I see discussion about this for NC projects indicating that basically no documentation will suffice to demonstrate compliance with a non 50/50 gender split unless it addresses "the lifespan of the building". And that may make sense for a new construction project.
However, as a CI project certifying a tenant improvement, we have also received this comment. As tenants, the lifespan of the building is not a reasonable requirement. We are only responsible for the usage patterns that correspond to the life of our lease. What the next tenant does, or the building landlord in pursuit of that tenant, is not under our control.
Since LEED acknowledges a point for a 10 year lease, we presume a reasonable period of purview is in fact 10 years or the life of the lease whichever is greater.
We believe that firm employment documentation on gender split provided for 10 years previous and 10 years projected into the future, as has been suggested on the NC forum, would actually be reasonable and sufficient to demonstrate compliance.
Has anyone else doing a CI project received this comment? Or successfully documented other than a one to one gender ratio for their tenant improvement?
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
523 thumbs up
March 22, 2012 - 12:10 pm
I already have an answer back from the USGBC in 1 day. I think that's a record and the answer is that even though you are only certifying the tenant improvement you are still responsible for demonstrating non 50/50 gender split compliance over the lifespan of the building. How is that possible?
Carlie Bullock-Jones
PrincipalEcoworks Studio
LEEDuser Expert
220 thumbs up
September 5, 2012 - 9:10 pm
Hi Michelle,
I think it is reasonable to assume that you should address a non 50/50 gender split for the “lifespan of the LEED CI project.” However, current staffing level will not be an acceptable rationale for deviating from the standard usage ratio of 50% male and 50% female. Utilizing a non 50/50 gender split is best applied/accepted when you can demonstrate that this would not change in the future (e.g. an all male school).
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
523 thumbs up
September 6, 2012 - 11:58 am
Hi Carlie,
I absolutely agree it's reasonable to assume something for the "lifespan of the CI project", but that's not the requirement. The lifespan of the tenant improvement is not synonymous with the lifespan of the building the TI is in.
Say you had an all male school undergoing a TI. It claimed the appropriate 100% male gender split. Then 2 years later the school went bust and was acquired by a developer and converted into a residential project. The building is now not all male. However, the TI was still valid for the 2 years that all males were using it. That male school may have no more control over the life of the building than any other "tenant".
Compare that with a long term technology tenant of a multi tenant building who has been in the building for 10 years and has a 10 year lease. They have a definitive non traditional 75/25 male gender split for the past 10 years that they can prove with employee records. Industry projections for the next 10 years indicate the same.
Even if say after 5 years they find they have arrived at a 50/50 gender split contrary to their projections, they would still have achieved more water reduction consistently for 5 years than they were allowed to claim.
It seems to me that both projects deserve to depict the reality of their situations just like they do everything else at the time of design and construction.