Get documents about "Corporate Tax Planning Through Depriciation
Description
Corporate Tax Planning Through Depriciation document sample
Document Sample
GIBp1: Certified Green Building
Comments Response
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible. Thank you for your comments. An existing certified building within the project will
not count towards this credit.
Can existing certified buildings within the project boundary count?
Do you believe that this prerequisite/credit is appropriate for sustainable
neighborhoods (e.g., technical rigor, market usability, environmental
performance)? Please explain.
Absolutely. Clear and straight forward.
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research Thank you for your comments. Your suggestion regarding clarification of the
where possible. building's location will be incorporated into the next draft of the rating system. Also,
You may want to define the "fenceline" of where the green building needs to be please note that additional points are available to projects that include more
located. This can be accomplished, simply by editing the first sentence of the certified green buildings in GIBc1: Certified Green Buildings.
requirement to read: "Design, construct, or retrofit at least one building within the
neighborhood to be certified through..."
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
It might also be a good incentive to offer bonus credits (or partial credits) for
additional green buildings located within the neighborhood "fenceline".
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBp1 1 2/8/2011
GIBp2: Minimum Building Energy Efficiency
Comments Response
Do you believe that this prerequisite/credit is appropriate for sustainable
neighborhoods (e.g., technical rigor, market usability, environmental
performance)? Please explain.
In general, yes.
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible.
Thank you for your comments. You are correct that projects calculating percentage
improvement over ASHRAE will do so by calculating cost (as Appendix G requires).
A couple: the current phrasing is: "New buildings constructed as part of the project You are also correct that an area weighted average will be used, as indicated in the
must, on average, be 10% better than ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007. credit language, however the weighted average method will not apply to projects
Buildings undergoing major renovations as part of the project must, on average, be using only energy models. Guidance on these calculations will also appear in the
5% better than ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007. The energy efficiency reference guide.
threshold shall be calculated as a weighted average of energy usage for the buildings
constructed as part of the project based on their conditioned square footage.
Projects can document their building energy efficiency in a combination of three
ways:" (1) By 'on average' do you mean an area weighted average or what? (2) I
believe Appendix G is centered around energy costs as a measure of performance,
not energy usage.
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
No.
Do you believe that this prerequisite/credit is appropriate for sustainable
neighborhoods (e.g., technical rigor, market usability, environmental
performance)? Please explain.
yes.
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible. Thank you for your comment. Language will be included to clarify requirements for
projects in California, similar to the language included in the commercial LEED 2009
no.
rating systems.
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
I suggest including language about how Energy star and HERS in California are both
different than the rest of the country and documentation requirements for projects
in California will be different because our minimum standards are higher here
(namely Title 24).
Do you believe that this prerequisite/credit is appropriate for sustainable
neighborhoods (e.g., technical rigor, market usability, environmental
performance)? Please explain.
The prerequisite represents a significant amount of additional work for the project
teams on some types of projects. The environmental performance is at an Thank you for your comment. Your suggestion that documentation be as
acceptable level. streamlined as possible is well taken, and will be considered when appropriate
documentation is defined in the reference guide.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBp2 2 2/8/2011
GIBp2: Minimum Building Energy Efficiency
Thank you for your comment. Your suggestion that documentation be as
streamlined as possible is well taken, and will be considered when appropriate
Comments Response
documentation is defined in the reference guide.
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible.
There should be an alternative method to demonstrate compliance while still
minimizing documentation.
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible.
Thank you for your comments. The threshold has been revised to allow projects to
The current thresholds could be improved to eliminate the need for energy
account for 90% of building floor area instead of 100% for additional flexibility.
modeling and set the bar at a more reasonable level for a prerequisite: a) 50% of
Many buildings within a project will also be able to use the prescriptive options
new commercial square footage must meet the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1 -
instead of energy modeling.
2007 and b) 50% of new residential must meet ENERGY STAR. Changing these
thresholds will also help ensure market uptake among phased projects that have
already broken ground in some portions of the project.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBp2 3 2/8/2011
GIBp3: Minimum Building Water Efficiency
Comments
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible.
90% of new homes meeting water reduction requirements is extremely high and
will preclude many projects from applying; 50% would be a more appropriate
threshold
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
The lack of an indoor water use credit is obvious, and should be addressed. The
prerequisite threshold should be lowered and additional performance recognized
in a credit.
