project represents a variation on that theme with important differences. We propose to put a designated, metered, 30-minute carpool-only space curbside in front of our building, along with a riderboard in the building and possibly a web-based carpool sign-up system. The spaces would be owned by the city, but they would be designated carpool-only spaces, and would be curbside right in front of our building. Because the carpool space is right in front of our building, it would clearly meet the criteria of "insure their availability to building occupants." We do have parking inside the building but we feel spaces curbside are actually more useful for carpool drop-off parking. Please confirm that this approach meets the credit intent, and please confirm that getting a variance from the city to have less parking spaces in our garage than the city code minimum meets the exemplary parking reductions requirement.

Ruling:

It is possible for the project to achieve credit equivalency. Based upon your reference to the 4/28/2003 SSc4.4 CIR Ruling, it will be assumed that this is a multi-family residential project located in a dense urban setting. Credit equivalency may be available for such projects, given their unique circumstances, provided that achievement of the credit intent can be demonstrated by reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use, as stated in SSc4.4 CIR Ruling dated 11/1/2004. One such approach, as you reference, is described in 4/28/2003 SSc4.4 CIR Ruling. This ruling requires that the following combination of features be sufficiently documented: (1) a carpool rider board easily found and viewable by residents; (2) a clearly marked drop-off area (near the building entrance or nearest to parking garage elevator and/or stairs) that allows 30 minute parking for at least one vehicle - dedicated to carpool vehicles only (delivering or receiving passengers); and (3) exemplary parking reductions. In this case, the curbside space(s) must clearly be located in a preferred location and designated for carpooling with signage. Further, since any such space(s) will not be owned or leased by the building owner, documentation must demonstrate that the designated space(s) will remain available to the building\'s occupants. Such documentation might consist of an agreement letter from the City and signage restricting the carpooling parking to 30 minute parking for the building\'s residents only. Regarding exemplary parking reductions: Since an ordinance for parking requirements apparently exists, documentation must demonstrate that the project is providing 50% less parking than local requirements. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
4/24/2008
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

The project is a new federal courthouse building located in downtown Richmond, Virginia. We are seeking the parking capacity credit under option 4: provide no new parking. The credit\'s stated intent is to reduce pollution and land development impacts from single occupant vehicle use. The project provides no parking for courthouse general staff. The building is located at a central node of greater Richmond\'s public transportation system, and is also near existing public pay parking lots for those who may choose to drive to the courthouse. There are, however, 65 vehicle spaces located in a secure area under the building; two in a sallyport area for transporting prisoners, 13 for federal judges and other staff with security concerns related to their work at the courthouse, and 50 spaces leased by the tenant agencies for official vehicles used in courthouse business. Government regulations prohibit the tenant agencies or GSA to lease parking spaces for vehicles except for mission essential business. Three layers of security protect this underground vehicle area, and the federal judge spaces are protected by a fourth layer of security within that secure area. During the design process, the number of secure sallyport spaces, tenant agency official vehicle spaces, and secure federal judges/staff spaces was set at the minimum required to support the courthouse\'s functions. It is an unfortunate fact that since 1970 seven state and federal judges have been killed in incidents related to their job duties; we trust providing the 13 secure parking spaces to provide a safe means of travel for public servants does not disqualify the project from pursuing this credit. The balance of the secure spaces provided on site are necessary to house vehicles that allow the courthouse to conduct its business. We seek confirmation that the decision not to provide visitor or general staff parking and the decision to locate the building at the center of downtown Richmond\'s public transportation network satisfy this credit\'s requirements and intent. With the above considerations, is the project eligible for the credit under the Option 4 "provide no new parking" compliance path?

Ruling:

