We are attempting Op. 2: Community Connectivity on a college campus. We have plenty of services on campus that are open to the general public to meet the requirements. In fact, the project building MUST make use of the campus services, as anything off campus is outside the 0.5-mi radius.
However, many of these services are centralized in campus buildings. For example, the Arts building houses a theater as well as an art gallery. The Campus Center building houses dining areas, the religious ministries offices, the bookstore, and community center. (Note, these services are NOT located in the project building, but in other buildings on campus. The project building itself is strictly academic.)
To me, it makes perfect sense that multiple services would be grouped in campus buildings, rather than housed individually, as it increases density. But the Reviewer has made this comment: "as illustrated in the LEED BC+C v2009 Reference Guide sample map, it is the intent that services counted towards the compliance for this credit are distinctly operated and addressed services."
My questions are the following:
1) WHERE in the v3 reference guide does it actually say that services must be "distinctly operated"? I do not see this anywhere. On a campus setting, this doesn't even make sense. As long as the services exist, are inside the radius, and open to the public, why do they need to be operated by separate entities and have separate addresses? To rely on the "sample map" is absurd, as it is very much NOT clear on the map that these MUST be separate addresses and operators.
2) As noted above, the services sharing a building location are NOT in the project building. The only reference I can find to the mixed-use requirement references the project building, as in:
"The project building itself cannot be considered 1 of the 10 basic services; however, in a mixed-use building, a maximum of 1 service withing the building may be counted as 1 of the 10."
To me, this very clearly is about the project building, not other buildings in the area.
Can someone please clarify, comment, or otherwise share their thoughts/experience on this?
Thanks!
John Edwards
Sustainable Design Coordinator/Sr. Proj. Mgr.Bonstra Haresign Architects
1 thumbs up
May 9, 2017 - 6:11 pm
I don't see why multiple distinct services that happen to be in one campus building should be treated any differently than multiple services in a downtown mixed-use building. I have successfully received credit (with no question from the reviewers) for distinct services in such a situation where an entire city block is developed as a single building but has different street level services as individual tenants (such as convenience grocery, post office, police substation, daycare, etc., on the ground floor of the same block development). Being "distinctly addressed" is irrelevant to the credit intent, and it isn't included in the credit language that I can see. In fact, the sample chart and map doesn't include any addresses, and I have never included any individual service addresses in the documentation provided for the credit achievement.
As long as these are truly distinct services that meet one of the categories listed in the Reference Guide, it seems to me that you would have a good case to respectfully rebut the reviewer. I would be as explicit and precise as possible in demonstrating that the services meet the intent (and letter) of the Guide criteria in terms of fitting one of the Guide categories, being open to the general public, being pedestrian-oriented, being individually operated (assuming they would be from your description - the fact that the college may own the physical facility they're in is no more relevant to the intent of the credit than if the same city owns the fire department, police station or public library). Quoting the Guide verbatim as to what is required or not, as well as how your services are categorized (i.e., use the language the Guide uses) would likely help - it's harder for a reviewer to make an argument against a plain reading of the Guide language when that language (and the actual sample diagrams) doesn't support their interpretation.
I'd be interested to hear if others have had a different or similar experience (or maybe I've just been lucky in all the times I've achieved this credit).
Allison Smith
Sustainable Design LeaderHKS, Inc.
42 thumbs up
May 9, 2017 - 7:30 pm
A few thoughts:
1. There is another thread on the ID+C page about mixed use buildings and counting services within the building (but outside the LEED boundary) for interiors projects that might be useful.
2. The sample map for option 2 shows several services that could be in the same building (look at 1 & 2 and 6 & 7).
3. The reviewer may be unclear that the services are distinctly separate, but in the same building. For example, if the services are similar (pharmacy and medical service) then they may think they are part of the same facility. As an aside, I have never documented this credit double counting a service (i.e. a Walgreens/CVS/RiteAid as a pharmacy and as convenience grocery for the same project).
4. On college campuses, I have successfully documented this credit using services that are publicly accessible to the college community (i.e. student health center) but I try to err to services that are accessible to everyone.
5. I agree the best approach is to quote the guidebook and clearly layout that each service is distinctly separate and meets the credit requirements. With this said, I would be cautious to keep the right tone (this is not the time to be supercilious!).
Good luck and please let us know how it goes.
Erica Downs
LEED ConsultantThe Green Engineer
254 thumbs up
May 11, 2017 - 10:54 am
Thanks for the input. Glad I'm not crazy!