<%BANNER%>

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Certification in Alachua County

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024744/00001

Material Information

Title: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Certification in Alachua County An Analysis of LEED 2009, the 2007 Florida Building Code, and the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code
Physical Description: 1 online resource (85 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Treleven, David
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 2009, alachua, code, leed
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Contractors, architects, and owners are often unaware of the credits that are achieved under Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction (LEED-NC) 2009 by following the local building and land development codes in Alachua County. Achievement of credit and prerequisite requirements in the LEED-NC 2009 system through following the codes was analyzed. The credits and prerequisites were ranked on an achievability scale with a score of four being completely achieved and zero being not achieved. Three credits and three prerequisites achieved scores of four. In addition, ten credits and three prerequisites achieved achievability scores of one to three, or were partially achieved. Multiple other credits, however, were shown to be low-cost credits by using a study by Matthiessen and Morris (2007) as a basis for analysis. Through following the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code, LEED certification is not obtained under the LEED-NC 2009 without a project exceeding code requirements. However, this study provides local construction professionals with a starting point for selecting credits under the LEED-NC 2009 system in Alachua County.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by David Treleven.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024744:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024744/00001

Material Information

Title: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Certification in Alachua County An Analysis of LEED 2009, the 2007 Florida Building Code, and the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code
Physical Description: 1 online resource (85 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Treleven, David
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 2009, alachua, code, leed
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Contractors, architects, and owners are often unaware of the credits that are achieved under Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction (LEED-NC) 2009 by following the local building and land development codes in Alachua County. Achievement of credit and prerequisite requirements in the LEED-NC 2009 system through following the codes was analyzed. The credits and prerequisites were ranked on an achievability scale with a score of four being completely achieved and zero being not achieved. Three credits and three prerequisites achieved scores of four. In addition, ten credits and three prerequisites achieved achievability scores of one to three, or were partially achieved. Multiple other credits, however, were shown to be low-cost credits by using a study by Matthiessen and Morris (2007) as a basis for analysis. Through following the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code, LEED certification is not obtained under the LEED-NC 2009 without a project exceeding code requirements. However, this study provides local construction professionals with a starting point for selecting credits under the LEED-NC 2009 system in Alachua County.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by David Treleven.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024744:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONM ENTAL DESIGN CERTIFICATION IN ALACHUA COUNTY: AN ANALYSIS OF LEED 2009, THE 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, AND THE ALACHUA COUNTY UN IFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE By DAVID A. TRELEVEN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 David A. Treleven

PAGE 3

3 To my Mom and Dad

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank m y parents for supporti ng me through all my endeavors and allowing me to find my own way.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................8LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................10LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 11ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............12 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 13Background .................................................................................................................... .........13Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. .....14Objective of Study ..................................................................................................................14Methodology ................................................................................................................... ........15Structure ..................................................................................................................... .............162 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................18Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ..................................................................18Sustainable Sites ............................................................................................................. .19Water Efficiency .............................................................................................................. 21Energy and Atmosphere .................................................................................................. 22Materials and Resources ..................................................................................................23Indoor Environmental Quality .........................................................................................24Innovation in Design .......................................................................................................26Regional Priority .............................................................................................................26Green Globes ..........................................................................................................................26Davis LangdonCosting Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology ................................................................................................................... ....27Sustainable Sites ............................................................................................................. .28Water Efficiency .............................................................................................................. 30Energy and Atmosphere .................................................................................................. 31Materials and Resources ..................................................................................................32Indoor Environmental Quality .........................................................................................33Innovation in Design .......................................................................................................342007 Florida Building Code ................................................................................................... 34Unified Land Development Code of Alachua County ........................................................... 36

PAGE 6

6 3 SUSTAINABLE SITES .........................................................................................................442007 Florida Building Code ................................................................................................... 44Alachua County Unified Land Development Code ................................................................ 45Analysis ..................................................................................................................................48Credits not Addressed by Either Code .................................................................................... 51Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........524 WATER EFFICIENCY ..........................................................................................................542007 Florida Building Code ................................................................................................... 54Alachua County Unified Land Development Code ................................................................ 54Analysis ..................................................................................................................................55Credits not Addressed by Either Code .................................................................................... 55Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........575 ENERGY AND ATMOSPHERE ........................................................................................... 582007 Florida Building Code ................................................................................................... 58Alachua County Unified Land Development Code ................................................................ 60Analysis ..................................................................................................................................60Credits not Addressed by Either Code .................................................................................... 62Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........636 MATERIALS AND RESOURCES ........................................................................................652007 Florida Building Code ................................................................................................... 65Alachua County Unified Land Development Code ................................................................ 65Analysis ..................................................................................................................................65Credits not Addressed by Either Code .................................................................................... 66Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........687 INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY .......................................................................... 692007 Florida Building Code ................................................................................................... 69Alachua County Unified Land Development Code ................................................................ 71Analysis ..................................................................................................................................71Credits not Addressed by Either Code .................................................................................... 72Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........758 INNOVATION IN DESIGN .................................................................................................. 772007 Florida Building Code ................................................................................................... 77Alachua County Unified Land Development Code ................................................................ 77Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........77

PAGE 7

7 9 REGIONAL PRIORITY ........................................................................................................782007 Florida Building Code ................................................................................................... 78Alachua County Unified Land Development Code ................................................................ 78Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........7810 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... ...80Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........80Credits or Prerequisites Achieved Through Code ........................................................... 80Credits or Prerequisites Partia lly Achieved Through Code ............................................ 80Building LEED in Alachua County ........................................................................................ 81Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ..........82Future Studies .........................................................................................................................82LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................84BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................85

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Achievability Score ....................................................................................................... .....161-2 Leadership in Energy and Environmenta l Design-New Construction 2009 Categories .... 162-1 Certification Levels for LEED 2.2 and LEED 2009 .......................................................... 382-2 LEED 2009 Sustainable Sites Credits................................................................................382-3 LEED 2009 Water Efficiency Credits and Points .............................................................. 392-4 LEED 2009 Energy and Atmosphe re Credits and Points .................................................. 392-5 LEED 2009 Materials and Res ources Credits and Points .................................................. 392-6 LEED 2009 Indoor Environmental Quality Credits and Points .........................................402-7 LEED 2009 Innovation in Design Credits and Points .......................................................402-8 LEED 2009 Regional Priority Paths for Gainesville, Florida ............................................ 412-9 Green Globes System (a dapted from GBI 2009) ............................................................... 412-10 Sustainable Sites: Cost of LEED Credits by Matthi essen and Morris (2007) ................... 412-11 Water Efficiency: Cost of LEED Cred its by Matthiessen and Morris (2007) ...................422-12 Energy and Atmosphere: Cost of LEED Cr edits by Matthiessen and Morris (2007) ....... 422-13 Materials and Resources: Cost of LEED Credits by Matthiessen and Morris (2007) ....... 422-14 Indoor Environmental Quality: Cost of LEED Credits by Matthiessen and Morris (2007) ........................................................................................................................ .........432-15 Innovation in Design: Cost of LEED Cr edits by Matthiessen and Morris (2007).............433-1 Sustainable Sites Credits addressed by the 2007 Florida Building Code and/or the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code ........................................................... 533-2 Sustainable Sites Credits Study Findings ..........................................................................534-1 Water Efficiency Credits addressed by the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code............................................................................................................. 574-2 Water Efficiency Credits Study Findings ..........................................................................57

PAGE 9

9 5-1 Energy and Atmosphere Credits addresse d by the 2007 Florida Building Code and/or the Alachua County Unified Land Developm ent Code ..................................................... 645-2 Energy and Atmosphere Credits Study Findings ............................................................... 646-1 Materials and Resources Credits Study Findings .............................................................. 687-1 Outdoor Air Requireme nts by Standards/Codes ................................................................757-2 Indoor Environmental Quality Credits a ddressed by the 2007 Florida Building Code ..... 757-3 Energy and Atmosphere Credits Study Findings ............................................................... 769-1 Regional Priority Credits Study Findings ..........................................................................7910-1 Credits or Prerequisite s Achieved Through Code (Ach ievability Score of 4) ...................8310-2 Credits or Prerequisites Partially Achieved Through Code (Achie vability Score of 1 to 3) ....................................................................................................................................83