4
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBp3 2/8/2011
Response
Thank you for your comment. After thorough consideration, the core committee
has concluded that the 90% requirement is a suitable leadership threshold given
the significance of water efficiency. Nonetheless, the threshold will be monitored
for its efficacy and considered for modification during the next rating system
update. A building water efficiency credit has been added as you suggest.
5
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBp3 2/8/2011
GIBp4: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Comments Response
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBp4 6 2/8/2011
GIBc1: LEED Certified Green Buildings
Comments Response
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of Thank you for your comment. In order to meet a similar performance level as the
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research other LEED rating systems, it is important that there is a LEED Core & Shell
where possible. component, in addition to LEED for Commericial Interiors, in order to earn this
If >75% of FAR sq ft pursues LEED CI, are any points available? credit.
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
The 5 point threshold should apply to projects with greater than 50%, not greater
than or equal to.
Thank you for your comment. We apologize for the oversight; the language will be
corrected.
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
The 5 point threshold should apply to projects with greater than 50%, not greater
than or equal to.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc1 7 2/8/2011
GIBc2: Building Energy Efficiency
Comments Response
Do you believe that this prerequisite/credit is appropriate for sustainable
neighborhoods (e.g., technical rigor, market usability, environmental
performance)? Please explain.
Yes, this credit is appropriate however I question the degree of energy efficiency
that is required by the rating system. Stating that 90% of new buildings constructed
on site must be 24% better than ASHRAE 90.1 2007 does not appear aggressive
enough a goal given the fact that a number of states are already requiring that level
of efficiency as a minimum in their energy codes. Additionally, many more states
presumably will be at this level by the time LEED-ND is rolled out. In essence, for
Thank you for your comments. Based on the pilot program, the LEED-ND core
states with aggressive energy codes already in place, this credit does not necessarily
committee feels that the current thresholds set ambitious but achievable thresholds
promote energy efficiency in buildings. It only helps to reinforce local energy code
for projects. We expect that some projects in progressive areas may achieve this
compliance which does not seem to be the goal of the LEED-ND track.
credit without many design modifications, while many will find it a challenge. Given
the constraints of a 100-point system, additional points for increasing levels of
performance are not available at this time, but projects achieving exemplary
performance are encouraged to apply for points under the Innovation and Design
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
Process section of the rating system. We will monitor project performance going
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
forward and adjust the thresholds as necessary to stay current in the marketplace.
where possible.
Design the LEED-ND GIB Credit 2 award methodology to match the existing LEED-NC
EA Credit 1.1 methodology of awarding points based on improvement percentages
over ASHRAE 90.1 instead of a on default minimum efficiency requirement. This
would essentially allow LEED-ND to award points to developers in those states
where existing local energy codes are already requiring the aforementioned level of
energy efficiency in new construction and would further encourage growth above
that minimum level.
Do you believe that this prerequisite/credit is appropriate for sustainable
neighborhoods (e.g., technical rigor, market usability, environmental
performance)? Please explain.
In general, yes.
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible.
Thank you for your comments. You are correct that projects calculating percentage
improvement over ASHRAE will do so by calculating cost (as Appendix G requires).
You are also correct that an area weighted average will be used, as indicated in the
credit language, however the weighted average method will not apply to projects
using only energy models. Guidance on these calculations will also appear in the
reference guide.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc2 8 2/8/2011
GIBc2: Building Energy Efficiency
Comments Response
Thank you for your comments. You are correct that projects calculating percentage
A couple: the current phrasing is: "90% of new buildings constructed as part of the improvement over ASHRAE will do so by calculating cost (as Appendix G requires).
project must, on average, be 24% better than ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1- You are also correct that an area weighted average will be used, as indicated in the
2007, demonstrated by a whole building project simulation using the Building credit language, however the weighted average method will not apply to projects
Performance Rating Method in Appendix G of the Standard.. Buildings undergoing using only energy models. Guidance on these calculations will also appear in the
major renovations as part of the project must, on average, be 20% better than reference guide.
ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007, demonstrated by a whole building
project simulation using the Building Performance Rating Method in Appendix G of
the Standard.. The energy efficiency threshold shall be calculated as a weighted
average of energy usage for the buildings constructed as part of the project based
on their conditioned square footage." (1) By 'on average' do you mean an area
weighted average or what? (2) I believe Appendix G is centered around energy costs
as a measure of performance, not energy usage.
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
No.