The project team is requesting whether they may use Option #4 (Provide No New Parking) of this credit for a project that, for security and other reasons, still includes 65 parking spaces. The answer to this question is no; there are no exceptions to this No New Parking credit requirement. However, the project could pusue either Option #1 or Option #2 of this credit as a method of compliance as long as it can figure out a way to provide preferred parking for carpools and/or vanpools. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
11/7/2007
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a 360,000 sq.ft. hospital located in an urban setting on a University campus. This 9 storey building was constructed overtop of an existing hospital Emergency ward. During construction 56 parking spaces that serve the Emergency were taken over for site enabling and will be reconstructed on site using 13 less spaces than what originally existed. This parking is for the purpose of serving the Emergency not our project, however the construction of this parking is part of the scope of work for our project. Since the project is located on a University campus there are 4 existing campus parkades located adjacent the site that can be used to serve the project\'s parking needs, so our project has not added any additional parking for this building. Also an existing bicycle storage area located in one of the parkades will also serve the project. Based on previous CIR Rulings, LEED allows some flexibility in determining the extent of the site area for purposes of LEED. However, a specific site area must be defined and used consistently for achievement of all credits. Typically, campus projects define an area associated with the specific construction site as the site area, rather than addressing the campus as a whole. Our project has planned to exclude all existing campus parkades from our LEED site boundary and therefore from our calculations as they are not part of our scope of work for construction. Can we do this considering building occupants will use these parkades to park vehicles and store bicycles? Can we also exclude the parking spaces that are for the existing Emergency not our project? Please note we are submitting for certification under LEED-NC v2.1.

Ruling:

The approach of excluding the existing campus parking areas from the LEED project boundary is permissible for the project. In campus situations, designated carpool parking spaces may also be located in campus lots elsewhere on the same campus. Please note that the credit requirements for parking capacity (whether inside or outside of the project boundary) must still be followed. Refer to the LEED-NC Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects (AGMBC) for more information. It is also permissible to exclude the parking areas dedicated to the Emergency ward.Update April 15, 2011: Please note that all 2009 projects in multiple building situations must follow the 2010 Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects, located here: https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7987. 2009 project teams should check this document for up to date guidance on all multiple building issues.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/1/2012
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project follows the design guidelines set forth in the United Facilities Criteria (UFC). The specific UFC that we are required to follow contains a minimum requirement for VIP parking stalls to be placed along the entrance driveway and/or the area in closest proximity to the facility. Our site layout has a very small parking lot that contains the handicapped stalls and VIP stalls, and this parking lot is the closest to the building entrance. Further away (but within 1/4-mile distance) is a large parking garage that serves a majority of the facility, but this garage does not fall within the LEED project boundary. Two questions, (1) We are unable to locate the LEED "preferred parking" stalls in this small parking lot, but will locate them in the parking garage with the most convenience to the elevators/stairs/exits. Is this approach acceptable? (2) Our parking total count is 1100 stalls, so we have designated 55 carpool/vanpool stalls. Of the 55 stalls, we have located 5 vanpool stalls right outside the parking garage, as these are meant for larger sized vans that may not make the height clearance within the parking garage. The location of these stalls fall within the 1/4-mile distance from the building entry, but are approximately 60-ft further to the side of the parking garage. Is this acceptable?

Ruling:

The project is inquiring if SSc4.4 Option 1 can be earned by designating preferred parking spaces in a parking garage outside of the LEED Project Boundary, but within one-fourth mile of the project, even though an on-site surface parking lot contains handicapped and VIP stalls (per the Unified Facilities Criteria). The project is also inquiring if preferred spaces can be located on multiple levels of a parking garage, adjacent to elevators/stair/exits. Finally, the project is inquiring if locating 5 of the 55 required carpool/vanpool spaces adjacent to the parking garage for use by vans that will not fit in the limited height of the parking garage is acceptable. While LEED Interpretation 5147, states that it is acceptable to have all or a portion of the parking stalls dedicated as preferred parking outside the LEED Project Boundary, Consistent with LEED Interpretation 2516 dated 3/31/2009 which further clarified the previous ruling, it is acceptable to have both VIP parking stalls (within the on-site handicapped and VIP parking lot--per the Unified Facilities Criteria) and parking outside the LEED Project Boundary in the adjacent lot dedicated as preferred parking, consistent with credit requirement. Parking not included within the LEED Project Boundary should be within 1/4 mile of the building entrance(s) or served by a shuttle bus and these preferred parking spaces are to be designated for the LEED project building occupants. Because VIP vehicles are not precluded from SSc4.3 & 4.4 requirements, the project must designate 5% of the VIP parking and 5% of the main parking area or garage as preferred parking space for this credit. Preferred parking spaces in a garage are those that are the shortest combined driving distance from the parking garage entrance and walking distance to the project building\'s main entrance(s). While locating ADA accessible parking spaces adjacent to elevators on multiple levels of a parking garage may be preferred for mobility/access reasons, these are not always considered preferred within SSc4.3 and 4.4 for carpool or low-emitting/fuel-efficient vehicle users. These spaces should be located on the main vehicle entrance level. The location of preferred parking 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 occupants\' parking needs which are unique to the project.Accommodating the height of full-sized shuttle vans by locating 5 of the 55 required carpool/vanpool stalls outside of and immediately adjacent to the parking garage is an acceptable approach. Please ensure the location of all spaces is clearly communicated to all building occupants.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
4/28/2003
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