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Leadership in Energy and E nvironmental Design Methodology ....................................... 17

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USGBC United States Green Building Council LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design GBCI Green Building Certification Institute SS Sustainable Sites (LEED Category) WE Water Efficiency (LEED Category) EA Energy and Atmosphere (LEED Category) MR Materials and Res ources (LEED Category) IEQ Indoor Environmental Quality (LEED Category) ID Innovation in Design (LEED Category) RP Regional Priority (LEED Category) IAQ Indoor Air Quality GBI Green Building Initiative NAHB National Association of Home Builders ICC International Code Council ULDC Unified Land Development Code ASHRAE American Society of Heati ng, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers IESNA Illuminating Engineers Society of North America CFC Chlorofluorocarbon HVAC&R Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration FSC Forest Stewardship Council SMACNA Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value AP Accredited Professional OFW Outstanding Florida Water

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONM ENTAL DESIGN CERTIFICATION OF A PROJECT IN ALACHUA COUNTY: AN ANA LYSIS OF LEED 2009, THE 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, AND THE ALACHUA COUNTY UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE By David A. Treleven August 2009 Chair: Charles J. Kibert Major: Building Construction Contractors, architects, and ow ners are often unaware of the credits that are achieved under Leadership in Energy and Environmental De sign for New Construction (LEED-NC) 2009 by following the local building and land development codes in Al achua County. Achievement of credit and prerequisite requirements in the LEED-NC 2009 system through following the codes was analyzed. The credits and prerequisites were ranked on an achievability scale with a score of four being completely achieved and zero being not achieved. Three credits and three prerequisites achieved scores of four In addition, ten credits and three prerequisites achieved achievability scores of one to three, or were pa rtially achieved. Multiple other credits, however, were shown to be low-cost cr edits by using a study by Matthiessen and Morris (2007) as a basis for analysis. Through following the 2007 Florida Bu ilding Code and the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code, LEED certification is not obtained under the LEED-NC 2009 without a project exceeding code requirements. Howe ver, this study provides local construction professionals with a starting point for selecting credits under the LEED-NC 2009 system in Alachua County.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background The Leadership in Energy and Environm ental Design (LEED) Rating System is a consensus based, market driven high performance green building rating system. LEED is used to rate green buildings across the United States As of May 2008, 590 buildings in Florida have registered under the LEED system according to the United States Green Building Councils website (2009). At a more local level, the Univ ersity of Florida has re cently required that all buildings on campus obtain at leas t LEED silver. This standard th at the University of Florida (UF) has set has rubbed off on Al achua County in which UF is located. Alachua County has an increasing demand for projects to be certifi ed under LEED. However, unlike UF, Alachua County does not have a standard for projects to be LEED. Most of the projects on the University of Florida campus and Al achua County register under LEED for New Construction. LEED for Ne w Construction (NC) is broken down into seven major categories. Each Category has prere quisites which must be obtained and credits can be achieved for points, as seen in Table 1.1. Based on the total points achieved a project is awarded a ranking: Certified, Silver, Gold or Platinum. The LEED system is gone into greater detail in the Literature Review found in Chapter 2. The credits can be achieved by following specifi c guidelines for site, design, building, and operations. Many of these credits are based on su rpassing or achieving already existing standards such as American Society of Heating, Refriger ation, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1 or ASHRAE 62.1. Therefore, it is very possi ble that by following local codes, building and other, some of the credits may be obtained. This has implications for all projects attempting LEED that are governed under the same codes.

PAGE 14

14 The local codes for Alachua County are the 2007 Florida Bu ilding Code and the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code. As menti oned above, the University of Florida is in Alachua County, however it is not governed by the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code. The 2007 Florida Building Code is revised every three years and represents the minimum standards for buildings in the state of Florid a. The Alachua County Unified Land Development Code is updated regularly and regulates developm ent-type issues, such as zoning, parking, and land restrictions. A previously performed study was comp leted on LEED-NC 2.2 and the 2004 Florida Building Code by a Florida Chapter of the Un ited States Green Build ing Council (USGBC) in 2005. This study looked at the credits that were obtained by following the 2004 Florida Building Code and other Florida standards. However, th is study has become dated as LEED 2.2 has been replaced by LEED 2009 and the 2004 Florida Bu ilding Code has been replaced by the 2007 Florida Building Code. Currently there is no good resource or method for contractors, architects and owners to find this information. Problem Statement Contractors, architects, and owners are una ware of the credits that are achieved under LEED-NC 2 009 by following the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code. Objective of Study The objective of the study is to show which credits are achieved under LE ED-NC 2009 by following the 2007 Florida Building Code and th e Alachua County Unified Land Development Code. In addition, to revealing the credits achie ved though code; the cost of additional credits will be briefly discussed through use of th e 2007 Davis Langdon Report, by Matthiessen and Morris. This study will provide a starting point for any project registering under LEED-NC 2009

PAGE 15

15 in Alachua County by showing the credits ach ieved through following co de, those partially achieved through following code, and providing insight into possible low-cost credits. Methodology Phase I and Phase II in the m ethodology presente d in Figure 1-1, were the driving force for the study. This methodology can be completed for any LEED project with access to the local codes. However, this study only focuses on projects that are governed by the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code. An extensive review of the changes from LEED-2.2 to LEED 2009 for New Construction was completed. This allowed the researcher to become familiar with LEED 2009. For each credit in LEED 2009, the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code was worked through looking fo r similarities between the credit and codes. Notes were taken as to sections of the codes th at had implications for achieving prerequisites and credits under LEED-NC 2009. The prerequisites and cr edits that had implications from codes were given an achievability score based on Table 1-1. Upon completion of the comparison, conceptual cost estimates were looked at for achieving credits not obtained or partially obt ained by following the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua County ULDC. The probable co st was looked at through using the Davis Langdon Report as a basis for initial cost. In the Davis Langdon Report, by Matthiessen and Morris (2007), credits were looked at individually for possible cost and thus the report provided a good basis for probable cost of LEED-NC 2009 in Alachua County. Through combining both the achieved credits through following local codes and the low-cost credits, the implications for a LEED-NC 2009 project in Alachua County were discussed.

PAGE 16

16 Structure In the follo wing chapters each prerequisite and credit will be examined for similarities with the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code. Each chapter represents a LEED-NC 2009 category. In each chapter, there is a section which discusses 2007 Florida Building Code implications, Alach ua County Unified Land Development Code implications, Matthiessen and Mo rriss implications on cost in Alachua County, and a summary providing findings for that category. The final chapter, titled Conclu sion, will bring all the chapters together and discuss the implications that the codes and Matthiessen and Morriss study have on a LEED project in Alachua County. Table 1-1. Achievability Score Achievability Score Definition 0 Not addressed by Codes 1 Codes have similar intent to prerequisite or credit 2 Codes have similar intent to prerequisite or credit and have minor support for achievement 3 Codes have similar intent to prerequisite or credit and have major support for achievement 4 Prerequisite or credit achieved through Codes Table 1-2. Leadership in Energy and Envir onmental Design-New Cons truction 2009 Categories Category Prerequisites Credits Available Points Sustainable Sites 1 14 26 Water Efficiency 1 3 10 Energy and Atmosphere 3 6 35 Materials and Resources 1 8 14 Indoor Environmental Quality 2 15 15 Innovation in Design 0 2 6 Regional Priority 0 1 4