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions? Thank you for your comment. The rating system language has been developed for
The Model National Energy Code for Buildings, which is the current standard by U.S. projects. Any applicable equivalencies to Canadian standards will be
which energy efficiency is measured in LEED NC Canada, should be an accepted determined separately.
equivalent to ASHRAE for Canadian projects.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc2 9 2/8/2011
GIBc3: Water Efficient Landscaping
Comments Response
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
Thank you for your comment which is a valuable strategy that will be included in the
There should be a section on biophilic design qualities. Review the work of Stephen reference guide.
Kellert.
Do you believe that this prerequisite/credit is appropriate for sustainable
neighborhoods (e.g., technical rigor, market usability, environmental
performance)? Please explain.
--
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of Thank you for your comment. While your suggestion could not be integrated to this
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research iteration of the Rating System, it will be considered for future revisions. Please that
where possible. that USGBC will be transitioning to a two-year update cycle for all its Rating Systems.
Require approval by local health department. Regarding the use of recycled
wastewater, local health departments need to establish appropriate safeguards to
prevent exposure to water borne pathogens.
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
no
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc3 10 2/8/2011
GIBc4: Existing Building Reuse
Comments Response
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc4 11 2/8/2011
GIBc5: Historic Building Preservation and Adaptive Use
Comments Response
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc5 12 2/8/2011
GIBc6: Minimize Site Disturbance in Design and Construction
Comments Response
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
Thank you for your comments. The current differentiation is based on minimizing
where possible.
disturbance without creating undue burden on construction that might impact cost
by providing ample areas adjacent to areas of high construction activities, and less
Regarding limits of disturbance under Option 2, it seems very difficult to apply,
area when that can be accommodated. Through appropriate documentation
enforce and verify. Why not use single, all encompassing value of 25 or 30 ft for all
requirements, verification will be possible. Therefore, the requirement language will
listed areas? If this credit cannot be simplified so that it can reasonably ensure
not be changed.
performance, it should be deleted.
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible.
Thank you for your comments. This credit and NPDc2: Compact Development are
Option 2: Should the du/acre and FAR numbers mirror the thresholds found in other very different in intent, and show a much different level of density for the category
credits, like NPDc2? equivalencies between residential and non-residential. Although consistency among
credits is the goal, it would not be advantageous here.
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible.
Option 2: Should the du/acre and FAR numbers mirror the thresholds found in other
credits, like NPDc2?
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc6 13 2/8/2011
GIBc7: Stormwater Management
Comments Response
Do you believe that this prerequisite/credit is appropriate for sustainable
neighborhoods (e.g., technical rigor, market usability, environmental
performance)? Please explain.
Table: 1 is vague about what "Storm event" means to the committee.
Currently,there are a 100 storms per year average and the project retains 95 of
those then it receives 4 points. It isn't realated to intensity of the storm but to the
frequency. also, this project has 4 points from the 95% retained but could earn and Thank you for your comments. They are addressed individually below:
additional points for being a reviously developed, brownfield site or earning other
NPD credits.. FOr a total of 7 points... or if you get the 4 points from Table 7 then 1. Additional guidance on calculation methods will be included in the next reference
you aren't eligable for additional points? guide. A maximum of 4 points is available.
2. A project may earn only up to four points for this credit. If a project earns all four
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of points for amount of rainfall managed, additional points for site characteristics are
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research not available.
where possible.
3. Brownfield projects prevented from stormwater infiltration because of site and
regulatory reasons may reuse and/or evapotranspirate stormwater to earn the
Wisconsin NR 151 does not allow for promoting the transport of contaminates from credit.
soil to groundwater, to downstream to locations that are not contaminated. Your "1
point: The project is located on a brownfield site with contaminated soils." seems to
contradict the point of sustainablilty. YOu don't want infiltration on a cotaminated
site. There is apossiblity for the water to leach the contaminates into the
groundwater and spread. I think you should either remove this statement or define
it better to elimanate the possibly of leaching conminates in to the groundwater.
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible.
Suggest credits for the creation of greenways that buffer stream systems beyond
those required by regulations and/or beyond the 100 year flood plain.
Thank you for your comment. Creating a buffer system with greenways could
potentially contribute to the achievement of this credit, and does not necessitate a
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not separate credit. This strategy will also be considered for inclusion in the reference
captured in the first two questions? guide, which provides a more in-depth discussion of best practices and potential
no strategies.
Do you believe that this prerequisite/credit is appropriate for sustainable
neighborhoods (e.g., technical rigor, market usability, environmental
performance)? Please explain.
