When I am looking at the credit language, the first two requirement statements not connected by "OR" or "AND". The third statement says "Alternatively". Has anyone submitted successfully just based on using the USGBC's or the Parking Generation Manual's baseline?
In the scenario I'm looking at, we are planning 109 spaces for an elementary school designed for a capacity of almost 800. The local jurisdiction requires a minimum of 37 spaces but the Reference Guide Appendix 4 Table 1 indicates that 158 spaces would be appropriate. The ITE Parking Generation Manual indicates that either 101 or 79 spaces are appropriate, depending on whether you use the student (0.13 spaces/student) or employee (0.95 spaces/employee) ratio. It's definitely not a perfect science!
If the first two requirements are connected with an OR, it would read "do not exceed the minimum local code requirements for parking capacity or provide parking capacity that is a 30% reduction below the base ratios for parking, by building type, found in Appendix 4 Table 1", and we would comply. However, if the first two requirements are connected with an AND, we would not comply becasue the minimum number of parking spaces required by the jurisdiction is so low (and would certainly lead to unhappy parents and neighbors during events that bring all of the families together at the school at the same time).
Understanding others' experiences with this language would be helpful.
Grace Friedhoff
Sustainability ConsultantRe:Vision Architecture
7 thumbs up
December 6, 2022 - 4:54 pm
I have always read this credit presuming the first two statements are connected by an AND. I have always considered the credit a no-go if it is exceeding the minimum local code requiremetns for parking capacity.
But re-looking through the actual credit form, it does ask you both questions (local code and LEED base ratios) and when I input your numbers it doesn't automatically give an error or say you are not eligible. So now I am curious what other people's experience is with this particular situation.
My initial response would be to say "no", or to say "if you are desperate for the point you could attempt it and see what the reviewer says."
Bryna Dunn
Vice PresidentMoseley Architects
10 thumbs up
December 7, 2022 - 8:59 am
So I continue to be baffled if, indeed, those two statements should be connected by an "AND" in the scenario where local zoning requires a MINIMUM of, say, 100 spaces and the 30% less calculation results in a lesser number, say 85. It would be unlikely that a project could realistically meet both. Situations like that make me think that you just pick one of the three sentences (which should, in my opinion, be labeled Path 1, Path 2, Path 3) and comply that way. Based on what you noted with the credit form (good idea, but really this should be clear in the rating system language, right?) it seems like maybe it is three separate pathways. I decided to submit an inquiry to LEED Coach, as well, so can share back what I learn.
Bryna Dunn
Vice PresidentMoseley Architects
10 thumbs up
December 11, 2022 - 7:33 pm
I have heard back from LEED Coach, and the response is that the first two statements are intended to be connected by an "AND". So you must simultaneously not exceed the local zoning requirement AND demonstrate that you are 30% less than the base ratios that are in the appendix. The response did not speak to scenarios where the 30% less calculation results in a number of spaces that is less than the minimum required by local zoning.
Jerimiah Luckett
PrincipalNEO Sustainability, LLC
3 thumbs up
July 8, 2024 - 2:20 pm
Bryna,
Curious if you pulled the ratios you listed "0.13 spaces per student OR 0.95 spaces per employee" directly from the referenced 5th Edition Standard of the ITE handbook. I assume as with past versions of the table the language states "higher of the two options". I have not been able to locate this resource anywhere yet without fully purchasing it, to determine my possible total spaces without buying the $500 guide from ITE which, except for the use of 1 table to get these values, I have zero interest in purchasing at that cost. Any chance you can share the tables from the 5th edition if you have access to it.
I don't understand why USGBC/GBCI keeps adding more and more reference standards that you have to go out and purchase for such minimal use. If they are including these as requirements then they should have these tables embedded in the Full Reference Guide Appendices and updated accordingly. When I look at the most current V4.1 Ref Guide Appendices (the july 2023 clean copy) it still shows the old table and under it says "3rd Edition" so it has not been updated to the correct version with the new 5th edition ratios.
If you cannot share the full table, would you be willing to confirm the ratios you showed as being from the 5th Edition tables and perhaps provide the ratio for Middle School as well. Otherwise I may just roll with the 0.13/student or 0.95/employee, whichever is higher, on my K-8 Project and let the Review Team respond or provide additional comments.
Thanks in advance!!
Bryna Dunn
Vice PresidentMoseley Architects
10 thumbs up
July 8, 2024 - 2:49 pm
Jeremiah, yes, the 0.13 parked vehicles/student is the average peak parking demand per student for elementary school parking lots in the 5th edition of the Parking Generation Manual. Likewise, 0.95 is the average rate of parked vehicles/employee for elementary school parking lots in the 5th edition of the Parking Generation Manual. For Middle Schools/Junior High Schools, the rate is 0.09 parked vehicles/student and 1.40 parked vehicles/employee. The number of studies these ratios are based on are exceedlingly low (for example, the MS ratio based on employees was based on 2 studies...). Anyway, hope this information is helpful in some way.
Laraib Raza
July 12, 2024 - 6:16 am
Hello, My question is, what is the maximum distance allowed from the building (Site) to Parking? If the parking is located outside of the site boundary?