PAGE 17

17 Figure 1-1. Leadership in Energy an d Environmental Design Methodology

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design The United States Green Building Council (U SGBC) was formed in 1993 and consisted of members from all different backgrounds and professions. The USGBC immediately began to work on a rating system for green building. Th e rating system was released in 1998, at the USGBC Membership Summit, and was referred to as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Version 1.0 (USGBC 2009). The successors of LEED Version 1.0 were LEED Version 2.0 in 2000, LEED Version 2.1 in 2002, LEED Version 2.2 in 2005, and currently LEED Version 3.0 in 2009. LEED has evolved to take into account advan ces in green building and the system has been improving since 1998. The LEED system that is most well know n is LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations; however, LEED has rating systems for different sectors. Currently LEED has rating systems for New Constructi on and Major Renovations, Operations and Maintenance, Core and Shell, Schools, Neighborhood Development, Retail, Healthcare, Homes and Commercial Interiors (USGBC 2009). In addition, the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) was established in 2008 to administer credentialing and certification. The LEED rating system is a voluntary, c onsensus-based, and market driven system (USGBC 2009). The system has seven areas of focu s: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, innovation in design, and regional priority. The LEED rating system was wr itten with the knowledge of current energy and environmental principles, and it attempts to bala nce established practices and emerging concepts (USGBC 2009). The USGBC tries to keep the LE ED rating systems up to date with current technologies and policies, and thus revises LEED regularly.

PAGE 19

19 The most current rating system, LEED Version 3.0 or LEED 2009, has made major changes since LEED Version 2.2 in 2005. LEED 2009 has increased the number of possible points from 69 points (LEED-2.2) to 100 points with the possibility of 10 bonus points. Thus, the point values for the different ce rtification levels have changed and are presented in Table 2-1. The increase in possible points was a result of the USGBC weighing some credits more heavily than others. The credits with the most we ight are those that can have a direct impact on reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas em issions associated with building systems, transportation, the embodied energy of water, the embodied energy of materials, and where applicable, solid waste (USGBC 2009). In additi on, to the change in point-to-credit weightings, some of the credits have been merged, changed and new credits have emerged. Sustainable Sites In the Sustainable Sites (SS) category of LEED 2009 a new prerequi site and three new credits have been added. Som e additions, howev er, are not applicable to LEED-NC 2009, but rather to LEED 2009 Schools and LEED 2009 Core and Shell (CS), as seen in Table 2-2. The new prerequisite is Environmental Site Asse ssment which is for Schools only, and the new credits are Tenant Design and Construction Guide lines for Core and Shell only, Site Master Plan for Schools only, and Joint Use of Faci lities for Schools only (USGBC 2009). LEED-2.2 NC the Sustainable Sites category prov ided each credit with 1 possible point. In LEED-NC 2009, SS Credit 2: Development Density and Community Conn ectivity is provided with 5 possible points, SS Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access is provided with 6 possible points, SS Credit 4.3: Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles is provided 3 po ssible points, and SS Credit 4.4: Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity is provided 2 possible points (USGBC 2009). In addition, to

PAGE 20

20 the credit-to-point weightings change, the compliance paths and other items have been changed or added. In SS Credit 4.3: Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles is an additional compliance path has been added. The new compliance path is Option 4. Option 4 allows designers to provide building occupants w ith a low-emitting/fuel-efficient vehicle sharing program to achieve SS Credit 4.3 (USGBC 2009). SS Credit 5.1: Site Development: Protect or Restore Habitat that has been modified as well. SS Credit 5.1 has been reformatted to have Case 1: Greenfield Sites and Case 2: Previously Developed Sites, these are identi cal to Option 1 and Option 2 exce pt for an addition to Case 2. Previously Developed Sites (Case 2) in LEED -NC 2.2 required the developer to restore or protect a minimum of 50% of the site area wi th native or adapted vegetation excluding the building footprint (USGBC 2009). In LEED-NC 2009 th e developer must restore or protect 50% of the site area excluding the building footprin t or 20% of total site area (including building footprint) whichever is greater (USGBC 2009). SS Credit 7.1: Heat Island Effect: Non-Roof has included solar pane ls and architectural devices as an additional opti on in compliance. LEED-NC 2009 for SS Credit 7.1 for compliance under Option 1 must use the following strategies on 50% of the hardscape: provide shade from existing or planned (5 years) tr ee canopy, provide shade from stru ctures covered by solar panels that produce energy, shade from architectural devi ces or structures with a SRI of at least 29, hardscape materials with a SRI of at least 29, or use open-grid pavement systems that are at least 50% pervious (USGBC 2009). Option 2 remains the sa me for compliance but roofs used to shade can have a green roof or solar panels in place of materials with an SRI of 29.

PAGE 21

21 LEED-NC 2009 differs from LEED-NC 2.2 in SS Credit 8: Light Pollution Reduction. LEED-NC 2009 requires compliance with the credit by means of two options for interior lighting. The first option requires a ll non-emergency luminaries with a direct line of sight to any openings in the envelope to be shielded by at least 50% between 11pm and 5 am and an afterhours override may be manual or occupant-s ensing device which turns the lights on for no more than 30 minutes (USGBC 2009). The s econd option requires that all openings in the envelope with a direct line of sight to a ny nonemergency luminaries must have shielding (USGBC 2009). The exterior lighting complia nce path remains the same as LEED-NC 2.2. Water Efficiency The Water Efficiency (WE) category for LEED 2009 differs in multiple ways from LEED 2.2. The most obvious difference is that the category in LEED 2009 has a prerequisite. The prerequisite is titled Wa ter Use Reduction and is the same as LEED 2.2 WE Credit 3.1: Water Use Reduction. This prerequi site requires that designer s use 20% less water than the baseline building calculation (USGBC 2009). WE Credit 1: Water-Efficient Landscapi ng in LEED 2009 combines WE Credit 1.1 and WE Credit 1.2 from LEED 2.2. The intent remains th e same; however, 2 to 4 points are available in WE Credit 1 in LEED 2009. Two compliance paths are available in LEED 2009 for WE Credit 1. Option 1 is worth 2 points and has th e same compliance path as LEED 2.2 WE Credit 1.1 and Option 2 is worth 4 points and has the same compliance path as LEED 2.2 WE Credit 1.2 (USGBC 2009). WE Credit 2: Innovative Wastewat er Technologies retains the same compliance path. This credit in LEED 2009 is worth 2 points. WE Credit 3: Water Use Reduction has incr eased the percent reduction required for compliance. The credit has a possible 2, 3, or 4 points. Two points are awarded for a 30%

PAGE 22

22 reduction in water use, 3 points for 35%, a nd 4 points for 40% (USGBC 2009). The baseline calculations for this credit exclude commercial steam cookers, dishwashers, automatic commercial ice makers, clothes washers (USGBC 2009). The last credit in the Water Efficiency category is WE Credit 4: Process Water Use Reduction and is a new credit for 2009. However, this credit is only appl icable to LEED 2009 for Schools and thus is not discussed in this repo rt. The Water Efficiency LEED 2009 Credits are presented in Table 2-3. Energy and Atmosphere The LEED 2.2 and LEED 2009 Energy and Atmosphere (EA) category are fairly similar. The addition of more possible points has change d the compliance paths of multiple credits in the Energy and Atmosphere category. In addition, tw o new credits have been made for LEED 2009 Core and Shell; EA Credit 5.1: Measurement and Verification: Base Building and EA Credit 5.2: Measurement and Verification Tenant Submeter ing (USGBC 2009). These new credits are not applicable to LEED-NC 2009 and thus are not discussed. All credits and titles for the Energy and Atmosphere category are presented in Table 2-4. The first change, from LEED 2.2 to LEED-N C 2009, is in Prerequisite 2: Minimum Energy Performance. The compliance path has changed completely. The prerequisite now requires a 10% improvement in the proposed bu ilding performance rating compared with the baseline building performance rating (ASHRAE 90.1-2007) and a 5% increa se in an existing renovation (USGBC 2009). It is simply a lower percentage than EA Credit 1: Optimize Energy Performance. EA Credit 1: Optimize Energy Performance for LEED-NC 2009 has a possible 19 points associated with the credit. Option 1: Whole Building Simulati on, of the EA Credit 1 in the LEED-NC 2009 system, awards 1 point for 12% improvement over the baseline building