We are submitting the following appeal to the USGBC Project Manager\'s Ruling of a CIR in the Sustainable Sites category, Credit SS-4.4. The Credit Interpretation Request was submitted on 12/27/2001 for the 20 River Terrace Project. The CIR asked for clarification on the requirements of this credit in the context of an urban project with no minimum parking standards, and in the context of a multi-family residential building. We are appealing the ruling based on the following additional project information. In Manhattan there are no minimum parking capacity requirements for residential buildings in our zoning classification; rather, there is a parking capacity allowance, which is one space for every 5 residential units (20%). For our project, the number of parking spaces provided is 48, and the number of apartment units is 292 (Note: the number of parking spaces and apartment units has changed since the initial CIR was submitted). The project therefore has provided approximately 20% fewer spaces than zoning allows. We assume this meets the first requirement of this credit. For the second credit requirement (preferred parking for carpooling), the Council agreed with our designation of carpooling as a destination concept, rather than an origination concept. However, the Council states in the Ruling that the project should provide means for encouraging increased HOV usage (e.g., through flex car parking, carpool drop-offs, rider boards) and provide a calculation that indicates how increased HOV utilization is accomplished. In our project, the parking garage is leased to a separate operating company (a typical practice in New York City); therefore the parking spaces are not reserved for the building residents. The spaces will be available to the general public, and are not under the control of the general building management. We will provide rider boards in the building to encourage carpooling to other destinations and provisions for a drop-off area; however, we cannot make a direct correlation as to how this will increase the use of HOVs - this depends on the actions of the residents themselves. In summary, we believe that by reducing the number of spaces below what is allowed by zoning, and by providing rider boards and a drop-off area for the building residents, we have sufficiently met the intent of this credit in a multi-family residential context.

Ruling:

Your appeal presented a challenging case. LEED credits do not necessarily apply to all types of projects. Carpooling is not normally applicable to residential projects. Further limitations of this project, due to the garage\'s operation being leased to a third party, contribute to this issue. The Credit Ruling Committee has decided to approve your appeal. The point will be awarded if sufficiently documented, based the following combination of features: (1) a carpool rider board easily found and viewable by residents; (2) a clearly marked drop-off area (at the building entrance or nearest to parking garage elevator and/or stairs) that allows 30 minute parking for at least one vehicle - dedicated to carpool vehicles only (delivering or receiving passengers); and (3) exemplary parking reductions. Exemplary parking reductions have been achieved for this project, as described below. Recent rulings for LEED certifications have established a minimum LEED requirement for use in localities with no minimum parking requirements: (1)the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Parking Generation" study (at www.ite.org) is to be referenced to find the applicable parking use statistic, per building type; and (2) the LEED project must have at least 25% less parking spaces than the statistic in order to comply. The most recent ITE Parking Generation study was published in 1987. LEED practitioners must reference the new edition when it is released in 2003. Exemplary performance requires a 75% reduction compared to the relevant ITE Parking Generation statistic. The statistic for observed high-rise residential parking is 0.88 spaces per occupied dwelling. Your project beats this statistic by 83%. Other types of projects (commercial, etc.) may also apply this ruling as appropriate.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
No
9/14/2006
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a 94,334 square foot research facility located on a university research campus. Most building users arrive in the morning around 8 AM and leave around 5 PM. The building is connected by a new lobby to an existing building, with the new building occupying land that was previously parking for the original building. Although new parking was constructed, it does not exceed the original number of spaces (pre-construction =327 spaces / post-construction parking for both buildings = 309 spaces). We believe we have greatly exceeded the first half of the credit intent for SS4.4 by providing no net increase in parking spaces. This parking arrangement is within University guidelines for parking requirements, which has jurisdiction on the site. The University has a carpool policy which grants carpool applicants reduced rates on their parking passes for surface lots, several free days of parking a month in University structured garage parking, and inclusion in a Guaranteed Ride Home program. Due to extreme parking limitations it does not, however, provide dedicated reserved parking for carpool participants. Participants may park in any available spot allowed by their original parking permit. This policy is in effect because the University has observed that the majority of reserved carpool spaces sit empty, and the Parking System managers feel this is unacceptable since parking on a campus that has over 70,000 users is a very delicate and politically charged issue. Nevertheless, the school is very much interested in pursuing LEED on this and other projects. The school is willing to provide preferred dedicated carpool spaces for 5% of the building occupants, provided that the signage for each indicates that such reservation expires at 10 AM each weekday. The Parking System managers feel that this satisfies the intent of the credit while making full use of parking resources. Does this approach satisfy the credit intent of credit SS4.4?

