See all forum discussions about CI-2009 SSc3.3
 Subscribe to new posts about CI-2009 SSc3.3 Post a new question aboutCI-2009 SSc3.3
See LEEDuser’s guidance on CI-2009 SSc3.3»
FAQs about SSc3.3 :

Why are the CI designated parking requirements in Cases 1 and & 2 Option 1 determined by a Full Time Equivalent of tenant space/building while for New Construction the requirements are simply a percentage of parking provided?

If a CI project occupies a building that has existing parking, but no designated parking to the tenant, can it pursue “no parking will be provided"?

View answers »

Forum discussion

CI-2009 SSc3.3:Alternative Transportation—Parking Availability

Using 5% of Total Parking Slots instead of 5% of FTE

Similar to the situations below. We are certifying only the 7F of a building (294 FTE) under LEED CI v2009 and according to this credit we need to provide 15 slots fro carpools. The owner is entitled to only 65 parking slots. First question, Is it reasonable for LEED-CI to use LEED-NC v2.2 SSc4.4 Option 1 as a compliance path to determine the number of preferred parking spaces for carpools, where "Limited parking access for employees" is defined as 20% or less of employees having access to parking? Having said the definition of "limited parking" if we were to base it only with the FTE of the 7F (294) the 65 slots alotted for the owner will exceed the 20% but if we would base it on the FTE of the total Owner's space (2F to 7F)which would be rougly 1400 ocupants, we would be well under the 20%. P.S. 2F to 6F is a different LEED Project which achieved GOLD. 7F is a different project trying to achieve Platinum. Though they are two different projects, 2F to 7F is just under one owner. Second, is it possible to allow carpool parking slots but only for a period of time? For example, 15 slots would be reserved for carpool users for only 6pm to 10pm? Hope to here insights from you soon.

0
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Profile picture for user tristanroberts
Tristan Roberts
Representative
Vermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
7780 thumbs up

Sat, 07/26/2014 - 05:10

Mary Ann, I don't think you could go backwards in LEED rating system versions (2009 to v2.2) and change rating systems without a CIR from GBCI. It might be reasonable but I wouldn't count on having it work.I don't think you can limit the carpool slots to a period of time. It's more limited than what the LEED credit language requires. Also, what is the use of 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.? Who is looking for parking then?

Sat, 07/26/2014 - 18:02

With 294 FTEs I think you only need 8 preferred parking spaces. (294 *.05 / 2 people per carpool vehicle (see Equation 2 in LEED Ref Guide)). (Potentially even less if you can show that carpools are serving more than 2 people per vehicle.) LEED Interpretation #5218 (http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=5218) says you can use NC v2.2 requirements, but ONLY if "20% or less of employees having access to parking. If more than 20% of the parking is available to employees then the requirements of SSc3.3 as defined in the LEED CI reference guide need to be met." How many spots does the owner have allotted for floors 2-7? Do they only have the total of 65 spots? Are there separate leases for floor 7 vs. the other floors or is it all together in one lease? If it's all together in one lease and it's only 65 spots allotted, then I think you could try to make the case (but it would depend on the language, layout, etc.). If they have separate leases, then it might be a hard sell to make that case. (Of course you could try to make the case still and then decide after you get preliminary review comments back if the owner wants to label more preferred spaces or not?)

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.