PAGE 23

23 according to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for new cons truction (USGBC 2009). Then for every 2% increase another point is award until 48% when the point value is 19. For existing buildings 8% improvement for 1 point and then for every 2% increase another point is awarded up to 19 points (44%). LEED 2.2 only had a possible 10 points asso ciated with this cr edit. Option 2 in the LEED-NC 2009 system has three complian ce paths, LEED 2.2 only had one. The first compliance path is the same as Option 2 in LEED 2.2 and the second compliance path is ASHRAE for Small Retail Buildi ngs 2006 (retail and under 20000 sq ft). The third compliance path is ASHRAE for Small Warehouses and Se lf Storage Buildings (warehouse and under 50000 sq ft). Option 2 is worth only 1 point. Option 3 remains the same, with a possible 3 points using the Advanced Buildings Core Performance Guide. EA Credit 2: On-Site Renewable Energy for LEED-NC 2009 has the same compliance path as LEED 2.2 but has different percentages associated with point values. For 1% of energy produced 1 point is available and then for every 2% increase another poin t is available up to 7 points or 13% of energy produced (USGBC 2009). EA Credit 3: Enhanced Commissioning, EA Credit 4: Enhanced Refrigerant Management, and EA Credit 6: Green Power under the LEED-NC 2009 system are worth 2 points instead of 1 point with the LEED 2.2 syst em. EA Credit 5: Meas urement and Verification is worth 3 points under the LEED-NC 2009 system instead of the LEED 2.2 systems 1 point. Materials and Resources The Materials and Resources (MR) cate gory from LEEDNC 2.2 to LEED-NC 2009 has mainly consisted of combination of credits and additional points in some credits. MR Credit 1.1: Building Reuse: Maintain Existing Walls, Floor and Roofs in LEED 2009 has up to 3 possible points. The credit encompasses both Credit 1.1 and Credit 1.2 from the LEED-NC 2.2 system. Minimum percentage reuse for the LEED 2009 syst em is 55% for 1 point, 75% for 2 points, and

PAGE 24

24 95% for 3 points (USGBC 2009). MR Credit 1.2 in the LEED-NC 2009 system is MR Credit 1.3 from the LEED-NC 2.2 system. MR Credit 2: Construction Waste Manage ment in the LEED-NC 2009 system is MR Credit 2.1 and MR Credit 2.2 from the LEED 2.2 system. Compliance path and percentages remain the same in both systems. This is the sa me for MR Credit 3: Material Reuse, which is a combination of MR Credit 3.1 and MR Credit 3.2 from LEED 2.2 system, and MR Credit 4: Recycled Content, which is a combination of MR Credit 4.1 and MR Credit 4.2 from LEED 2.2 system. The Materials and Resources LEED 2009 Credits are all presented in Table 2-5. Indoor Environmental Quality The LEED 2 009 category of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) has the most new credits and prerequisites of any category. There are four new credits and one new prerequisite in total. The prerequisite is IEQ Prerequisite 3: Minimum Ac oustical Performance and the new credits are IEQ Credit 4.5: Low-Emitting Materials: Furniture and Furnishings, IEQ Credit 4.6: LowEmitting Materials: Ceiling and Wall Systems, IEQ Credit 9: Enhanced Acoustical Performance, and IEQ Credit 10: Mold Prevention. All of the new credits and prerequisite are not applicable to the LEED-NC 2009 rating system and thus will not be discussed in detail. However, there have been changes to the LEED-NC 2009 system from LEED-NC 2.2. All the LEED 2009 Credits for the Indoor Environmental Quality cate gory are presented in Table 2-6. IEQ Prerequisite 1: Min imum Indoor Air Quality Perfor mance has changed minimally from LEED 2.2 to LEED 2009. The change is that ASHRAE 62.1-2004 has simply been replaced by ASHRAE 62.1-2007, a more updated version (USGBC 2009). The same is true in IEQ Credit 1: Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring, IEQ Credit 2: Increased Ventilation and IEQ Credit 6.2: Controllability of Sy stems: Thermal Comfort. Anothe r updated standard occurs in IEQ Credit 3.1: Construction I ndoor Air Quality Management Plan: During Construction. The

PAGE 25

25 updated standard in IEQ Credit 3.1 is SMACNA IAQ Guidelines for Occupied Buildings Under Construction, 2nd Edition 2007, ANSI/SM ACNA 008-2008 Chapter 3 (USGBC 2009). IEQ Credit 4.3, in the LEED-NC 2.2 system, applied to carpet systems only. In the LEED-NC 2009 system IEQ Credit 4.3 expands to all flooring systems, and thus is renamed IEQ Credit 4.3: Low-Emitting Material s: Flooring Systems. Option 1 of this credit includes the compliance path from LEED-NC 2.2 for carpeting systems. In addition, Option 1 requires hard surface flooring to be compliant with FloorScore st andard (current) by an independent third party (USGBC 2009). One-hundred percent of non-carpet fi nish floor must be Fl oorScore certified and must constitute at least 25% of finished floor area. Concre te, wood, bamboo and cork floor finishes (sealers and stains) must meet S outh Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113 (2004) and tile setting adhesives and grout must meet SCAQMD Rule 1168 (2005) (USGBC 2009). For Option 2, all flooring elements on the interior must be tested to meet California Department of Health Services Standard Practice for the Testing of Volatile Organic Emissions from Various Sources Us ing Small-Scale Environmental Chambers, including 2004 Addenda (USGBC 2009). IEQ Credit 8.1: Daylight and Views: Daylight has also been changed in terms of compliance from LEED 2.2 to LEED-NC 2009. L EED-NC 2.2 gives three options for compliance: Option 1: Calculation, Option 2: Simulation, or Option 3: Measurement. LEED-NC 2009 gives four options to the design team for compliance: Option 1: Simulation, Option 2: Compliance, Option 3: Measurement, or Optio n 4: Combination (USGBC 2009). The simulation and measurement paths of compliance are id entical from LEED 2.2 to LEED-NC 2009. The fourth option of combination in LEED-NC 2009 is simply combining any of the compliance paths together to prove appropriate day-ligh ting. Option 2: Compliance is new to LEED. It

PAGE 26

26 requires for side lighting visible light transmittan ce and window-to-floor ra tio of daylight zone 0.150 and 0.180 (window area included must be at least 30 inches above floor) and for top lighting the daylight zone is the outline of the lig ht plus, in each direc tion, the lesser of 70% ceiling height or half the distance to the edge of the nearest skylight (USGBC 2009). Innovation in Design The Innovation in Design (ID) category has a dded one credit, Credit 3: The School as a Teaching To ol. However, this credit is not applicable to LEED-NC 2009. The only difference from LEED-NC 2.2 to LEED-NC 2009 is that Cred it 1: Innovation in Design has increased from 4 possible points to 5 possible points. The same compliance path is required for the additional point. The Innovation in Design Credits and Poin ts for LEED 2009 are presented in Table 2-7. Regional Priority The Regional Priority (RP) category is a ne w category for LEED. The USGBC for med this category on the basis that differe nt areas have different focuse s in making construction more sustainable. The local USGBC chapters developed the Regional Priority credits for their areas throughout the United States. A spreadsheet is ava ilable on the USGBC site to view all regional priority credits. In LEED-NC 2009, the Regional Priority category has one credit, RP Credit 1: Regional Priority. This credit has a possible four points. The credit has six different compliance paths or six different ways to achieve points for the credit. For each compliance path met one point is awarded, up to four points. Table 2-8 shows the Regional Priority compliance paths for all Gainesville, Florida zip codes. Green Globes The Green Building In itiative (G BI) began by helping local Home Builder Associations in Canada develop green building programs simila r to the Model Green home Building Guidelines