Ruling:

The project is seeking clarification on the requirement to provide "no new parking" and the marking of carpool spaces. New parking is being constructed as part of the project, but it is replacing existing parking and has slightly fewer spaces than the existing lot. The project can achieve this credit through Option 4 in the LEED-NC v2.2 version of this credit, which requires that no new parking is provided. The other carpool incentives proposed are commendable, but no designation of carpool parking is necessary for credit achievement in this case, since no new parking is being provided. Because the CIR references other projects on the campus in similar situations which may or may not be adding new parking, this ruling also clarifies the question of whether carpool spaces can be used to achieve the credit if the carpool "reservation" expires after 10 am: In this situation, the expiration would disqualify these spaces from counting towards credit achievement. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
2/7/2005
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our project is a renovation of an existing residential student complex in the center of the Clemson University campus. The site is within a 5 minute walk to the academic core areas of campus and to downtown Clemson. The project will house 442 students and resident staff. Campus parking policy requires resident students park their cars in a perimeter campus lot approximately 1/2 mile from our project site. Thus residents use their cars selectively. In order to create a more pedestrian friendly quadrangle, the proposed design will eliminate all existing on-site parking (11 spaces) and provide only 3 new metered spaces, and 10 scooter spaces adjacent to the buildings. Our question is regarding the carpool/vanpool requirement for 5% of the building occupants. The LEED Application Guide for Lodging states "In some cases, lodging facilities are located in close vicinity to the workplace and carpools and vanpools are not necessary. Such a strategy would likely comply with the intent of the credit." We would like to confirm that our project meets the requirements of this statement and would therefore receive credit for this item without providing carpool/vanpool parking. Also, what documentation is required? We should also point out that in order to provide carpool spaces for 5% of the occupants (12 spaces), we would be increasing the amount of parking over the existing. We believe that providing the 12 carpool spaces on-site would likely encourage the use of cars, as students will park in these spaces short-term, and risk getting a ticket.

Ruling:

Based on the description above, the project is meeting the first requirement of this credit by reducing existing parking area. As the project meets the definition of a lodging facility as stated in the LEED Application for Lodging, the Application Guide can be applied to this project. The Application Guide states, "Carpool and vanpool programs should be adopted for the lodging facility to service commuting between the residence and other amenities. In some cases, lodging facilities are located in close vicinity to the workplace and carpools and vanpools are not necessary." There are two scenarios that would need to be addressed by projects commuting to the workplace and to amenities. Given the nature and siting of this project, it is clear that all of the residents are within a short walk of their "workplace (i.e. the academic core). It is not apparent however if the project would be in close proximity (within a mile) to basic amenities (for goods and services useful to students such as convenience grocery or supermarket, pharmacy, bank, post office, etc.). If the project\'s LEED submittal demonstrates that the amenities are within a mile, it is eligible for this point. Furthermore, a rideshare bulletin board (for those trips where a car is necessary, e.g. specialty shopping, recreation, various road trips) must be posted in a high-traffic common area (e.g. entrance or lounge), actively maintained, and introduced as part of resident orientation. To document this credit, the project would need to provide a narrative and a site plan demonstrating that no new parking has been added to the project, and that the workplace and amenities are located in close proximity to the project. Include details on the rideshare bulletin board and its management. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
8/2/2001
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Our building will occupy a whole city block with no parking on that particular block. We are defining our LEED project as the building plus approximately 26% of a parking deck (and of the landscaped area around it), with the parking deck located in a block diagonally across from the building. The new parking deck will serve four buildings by the same owner, with zoning requiring 1,358 spaces total, and the deck providing 1,550 spaces. Zoning for our building requires 407 spaces. We are planning to allocate 407 parking spaces operationally (with parking passes for the building occupants and a set-aside for visitors within the 407 spaces) rather than with physical barriers in the parking deck. Please let us know whether this operational allocation is acceptable for obtaining SS Credit 4.4, or what else we need to do. We also want to use the 407 spaces as a basis for the total vehicle capacity for SS Credit 4.3, Alternative Fuel Refueling Stations. Is this acceptable for the base number in this question?