--
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible. Thank you for your comments. The volume to be managed at each threshold level
will vary by region, based on a certain percentile rainfall event occurring on a given
day in the record over a 20 - 40 year period. A more detailed explanation of how to
Is the targeted percentage of storm events for EACH storm event, aggregate of
determine the appropriate amount to manage has been added to the credit
multiple events, or average? Each event can vary significantly. Is it at project teams'
language.
discretion which event they model for?
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc7 14 2/8/2011
GIBc8: Heat Island Reduction
Comments Response
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
Thank you for your comment. While an additional point is not available at this time,
I am a little horrified by the option to choose between roof and non-roof HIR we have included a new option recognizing mixed approaches to heat island
solutions. I strongly feel these should be seperated, as in CI, to hopefully entice the reduction.
design into doing both roof and non-roof items. Houses are our greatest number of
building types, why would we skimp here??
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible.
Option 1, d. Shade trees require adequate tree wells. Provision of appropriate space
should be required for this credit. Suggest credits for the provision of space that Thank you for your comment. While an additional point is not available at this time,
supports the growth of canopy trees on the order of 160 square feet with a we have included a new option recognizing mixed approaches to heat island
minimum dimension of 10 feet. Center islands in boulevards work extremely well, as reduction.
does the provision of tree wells combining a planting strip with a parking space.
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
no
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc8 15 2/8/2011
GIBc9: Solar Orientation
Comments Response
Do you believe that this prerequisite/credit is appropriate for sustainable
neighborhoods (e.g., technical rigor, market usability, environmental
performance)? Please explain.
yes, more technical and environmental support for sustainable neighborhoods are
needed.
Thank you for your comment. Your positive feedback is appreciated.
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible.
no
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
no
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc9 16 2/8/2011
GIBc10: On-Site Renewable Energy Sources
Comments Response
Do you believe that this prerequisite/credit is appropriate for sustainable
neighborhoods (e.g., technical rigor, market usability, environmental
performance)? Please explain.
very important and necessary for sustainable communities.
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of this
prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research where
possible. Thank you for your comments. Your local renewable energy suggestion will be
considered for inclusion in the reference guide as a possible strategy.
I see that there is almost no structure for renewable energy sources. I propose that
there be a local energy company consulted to make their community independant of
the powergrid with a miniature power station where the community knows and can
see exactly where their power comes from. This system can be devised in once
location near the community, or built within the community harvesting energy from
all locations within the site. I feel this last point could be a great step towards the way
we think about our energy goals. We are surrounded by energy and there are
systems that can convert it back into the grid.
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of this
prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research where
possible. Thank you for your comments. They have been addressed individually below:
Did removing the perscriptive path make this credit prohibitively difficult? 1) The pilot rating system allowed either 5% of peak electric load, or 5% of annual
electric and thermal load , and the new system simplifies this to annual only.
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions? 2) The language will be changed such that renewable energy systems will not be
Why is the "multiple buildings" provision necessary? If performance is achieved for required to serve multiple buildings.
the project as a whole, regardless of number of buildings involved, it should be
recognized.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc10 17 2/8/2011
GIBc11: District Heating and Cooling
Comments Response
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc11 18 2/8/2011
GIBc12: Infrastructure Energy Efficiency
Comments
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible.
This point would be better spent somewhere else in the rating system. Projects only
pursue the light requirements, and many municipalities do this anyway. Compared
to other potential energy and resource efficiencies, this credit lacks credibility and
impact value.
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
Should this credit be scaled based on project size?
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
Should this credit be scaled based on project size?
19
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc12 2/8/2011
Response
Thank you for your comment. The LEED for Neighborhood Development Core
Committee conducted an in-depth weighting exercise to determine the appropriate
point allocation for each credit. This exercise encompassed significant research and
data analysis on the relative environmental & human benefits realized by the
achievement of each LEED credit.
However, each future iteration of the rating system will go through another
weighting exercise to incorporate new scientific advances and feedback from the
market. Your comment will be valuable during these processes.
Thank you for your comment. Project size is a substantive issue, and an approach
that better recognizes its importance will be explored once more data is available
from projects using the Rating System.
20
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc12 2/8/2011
GIBc13: Wastewater Management
Comments Response
Do you believe that this prerequisite/credit is appropriate for sustainable
neighborhoods (e.g., technical rigor, market usability, environmental
performance)? Please explain.
--
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of this
Thank you for your comments. Although approval from the local health department
prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research where
will not be required since it is not within the scope of this credit, projects will be
possible.
advised to establish appropriate safeguards in the reference guide.