PAGE 27

27 of the National Association of Home Build ers (GBI 2009). In 2004, the GBI brought Green Globes environmental assessment and rating tool, used for commercial buildings, to the United States from Canada. Green Globes is not as popu lar of a rating tool in the United States as LEED. Green Globes has a rating system for both existing buildings and for new construction. Green Globes NC hopes that buildings certified under the system consume fewer fossil fuels, reduce green house emissions, conserve water, reduce other forms of pollution, minimize the impact of the project on the environment, and offer a better indoor environment to occupants (GBI 2009). Like LEED, Green Globes has categories under which points are distributed. Table 2-9 shows the categories the associated points an d a brief description of the areas touched upon by the category. Green Globes awards four globes for those pr ojects that obtain 85-100% of points, three for 70-84%, two for 55-69%, and one for 35-54% (GBI 2009). In addition, to submittals for certification, like LEED, Green Globes also requires a site visit by a Green Globes-trained third party assessor. Davis LangdonCosting Green: A Compreh ensive Cost D atabase and Budgeting Methodology Davis Langdon is a cost consulting company that published a report in 2004 and then again in 2007 in which it attempted to put a cost on green building and more specifically LEED. Every year Davis Langdon consults on hundreds of projects and thus has complied cost data on LEED. The report only looked at construction costs and di d not take into account life cycle costs, which may have brought down the cost of achieving LE ED credits. Davis Langdons database not only collects costs on LEED proj ects, but it also stores point-bypoint information on LEED projects.

PAGE 28

28 Davis Langdon was able to complete a cost re view of each LEED-NC 2.2 credits. This was accomplished through analyzing 221 LEED buildings of which only 83 were designed for meeting LEED standards (Matthie ssen and Morris 2007). All of the costs were all normalized for time and location so credits could be compared accurately and provide a non-localized cost estimate (Matthiessen and Morris 2 007). Costs were labeled as low to high and not necessarily in terms of dollars. The data from the study is co mplied by category in Table 2-9 for Sustainable Sites, Table 2-10 for Water Efficiency, Table 2-11 for Energy and Atmosphere, Table 2-12 for Materials and Resources, Table 2-13 for Indoor Environmental Quality and Table 2-14 for Innovation in Design. In addition, to make the information more applicable Table 2-9 through Table 2-14 have the equivalent LEED 2009 Cred its that are associated with the LEED 2.2 Credits that were in the study. However, only LEED 2.2 Credits are discussed in the following subsections. Sustainable Sites In the report, Matthiessen and Morris (2007) st ate that the prerequisite of the Sustainable Sites Category, SSp1, can be achieved at no additional cost because com pliance with this credit was typical construction practice on most construction projects. Th e Site Selection Credit, SSc1, has no construction costs typically associat ed with achievement; however, acquiring an appropriate site might have additional cost s (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). Matthiessen and Morris (2007) state that Sustainable Sites Credit 2: Development Density and Community Connectivity was not typically a dr iver in site selection, but it was more so a result of site selection. The same was true of SSc3: Brownf ield Redevelopment and SSc4.1: Alternative TransportationPublic Transportation Access. However, brownfield remediation has been shown to cost anywhere from $50,000 to $2 million pe r acre (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). Brownfield remediation was usually required regardless of LEED, so this credit was achieved at no

PAGE 29

29 additional cost over regular construction cost s. Sustainable Sites Credit 4.2: Alternative TransportationBicycle Storage and Changing Rooms was typically achieved at a low cost, as bicycle racks and shower facil ities required for achieving SSc4.2 are usually small in number (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). Matthiessen and Morris (2007) st ate that projects achieving SSc4.3: Alternative Transportatio nLow-Emitting and Fuel-Effici ent Vehicles was typically done in two manors: (1) through providing preferre d parking which has only the cost of signage or (2) through electric refue ling stations which typically costs between $5000 and $20,000 for a two car station. Sustainable Sites Credit 4.4: Alte rnative TransportationParking Capacity was typically achieved at a reduction in cost because achieving the credit limits or reduces the amount of parking for a projec t (Matthiessen & Mo rris 2007). Credit 5.1, Reduced Site Disturbance: Protect or Restore Open Space, typically had a low cost of implementation (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). According to Ma tthiessen and Morris (2007), most owners achieved this credit through incorp orating native species into thei r plant selection. Reduced Site Disturbance: Maximize Open Space, SSc5.2, was ach ieved by rural and campus projects at no additional cost while urban projects achievement of the credit ranged in cost (Matthiessen & Morris 2004). On urban sites, if a green roof was needed to achieved SSc5.2 the cost was typically significant to achiev e the credit. Credit 6.1 and 6.2, Stor mwater Management: Rate and Quantity and Stormwater Management: Treatment, had varying costs due to the techniques that were possible to obtain this point. For instance, sw ales were at a low cost, detention ponds were more expensive, and collection tanks were ve ry expensive (Matthiesse n & Morris 2007). Which system that was used was usually a direct result of the space available, thus for urban sites this credit was usually very costly to obtain while fo r rural sites the credit was at low first cost. Heat IslandsNon-Roof Credit 7.1 was a credit that wa s obtained at a low cost by changing the color

PAGE 30

30 of concrete paving and adding shade elements to the site (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). The second Heat Island Credit, Heat Island-Roof Credit 7.2, was a slig htly more costly credit to implement according Matthiessen and Morris (2007). This cost was slightly higher because highemissivity roofing was $1-$2 per square foot more expensive than traditional black roofing (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). The la st credit, in the Sustainabl e Sites category, Light Pollution Reduction Credit 8.0, was at a low cost to owners. The report points out th at clients and code officials often thought this credit conflicted with security requirements and that many projects attempted this credit, but few actuall y achieve it (Matthie ssen & Morris 2007). Water Efficiency The W ater Efficiency category had only two credits, Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping: Reduce by 50% and Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction: 20% Reduction, that were usually attempted by certif ied buildings under the LEED-N C 2.2 system, as reported by Matthiessen and Morris ( 2007). All the credits were reported to be low in cost, except for Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction: 30% Reduction which ha d a moderate first cost. Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping: Reduce by 50% was achieve d through highly effici ent irrigation systems and drought tolerant landscaping. Ho wever, this credit was difficu lt to achieve if the landscaping included turf grass (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). The second irrigation cr edit, Credit 1.2, was often achieved by using municipal reclaimed water, which made the credit a low cost credit (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). Sust ainable Sites Credit 2: Innova tive Wastewater Technologies can be accomplished through low-flow and wate rless urinals which are at no added cost, reclaimed water systems at an increase of $4$8 per square foot, and/ or onsite wastewater treatment which is at a high first cost (Mat thiessen & Morris 2007). Th e first of the Water Reduction Credits, Credit 3.1, was typically achieve d through use of low flow fixtures, aerators, sensor flow controls, dual-flush toilets and waterless urinals (M atthiessen & Morris 2007). In

