Comments on: Sustainable Sites 4.4 – Alternative Transportation – Parking Capacity

By: kt

kt — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:54:22 +0000

Hi,I would like to know on Leed version 2.2, Sustainable Sites, Credit 4.3 if the parking spaces for operational trucks are considered normal parking spaces.
Thank you for your kind cooperation

By: David

David — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:04:02 +0000

The Recycling Pre Req is not met.

At a minimum (glass, plastic, metals, corg cardboard, paper)

By: Joan

Joan — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:19:30 +0000

Should have read “1920’s era” police station.

By: Joan

Joan — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:18:37 +0000

From a study exam
A green-built fire station is being constructed out of 920s-era police station The new building re-uses 98% of the exterior structure of the old building and 40% of interior elements. It also intends to collect, store, andrecycle glass, plastice, and metals. In addition, all wood purchased for the project will be FSC-ceritided and the project team has made a large scale effort to incorporate non-structural interior elements of hte project, such as doors, that were unfit for use undet the same circumstances, into decoratvie aspects such as trim. For which LEED points would the projects be eligible?
There were many answers with various credits referenced, but the answer is “f. The project is not eligilbe for LEED certification.”
Any ideas why this is true?

By: pete

pete — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:42:52 +0000

Simplifying options 1 and 2 – do I get the credit if I size parking capacity < or = min code and provide 5% preferred spaces?

By: pete

pete — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:01:06 +0000

sorry- still confused – i see the same percent preferred parking spaces for option 1 and option 2 – if the parking > .5 FTE then provide 5% preferred spaces; if parking < .5 FTE then provide 5% preferred spaced. option 1 requires limiting the total spaces to code minimum but it’s the same percent preferred. Help! – what am i missing?

By: Bethany

Bethany — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:15:00 +0000

I’m cross referencing your material to my study guide and my question is about “code or standard” for SS4.4 My guide states
“When the local code is NOT defined, 1. Meet the Portland, Oregon Zoning Code TITLE 33 standards. 2) Obtain 25% less than the min requirements by the Institute of Transportation Engineers

I’m just wondering if my book is outdated? or just a little more detailed..

By: Wes

Wes — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:42:45 +0000

No new parking would be in regards to the number of parking spaces that were already on the site? So if a project is to replace a surface lot, as long as it would not have more spaces than the surface lot it gets the point?
Or does it really mean “no parking”, but they couldn’t say that for political reasons?

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 07:35:46 +0000

Hi Pat,
The Intention 2 should read “Reduce land development from SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLE USE.”
Richard

By: Danny Norman

Danny Norman — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:11:27 +0000

Pat,
Thanks for the great site.

There are omissions on this credit page for codes and standards applied: (page 66 of the NC 2.2 Guide) 1. Portland, Oregen, Zoning Code: Title 33, Chapter 33.266 (Parking and Loading) and 2. Institute of Transporation Engineers’ Parking Generation, 3rd Edition

Thanks again,
Danny

By: Gary Burger

Gary Burger — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:31:43 +0000

Is the difference between Option 1 and Option 2 that Option 1 allows you to meet the minimum zoning requirement even if it forces you to provide parking for more than 5% of FTE occupants?

Thanks,

Gary

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:55:46 +0000

@ Melissa,

Thanks for pointing the text color out to me. I’m glad it’s better for you now.

Regarding your question, I don’t see this scenario happening very often, but I believe you are correct. Thanks.

By: a different Melissa

a different Melissa — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:29:44 +0000

With Option 2, given that it does not specifically say not to exceed local zoning, if parking for less than 5% FTE somehow exceeded local zoning req’ts (I can only imagine this occurring where local zoning did not require providing any parking at all), would you receive the credit?

Thanks for getting rid of the grey text, I am much happier!

By: Pat

Pat — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:12:06 +0000

Yep, that’s right!

By: dan

dan — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:27:49 +0000

so with option 4 if i have NC and don’t provide any parking i get 1 point?

By: Ruchi Dhar

Ruchi Dhar — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:51:01 +0000

Hi pat,
How much time or rather hours/day one need to prepare for LEED/NC?

By: Pat

Pat — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:48:45 +0000

Yes Brandie, you would just round up to one. You have to at least make 5%, but in this case, you’d make 20% since you can’t do less than 1 parking spot.

Good question! I hope this helps.

By: Brandie

Brandie — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:35:57 +0000

Still not clear to me??

If you have 100 full time employees, the FTE is 100. So 5% or less is 5 spaces, correct? So then I must make 5% of my 5 spaces carpool, how does that work? Would I just round up to one?

By: cici

cici — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:09:14 +0000

Option 2, clearly states that “provide perferred parking for carpool, for 5% ot TOTAL provided parking space(which is 3% of FTE in you example)”.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:38:39 +0000

Could somone clear up some of these credits for me?

Option 2: if the project provides parking for only 3% (for example) of the FTE building occupants, then would they still be expected to somehow provide preferred parking for 5% of FTE? Or does it really just have to be equal to 5% provided provides 5% (all) for carpools.