Ruling:

It is acceptable to allocate a portion of the parking deck to the LEED project. Allocate a proportional amount of the parking deck from the ground up, including both the covered and top deck spaces. You will need to provide convincing documentation that limits the number of parking spaces to the code minimum, and that the other spaces in the parking structure are not providing capacity beyond the LEED requirement. If the parking deck is included in one credit, it must be included in all other applicable credit calculations. The alternative-fuel refueling stations should be calculated from the allocated parking space total. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
4/2/2014
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Can a project located in California achieve Option 1 of SSc4.3: Alternative Transportation - Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and/or SSc4.4: Alternative Transportation - Parking Capacity by meeting the requirements of the CalGreen building code?

Ruling:

New construction projects in California can use CALGreen’s “Clean Air/Vanpool/EV” signage as a substitute for both the low-emitting and fuel efficient vehicle signage and the carpool/vanpool signage requirements of SSc4.3: Alternative Transportation - Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and SSc4.4: Alternative Transportation - Parking Capacity. Projects must meet a 10% threshold for “Clean Air/Vanpool/EV” parking, since CALGreen signage refers to both vehicle classifications, to ensure the appropriate parking capacity has been provided. Note that this requirement also applies to LEED-CS and LEED Schools projects. For additional information, reference LEED Interpretation 2292. All other applicable LEED requirements must be met to achieve SSc4.3: Alternative Transportation - Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and/or SSc4.4: Alternative Transportation - Parking Capacity.

Campus Applicable
Yes
Internationally Applicable:
Yes
2/20/2003
LEED Interpretation
Inquiry:

Harley-Davidson is currently building a new addition to its Product development Center in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. There are1128 existing automobile and 276 motorcycle parking stalls on the current Harley-Davidson campus site serving two existing buildings. The PDC expansion will provide an additional 125 automobile and 13 motorcycle stalls. City of Wauwatosa Ordinance 22.44.090 requires 1 stall per 350 GSF of building area. At 75,958 GSF the new PDC would have required 218 new stalls. However the design team was able to demonstrate to the City that sufficient parking capacity could be maintained with fewer stalls by recognizing the diversity in peak hours of occupancy between the 3 buildings. In terms of parking numbers Harley-Davidson meets the first half of this credit\'s requirements. While Harley-Davidson has no van pooling policy, they do have a disproportionately high motorcycle ridership, a natural consequence of their business that they encourage and have capitalized on in their site parking. With 276 existing bike parking stalls and 13 new bike stalls planned, the smaller stall size (4\'-6" x 10\'-0") does reduce the site-parking footprint. It should be noted that these stalls are accounted for as part of the required City parking numbers and not as additional parking. While motorcycles can neither substitute for the pollution abatement benefits of bicycle riding (Credit 4.2) nor qualify as an alternatively fueled vehicle (Credit 4.3), its associated smaller footprint can reduce parking surface area which seems to be the root intent of this credit (Credit 4.4). According to the LEED Reference Guide\'s calculation methodology this credit is achievable by providing 7 carpool spaces (5% x 276 FTE

Ruling:

Based on the above description, the parking provided will not exceed zoning requirements, thus meeting the first requirement for achieving this credit for new projects. The second requirement is providing carpool/vanpool parking for 5% of building occupants. Although motorcycle use in designated motorcycle spaces could reasonably be considered to be a form of carpooling, the TAG has concerns that motorcycle use is seasonal, especially in the cold climate where this project is located. The project would need to demonstrate that the motorcycle/carpool program adopted achieves the same annual result as a more typical carpool program to achieve the credit. For example, if motorcycle use is reasonable for 1/3 of the year, program participation would need to be three times as high during that period to achieve the same annual result as a year-round carpool program. Also, the project would need to demonstrate that there is a program in place to encourage employees to participate in the high-occupancy vehicle program, so that the designated spaces are utilized to the fullest extent possible. Applicable Internationally.

Campus Applicable
No
Internationally Applicable:
Yes

LEEDuser expert

Marilyn Specht

Integral group
Principal, US Sustainability Consulting Lead

See all LEEDuser forum discussions about this credit » Subscribe to new discussions about CS-2009 SSc4.4