PAGE 31

31 most cases this was enough to obtain the second cr edit, SSc3.2, as well, but for projects that use potable water for hygienic and infection contro l purposes this credit was more costly (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). Energy and Atmosphere The first Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisi te, EAp1: Fundam ental Commissioning of the Building Systems typically costs $1.50-$3.00 per square foot and thus was low in cost (Matthiessen and Morris 2007). Matthiessen and Morris (2007) found that the second prerequisite, EAp2: Minimum Ener gy Performance if targeted from the beginning was at no or very little additional cost to achieve. Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 3: Fundamental Refrigerant Management was automatically achie ved on all new construction and thus is at no additional cost (Matthiessen and Morris 2007). The first few Optimize Energy Performance points, EAc1, were typically achieved through following local building standards, correctly sizing equipment, and focusing on energy efficient building practices. Therefore the first few points were at low cost or no cost, as reported by Matthiessen and Morris (2007). The remaining points often required integrated design and innovative technologi es, which for some projects were very expensive and for other projects ac tually reduced costs (M atthiessen & Morris 2007). The Renewable Energy Credit, EAc2, was achieve d almost entirely through photovoltaics which were at a high first cost (Mat thiessen & Morris 2007). Enhanced Commissioning, represented by Credit 3, required an additional $1-$2 per square foot on top of basic commissioning. Energy and Atmosphere Credit 4: Enhanced Refrigerant Mana gement required little additional cost because manufactures are now making LEED compliant equipment (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). Credit 5, Measurement and Verification, was considered to be a high cost credit due to the high level of monitoring that was required by a Building Control Management System (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). The last credit in the Energy and Atmo sphere category, Credit 6 Green Power, was

PAGE 32

32 typically achieved at a reasonable cost to the owner because many power companies had decent rates on renewable energy, typically a 15% to 20% increase in power costs (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). Materials and Resources The prerequ isite of the Materials and Res ources Category, MRp1: Storage and Collection of Recyclables was achieved at a very small co st because most buildings already had waste handling areas (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). The Building Reuse Credits, MRc1.1 through MRc1.3, were typically at no additional cost to achieve on remodels however, they often prevented a project from achieving LEED due to the difficulty to obtain other credits (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). Wh en recycling facilities were local Credit 2.1 and 2.2, Construction Waste Management, were achieved at a low cost. However, these two credits did require lots of documentation (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). Materials and Resources Credits 3.1 and 3.2: Materials Reuse were low cost credits when they were achieved. However, these credits were not typically achieved on projects due to the unavailability of salvaged products to meet the 5% or 10% requirements (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). On the other hand, Credits 4.1 and 4.2, Recycled Content, were easy to achieve for most projects, the second credit required some additional planning for achievement, but both were achieved at low cost. Credits 5.1 and 5.2, Local/Regional Materials, were difficult to achie ve and cost could not be discussed due to a variety of approaches to obt ain these credits (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). Materials and Resources Credit 6: Rapidly Renewable Materials was achieved often at a substantial cost due to the high percentage required for compliance. However, it was not the high cost but the difficulty of finding materials that were suitable for comp liance that turned many projects away from this credit (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). Matthiessen and Morris (2007) found that Credit 7,

PAGE 33

33 Certified Wood, was achieved at low to high costs depending on the supply and demand at the time of purchase and the amount of wood required by the project. Indoor Environmental Quality The first Ind oor Environmental Quality Prerequisite: Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance was achieved at no additional cost (Matthiessen and Morris 2007). Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control, EQp2, was also achieved at no additional cost by eliminating smoking (Matthiessen and Morris 2007). Matthiessen and Morris (2007) found that IEQc1: Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring added little cost to a project b ecause the sensors required for this credit are standard technology on most projects. Increase d Ventilation, IEQc2, was achieved at a small initial cost, but the operational cost of the building often increased (Matthiessen and Morris 2007). The first Construction IAQ Management Pl an Credit, Credit 3.1, which required an air quality plan during construction, wa s at a low cost, however, this poi nt required a great deal of coordination and management by the contractor (Matthiessen & Mo rris 2007). It required that the construction be planned and sequenced appropriately and that all the workers on the site obeyed the guidelines during construction. On the other hand, the second Construction IAQ Management Plan Credit, Credit 3.2, which require d a flush-out, had its problems rooted with climate. In areas with high humidity a flush out was just not feasible, however, in hot dry areas the flush out was very straight forward (Mat thiessen & Morris 2007). All of the Low-VOC Credits were at low cost because of the av ailability of low-VOC products. Credit 5, Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control had a low first cost, however, cost went up when additional exhaust ductwork and drainage was needed (Matthiessen & Morris 2007). Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 6.1 : Controllability of SystemsLighting was achieved through enhanced lighting controls which can range, dependi ng on the project, from low cost to high first cost (Matthiessen and Morris 2007). The second Controllability of Systems Credit, EQc6.2, was

PAGE 34

34 typically a high cost credit to achieve because of thermal control required in single occupant areas. Matthiessen and Morris (200 7) state that most projects thermal comfort was designed to comply with ASHRAE standards and thus IEQc7. 1: Thermal ComfortDesign was achieved at no additional cost. The second Thermal Comfort Credit, IEQc7.2, as reported by Matthiessen and Morris (2007), was achieved at a moderate cost due to the surve y. Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 8.1: Daylight and ViewsDaylight was at a low first cost to high first cost due major variation in projects de sign and glazing (Matthiessen and Morris 2007). The final credit in this section, IEQc8.2: Dayli ght and ViewsViews, was ach ieved on most projects by well thought out arrangement of interior spaces and gl azing on interior partitions, which were added at a low to moderate additional cost (Matthiessen and Morris 2007). Innovation in Design The Innovation in Design category had four Innovation Credits of which two were typically achieved by certified buildings under the LEED -NC 2.2 system These credits ranged in cost. Matthiessen and Morris (2007) reported that the cost vari es because the credit can be achieved through applying a measure that is alrea dy in the building to th e credit or the credit could be an additional system or exemplary pe rformance. It was difficult for Matthiessen and Morris (2007) to put a cost on th ese credits because of the wide variety of ways to achieve an Innovation Credit. The last credit the LEED Professional Credit, was at no first cost to the project (Matthiessen and Morris 2007). 2007 Florida Building Code The 2007 Florida Building code supersedes al l previous codes and all local codes. The code is revised every three years to update st andards, interpretations, and clarifications (ICC 2008). The Florida Building Code is based on national model buildi ng codes and national consensus standards that have been ad apted to address Floridas environment:

PAGE 35

35 The base codes for th e 2007 edition of the Florida Building Code include: the International Building Code 2006 edition; the International Plumbing Code, 2006 edition; the International Mechanical Code, 2006 edition; the International Fuel Gas Code 2006 edition; the International Residential Code 2006 edition; the International Existing Building Code, 2006 edition; the National Electric Code 2005 edition; the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Housing Guidelines and; substantive criteria from the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Airconditioning Engineers (A SHRAE) Standard 90.1-2004. In addition, state and local codes have been in corporated into the 2007 Florida Building Code. These codes are the Florida Accessibility Code for building Construction, the Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction, and hurricane protections standards where appropriate. The 2007 Florida Building Code applies to any construction, alte rnation, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, us e and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every structure in the state of Florida (ICC 2008). The intent as expressed by the ICC is expressed in 101.3 of the 2007 Fl orida Building Code and is as follows: 101.3 Intent. The purpose of this code is to es tablish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and genera l welfare through struct ural strength, means of egress facilities, st ability, sanita tion, adequate light and ven tilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire a nd other hazards attributed the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The 2007 Florida Building Code provides governance by which all structures in Florida must be built to. However, some structures are exem pt from the 2007 Florida Building Code. Those exempt structures are federal projects, railro ad facilities, temporar y buildings used during construction, mobile temporary offices, electric utilities, production se ts, or Miccosukee Tribe chickees (ICC 2009). The 2007 Florida Building Code provides a mini mum set of standard s for architects and contractors in Florida. In a ddition, it provides an outline as to the permitting process and the

PAGE 36

36 associated tests. Lastly, the Florida Building Code provides info rmation about inspections that must occur during the construction process. Unified Land Development Code of Alachua County The Unified Land Developm ent Code of Alachua County was created to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare of resident s and landowners of Alachua County (Alachua County 2009). In addition, the ULDC promotes the a ppropriate land use that is consistent with the policies and goals of the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan (Alachua County 2009). The ULDC also helps to ensure adequate light, air, privacy, safety and aesthetics to Alachua County developments. The ULDC has a list of seventeen more specific purposes in 400.2 of the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code: 1. Promote sustainable land development th at provides for a balance of economic opportunity, social equity incl uding environmental justice an d protection of the natural environment 2. Base new development upon the provision of necessary services and infrastructure. Focus urban development in a clearly defi ned area and strengthen the separation of rural and urban uses. 3. Recognize residential neighborhoods as a coll ective asset for a ll residents of the County. 4. Create and promote cohesive communities that provide for a full range and mix of land uses. 5. Minimize the conversion of land from rural to urban uses by maximizing the efficient use of available urban infrastructure, while preserving environmentally sensitive areas. 6. Promote land development that maximizes the use of public investments in facilities and services, ensures a proper level of pub lic services for all new development and preserves existing amenities. 7. Promote the spatial organization of nei ghborhoods, districts a nd corridors through urban design codes that serve as predic table guides for community development. 8. Prevent or minimize conflicts among di fferent land uses and structures.

