The credit can be achieved by installing alternative-fuel refueling stations for 3% of the total vehicle parking capacity of the site. In looking at this credit we made the decision not to install parking on site. Therefore, the action we took was to provide no parking for the project. By doing so we are encouraging alternative forms of transportation and therefore meet the intent of the credit which states "is to reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use". Therefore the requirement to meet this credit is 3% of zero parking stalls which equals zero alternative-refueling stations. We feel therefore we should get this credit. In considering this CIR, the argument may be raised that because there is no action (i.e. no alternative fuel stalls installed) then there should be no LEED point. This is not the case at all as an action was undertaken i.e. not to install parking. Further, if the CIR is turned down than the action we could take is to add parking. For instance, we could add 30 stalls and install 1 alternative fuel stall or add 10 stalls and 1 alternative fuel stall, or 1 parking stall which is also an alternative fuel stall etc. The point being the project should not be penalized in not achieving this point because of its aggressive position on providing no parking. The credit is clear that if 10 stalls were installed than 3% of 10 is .3 stalls. We believe we also have enough innovation credits and therefore referring this to a potential innovation credit does not help the overall rating of the project. Further, in considering this credit we have no parking agreements in other adjacent parking lots for the occupants of the buildings. They must find there own means of transportation to the building.