Require approval by local health department. Regarding the use of recycled
wastewater, local health departments need to establish appropriate safeguards to
prevent exposure to water borne pathogens.
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
no
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc13 21 2/8/2011
GIBc14: Recycled Content in Infrastructure
Comments Response
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc14 22 2/8/2011
GIBc15: Waste Management Infrastructure
Comments Response
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of
this prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research
where possible.
How is signage on SW drains related to the intent? Requirement belongs in GIBc7
Under Option A, would curbside services meet the intent? If yes, does it need to be Thank you for your comments. They are addressed individually below.
provided for both residents and businesses?
1. SW signage: This item has been deleted and moved to GIBc7.
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions? 2. Option A: Further guidance will be provided in the Reference Guide.
3. Option B: Will be monitored for program results and revisiting during the next
Under Option B, there should be a requirement that the drop-off location - if located update, if necessary.
outside of the project - is within reasonable distance from the project center; too
many projects can earn this even when the drop-off location is so far outside the 4. Option E: While different from other options, construction waste management is
project that it is unlikely residents will use it Option E is completely different from an important issue. It's inclusion here provides projects with flexibility regarding
Options A-D. Problems arise when credits contain multiple paths that have different compliance approaches.
intents, different levels of effort, and different benefits and costs. This should be its
own credit, or removed entirely.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc15 23 2/8/2011
GIBc16: Light Pollution Reduction
Comments Response
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of this
prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research where
possible.
I suggest the light measured at the property line is measured horizontally at grade.
That the light measured beyone the property line is measured vertically at 5 foot
above grade looking at the brightest light source on the property relative the the
calculation point. Ignore street frontage in all calculations. For neighborhood design Thank you for your comment. Calculations should be done as follows: calculate
the biggest concern for light trespass is light shining thru the neighbor's window. horizontal illuminance at grade 5 feet on center; calculate vertical illuminance at 1',
Change the limit for light levels beyond the property line to 0.05 fc. The limit of 0.01 5', and 10' above grade 5 feet on center. Clarification on these calculations will be
fc is prohibitively difficult to meet. Most of the LEED 2.2 projects that have earned included in the reference guide.
this point either had no site lights or the calculation was done with an accuracy of 0.0
fc rather than 0.00 fc. There is a huge difference in what's possible for site lighting Regarding the .01 fc requirement, the thresholds will be raised to 0.02 at 10 feet in
when only measuring 0.0 fc. All available lighting softwares are able to calculate an zone 2, 0.05 at 15 feet in zone 3 and zone 4.
accuracy of 0.00 fc. A value of 0.05 fc is still a very low level of light but it is more
realistic in being achievable. And if someone attempts to calculate with an accuracy
of 0.0 fc then a value over 0.05 fc would round up and appear as 0.1 fc. This would be
more noticable to the LEED review staff as non-compliant and place all of the
submitters on a more equal playing field.
Do you believe that this prerequisite/credit is appropriate for sustainable
neighborhoods (e.g., technical rigor, market usability, environmental
performance)? Please explain.
In general, yes.
Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the technical requirements of this
prerequisite/credit? Please explain, providing citations to data and research where
possible.
Several: (1) Make the descriptions of the lighting zones more in line with what is used
elsewhere (this should also help cut down how often the submitter thinks they can
Thank you for your comments. The lighting zone descriptions have been revised
just use zone 4): Lighting Zone 1:Developed areas of National Parks, State Parks,
based on a review of ASHRAE 90.1 and the current review draft of the IDA/IES Model
Forest Land, and Rural areas Lighting Zone 2:Areas predominantly consisting of
Lighting Ordinance. Your suggested wording about luminaries at the intersection of a
residential zoning, neighborhood business districts, light industrial with limited
public road will be incorporated into the next draft of the rating system.
nighttime use and residential mixed use areas Lighting Zone 3:All other areas Lighting
Zone 4:High activity commercial districts in major metropolitan areas as specifically
designated by the local land use planning authority (2) For safety reasons, the
situation where the site abuts public roads, etc., add the following: "Illuminance
generated from a single luminaire placed at the intersection of a private vehicular
driveway and public roadway accessing the site, is allowed to use the centerline of
the public roadway as the site boundary for 2 times the driveway width."
Do you have other comments about this prerequisite/credit that were not
captured in the first two questions?
No.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\f80e2e61-a882-47b3-a7ac-890d1b1bcd00.xls\GIBc16 24 2/8/2011