PAGE 37

37 9. Establish zoning districts, restricting and regulating therein the construction, reconstruction, alteration and use of buildi ngs, structures and land for residential, commercial, industrial and other specified uses. 10. Provide development standards, criteria and regulations consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the establishment of uses within the various zoning districts. 11. Provide a range of densities, intensities and uses to implement the future land use categories. 12. Allow clustering and other flexible design options within conventional zones. 13. Ensure that gross density is consistent with the Future Land Use Element, while allowing for provision of unit bonuses for clustering where cons istent with the Comprehensive Plan. 14. Encourage mixed-use development. 15. Protect natural resources and conservati on areas during the land use planning and development review process through specific provisions for their protection, with an emphasis on designing with nature. 16. Provide performance standards for development in and adjacent to conservation and preservation areas to protect and enhance the natural, phys ical, biological, ecological, aesthetic and recreational functions of these areas. 17. Provide design standards for the development of streets in a manner consistent with the Corridor Design Manual. The ULDCs main function is to make sure land is used appropriately and sustainably for the greater good of the community. The Unified Land Development Code of Al achua County was most recently adopted February 24, 2009 (Ord. 09-01) and is updated as needed (Alachua County 2009). The ULDC applies to all areas within Alachua County and al l annexed areas as well. If the ULDC conflicts with any other codes then the more stringent code shall be followed (Alachua County 2009). The ULDC goes beyond dealing with stru ctures and attends to the deve lopment as a whole. On the surface the ULDC appears to be more environm entally friendly and sustainable than the 2007 Florida Building Code.

PAGE 38

38 Table 2-1. Certification Levels for LEED 2.2 and LEED 2009 Level of Certification LEED 2.2 Points LEED 2009 Points Certified 26-32 40-49 Silver 33-38 50-59 Gold 39-51 60-79 Platinum 52-69 80 and above Table 2-2. LEED 2009 Sustainable Sites Credits Credit/Prerequisite Title Points Available Prerequisite 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required Prerequisite 2 Environmental Site Assessment Required for Schools Credit 1 Site Selection 1 Credit 2 Development Density and Community Connectivity 5 NC and CS, 4 Schools Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 Credit 4.1 Alternative TransportationPublic Transportation Access 6 NC and CS, 4 Schools Credit 4.2 Alternative TransportationBicycle Storage and Changing Rooms 1 NC and Schools, 2 CS Credit 4.3 Alternative TransportationLow-Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles 3 NC and CS, 2 Schools Credit 4.4 Alternative TransportationParking Capacity 2 Credit 5.1 Site DevelopmentProtect or Restore Habitat 1 Credit 5.2 Site DevelopmentMaximize Open Space 1 Credit 6.1 Stormwater DesignQuantity Control 1 Credit 6.2 Stormwater DesignQuality Control 1 Credit 7.1 Heat Island EffectNonroof 1 Credit 7.2 Heat Island EffectRoof 1 Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 Credit 9 Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines 1 Core and Shell Credit 9 Site Master Plan 1 Schools Credit 10 Joint Use of Facilities 1 Schools

PAGE 39

39 Table 2-3. LEED 2009 Water Efficiency Credits and Points Credit/Prerequisite Title Points Prerequisite 1 Water Use Reduction Required Credit 1 Water-Efficient Landscaping 2 or 4 Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2 Credit 3 Water Use Reduction 2 to 4 Credit 4 Process Water Use Reduction 1 Schools only Table 2-4. LEED 2009 Energy and Atmosphere Credits and Points Credit/Prerequisite Title Points Prerequisite 1 Fundame ntal Commissioning of Building Energy Systems Required Prerequisite 2 Minimum Energy Performance Required Prerequisite 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 19 NC and Schools, 3-21 CS Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy 1 to 7 NC and Schools, 4 CS Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 2 Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2 NC and CS, 1 Schools Credit 5 Measurement and Veri fication 3 NC, 2 Schools Credit 5.1 Measurement and VerificationBase Building 3 Core and Shell Credit 5.2 Measurement and VerificationTenant Submetering 3 Core and Shell Credit 6 Green Power 2 Table 2-5. LEED 2009 Materials and Resources Credits and Points Credit/Prerequisite Title Points Prerequisite 1 Storage and Coll ection of Recyclables Required Credit 1/1.1 Building ReuseMaintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof 1 to 3 NC, 1 to 2 Schools/ 1-5 CS Credit 1.2 Building ReuseMaintain Interior Nonstructural Elements 1 Credit 2 Construction Waste Management 1 to 2 Credit 3 Materials Reuse 1 to 2 NC and Schools, 1 CS Credit 4 Recycled Content 1 to 2 Credit 5 Regional Materials 1 Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 NC and Schools Credit 6/7 Certified Wood 1

PAGE 40

40 Table 2-6. LEED 2009 Indoor Environmental Quality Credits and Points Credit/Prerequisite Title Points Prerequisite 1 Minimu m Indoor Air Quality Performance Required Prerequisite 2 Environmen tal Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required Prerequisite 3 Minimum Acoustical Performance Required for Schools Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 Credit 2 Increased Ventilation 1 Credit 3/3.1 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management PlanDuring Construction 1 Credit 3.2 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management PlanBefore Occupancy 1 NC and Schools Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting MaterialsAdhesives and Sealants 1* Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting MaterialsPaints and Coatings 1* Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting MaterialsFlooring Systems 1* Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting MaterialsComposite Wood and Agrifiber Products 1* Credit 4.5 Low-Emitting MaterialsFurniture and Furnishings 1 Schools* Credit 4.6 Low-Emitting MaterialsCeiling and Wall Systems 1 Schools* Credit 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control 1 Credit 6.1 Controllability of Sy stemsLighting 1 NC and Schools Credit 6/6.2 Controllability of SystemsThermal Comfort 1 Credit 7/7.1 Thermal ComfortDesign 1 Credit 7.2 Thermal ComfortVerification 1 NC and Schools Credit 8.1 Daylight and ViewsDaylight 1 NC and CS, 1 to 3 Schools Credit 8.2 Daylight and ViewsViews 1 NC and CS, 1 to 3 Schools Credit 9 Enhanced Acoustical Performance 1 Schools Credit 10 Mold Prevention 1 Schools *Schools may only score 4 total points in Credits 4.1 to 4.6 Table 2-7. LEED 2009 Innovation in Design Credits and Points Credit Title Points Credit 1 Innovation in Design 1 to 5 NC and CS, 1 to 4 Schools Credit 2 LEED Accredited Professional 1 Credit 3 The School as a Teaching Tool 1 Schools

