Hi folks,
In need of some light on a review we received.
We have a multiple buldings Project. there are 4 LPBs inside of the LCB. One of this LPB contains a hardscape area that is being built now and a future hardscape area anticipated for expansion.
The review team asked us to "ensure that future development is included in the calculations". However, this portion of the site will not be built anytime soon, so we have no idea of how big it is and what type of material will be used. Is just a MASTER plan, not a final Project.
How are we supposed to include this area in the calculations to satisfactorignly respond to the review comment? As of today, 98% of the built hardscape complies with the credit via SRI/open grid/shade, and the credit asks for 50%. I don't know what the review team means by "include the future expansion in the calculations".
And, to make it even more confusing, the MPR#3 says about SSc7.1, page 17: "Strategies that contributed to an earlier LEED project's capture of this credit may not be used by a later Project. If there is new development during a later phase on the same land (such as new sidewalk), then strategies associated with that new feature may cotribute to the capture of the credit for that phase".
To sum up: there is the hardscape already built and there is the hardscape that will be built in the future within the same LPB. The review team is aking us to include the future hardscape in the calculations of the newly built hardscape. However, if we include the future hardscape our percentage may drop from 98% to less than 50%, preventing credit compliance, because there is not enough information about the future expansion yet, is just a general area and we don't know what types of material will be used there. How do we respond to this review comment?
Thanks
Marcio Alberto Casado Pereira
181 thumbs up
September 30, 2013 - 3:02 pm
Thanks E H. I could read your response from my email, but can't see it here...so here's what I got from you:
"Greetings, There is a new comment by E H on the LEEDuser forum: NC 2009 SSc7.1: Heat Island Effect—Nonroof:
Any space alotted for future development (buildings, roads, parking, etc.) should count as hardscape towards your open space calculation. If the future development area changes significantly as more project's come online within the campus (enough that it is obviously different from the original master plan and changes the open space calculation), you may have to re-submit the credit for review.
Future development potential is not exempt from this credit. If there is potential for an area to be built on, and the owner wishes to reserve that area for potential development, it must be counted as hardscape (or not counted as open space).
Unfortunately, it sounds like this might be a problem for your project. But, if you can't guarantee an area will be preserved as open space for the life of the building, then it cannot be counted as open space to achieve the credit."
However, my concern is not about the open space area. The future develoment area has been considered for calculations under the credit SSc5.2, so we are fine with that one. My question is regarding the SRI of the future hardscape. The construction material to be used for the future development has not been specified yet. If we include the future area in the calculation by summing up the future area plus the newly built hardscape area and have a letter from the owner committing to use compliant material to the future hardscape would that be a satisfactory response?
Thanks
Erin Holdenried
Sustainability Architect125 thumbs up
September 30, 2013 - 3:24 pm
yeah, I just realized I was providing comments to the wrong credit . . .
I am not sure how to address your issue with SSc7.1, especially without understanding your master plan and how the building is sited. Are you using the campus approach with a master site and individual building?
It seems like you could fight the comment by stating that the future hardscape is outside the scope of the LEED project and will be a part of a future building separate from the LEED building. . . (but reviewers don't always go for that argument). This simplest way to deal with it might be to provide a commitment letter from the owner stating the all future hardscape will be SRI compliant or open grid, etc (and be as specific as you can).
Unfortunately, this seems like one of those projects where a different reviewer might have a different understanding of the credit requirements, and would not require you to include future development areas. That being said, this might be a good candidate for an LI, as I'm sure there will be other projects will encounter this issue and would benefit from an official response from USGBC for project teams and GBCI reviewers to use.