We are working on a project for which with our team we have had "theoretical discussions" about being eligible for this credit, and which path to use in others. Hopefully you guys can help us shed some light on the subject.

Our project is located in an area that was previously agricultural land. It is therefore considered a Greenfield (Not previously developed) per definition of a 2011 Addenda. Nonetheless, the area in which is located (the project and its surroundings) is catalogued as an Urban Expansion Zone according to the city's Zoning Ordinance Plan, which means that it is city policy to convert this whole area to urban use. As such, the project is part of a large scale urban development process for the whole area. Since the intent of this credit (and others such as SSc5.1) is to conserve existing natural areas, protect greenfields and preserve habitats, but this will not happen in the project surroundings regardless of the activities of the project, we are thinking that the argument could be made for pursuing this credit and the "previously developed cases" in other SS credits. If this was the case, we could make the case to the owner for the construction of green roofs in the project in order to apply for other SS credits, and would actually be able to work towards the intent of these credits by "restoring" habitats.

Sorry for mixing up so many credits in this post but they are all related to our discussion. Anyone has had a similar experience to this one? Any futher addendas that could guide us? Any thoughts on the issue? We think it is a discussion worth having and would be glad to hear from any of you.