PAGE 41

41 Table 2-8. LEED 2009 Regional Priority Paths for Gainesville, Florida Zip Code Path 1 Path 2 Path 3 Path 4 Path 5 Path 6 32601-07 EAc1.3 WEc1(35%) MRc2(75%) MRc3.1(10%)MRc5, Opt. 1 IEQc8.1 32608-09 EAc1.3 WEc1.2 MRc2(75%) MRc3.1(10%)MRc5, Opt. 2 IEQc8.1 32610-27 EAc1.3 WEc1(35%) MRc2(75%) MRc3.1(10%)MRc5, Opt. 1 IEQc8.1 32635 EAc1.3 WEc1(35%) MRc2(75%) MRc3.1(10%)MRc5, Opt. 1 IEQc8.1 32641 EAc1.3 WEc1.2 MRc2(75%) MRc3.1(10%)MRc5, Opt. 2 IEQc8.1 32653 EAc1.3 WEc1(35%) MRc2(75%) MRc3.1(10%)MRc5, Opt. 1 IEQc8.1 Table 2-9. Green Globes System (adapted from GBI 2009) Assessment Category Points Description Energy 360 Performance, effici ency, demand reduction, energy efficient features, use of renewable energy, transportation Indoor Environment 200 Ventilation, lighti ng, thermal and acoustical comfort, ventilation system Site 115 Ecological impact, developm ent area, watershed features, enhancement Resources 100 Low impact materials (LCA), re-use, demolition, durability, recycling Water 100 Performance, conservation, treatment Emissions and Effluents 75 Air emissions ( boilers), ozone deplet ion, water and sewer protection, pollution controls Project Management 50 Design process, environmental purchasing, commissioning Total 1000 Table 2-10. Sustainable Sites: Cost of LEED Credits by Ma tthiessen and Morris (2007) LEED-NC 2.2 Credit LEED-NC 2009 Credit Additional Cost SS Prerequisite 1 SS Prerequisite 1 None SS Credit 1 SS Credit 1 Not Applicable SS Credit 2 SS Credit 2 Not Applicable SS Credit 3 SS Credit 3 Not Applicable SS Credit 4.1 SS Credit 4.1 Not Applicable SS Credit 4.2 SS Credit 4.2 Low SS Credit 4.3 SS Credit 4.3 Low (Preferred Parking), Moderate (Refueling Stations) SS Credit 4.4 SS Credit 4.4 Low SS Credit 5.1 SS Credit 5.1 Low SS Credit 5.2 SS Credit 5.2 Low to High SS Credit 6.1 SS Credit 6.1 Low to High SS Credit 6.2 SS Credit 6.2 Low to High SS Credit 7.1 SS Credit 7.1 Low SS Credit 7.2 SS Credit 7.2 Moderate SS Credit 8 SS Credit 8 Low

PAGE 42

42 Table 2-11. Water Efficiency: Cost of LEED Credits by Matt hiessen and Morris (2007) LEED-NC 2.2 Credit LEED-NC 2009 Credit Additional Cost WE Credit 1.1 WE Credit 1 Low (w/o turf grass) WE Credit 1.2 WE Credit 1 Low WE Credit 2 WE Credit 2 Low to High WE Credit 3.1 WE Prerequisite 1 Low WE Credit 3.2 WE Credit 3 Moderate Table 2-12. Energy and Atmosphere: Cost of LEED Credits by Matthiessen and Morris (2007) LEED-NC 2.2 Credit LEED-NC 2009 Credit Additional Cost EA Prerequisite 1 EA Prerequisite 1 Low EA Prerequisite 2 EA Prerequisite 2 Low EA Prerequisite 3 EA Prerequisite 3 None EA Credit 1 (first 2-4 points) EA Credit 1 Low EA Credit 1 EA Credit 1 Low-High EA Credit 2 EA Credit 2 High EA Credit 3 EA Credit 3 Moderate EA Credit 4 EA Credit 4 Low EA Credit 5 EA Credit 5 High EA Credit 6 EA Credit 6 Moderate Table 2-13. Materials and Resources: Cost of LEED Credits by Ma tthiessen and Morris (2007) LEED-NC 2.2 Credit LEED-NC 2009 Credit Additional Cost MR Prerequisite 1 MR Prerequisite 1 Low MR Credit 1.1 MR Credit 1.1 None* MR Credit 1.2 MR Credit 1.1 None* MR Credit 1.3 MR Credit 1.2 None* MR Credit 2.1 MR Credit 2 Low (when local) MR Credit 2.2 MR Credit 2 Low (when local) MR Credit 3.1 MR Credit 3 Low MR Credit 3.2 MR Credit 3 Low MR Credit 4.1 MR Credit 4 Low MR Credit 4.2 MR Credit 4 Low MR Credit 5.1 MR Credit 5 Not Addressed MR Credit 5.2 MR Credit 5 Not Addressed MR Credit 6 MR Credit 6 High MR Credit 7 MR Credit 7 Low to High *Obtaining these credits increases cost of obtaining other credits

PAGE 43

43 Table 2-14. Indoor Environmental Quality: Cost of LEED Credits by Matthiessen and Morris (2007) LEED-NC 2.2 Credit LEED-NC 2009 Credit Additional Cost IEQ Prerequisite 1 IEQ Prerequisite 1 None IEQ Prerequisite 2 IEQ Prerequisite 2 None IEQ Credit 1 IEQ Credit 1 Low IEQ Credit 2 IEQ Credit 2 Low IEQ Credit 3.1 IEQ Credit 3.1 Low IEQ Credit 3.2 IEQ Credit 3.2 Low IEQ Credit 4.1 IEQ Credit 4.1 Low IEQ Credit 4.2 IEQ Credit 4.2 Low IEQ Credit 4.3 IEQ Credit 4.3 Low IEQ Credit 4.4 IEQ Credit 4.4 Low IEQ Credit 5 IEQ Credit 5 Low IEQ Credit 6.1 IEQ Credit 6.1 Low to High IEQ Credit 6.2 IEQ Credit 6.2 High IEQ Credit 7.1 IEQ Credit 7.1 None IEQ Credit 7.2 IEQ Credit 7.2 Moderate IEQ Credit 8.1 IEQ Credit 8.1 Low to High IEQ Credit 8.2 IEQ Credit 8.2 Low to Moderate Table 2-15. Innovation in Design: Cost of LEED Credits by Ma tthiessen and Morris (2007) LEED-NC 2.2 Credit LEED-NC 3.0 Credit Cost ID Credit 1.1 ID Credit 1.0 Low-High ID Credit 1.2 ID Credit 1.0 Low-High ID Credit 1.3 ID Credit 1.0 Low-High ID Credit 1.4 ID Credit 1.0 Low-High ID Credit 2.0 ID Credit 2.0 None

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 3 SUSTAINABLE SITES The Sustain able Sites category, in Leadersh ip in Energy and Envi ronmental Design-New Construction 2009, deals with the physical site and not as much with the actual structures. Location, heat-island effects, open-space, light pollution, parking, pollution control and storm water are the major areas addressed by the Sust ainable Sites Category. For this reason the 2007 Florida Building Code will play a minimal role in compliance with LEED Sustainable Site Credits. On the other hand, the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code addresses many of the same areas as the Sustainable Site s category does. Therefore it is expected that following the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code will ensure compliance with some LEED credits in the Sustainable Sites category. 2007 Florida Building Code The only sim ilarity that was found between the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Sustainable Sites category of LEED-NC 2009 was in Prerequisite 1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention. The intent of Prerequisite 1 is to reduce construction related pollution that is caused from soil erosion, air borne particulate generation, and waterway sedimentation (LEED 2009). The 2007 Florida Building Code shows sim ilar intent in section 3307.1 which states, Provisions shall be made to control water r unoff and erosion during construction or demolition activities (ICC 2009). Section 3307.1 from the Florida Buildi ng Code, however, does not met the prescriptive requirements of Sustainable Sites Prerequisite 1. The compliance for Sustainable Sites Prerequi site 1 is met by creating an erosion and sedimentation control plan for the site. This plan must conform to the more stringent of the local standards or the 2003 EPA Construction General Permit (LEED 2009). In addition, the plan must accomplish the following objectives:

PAGE 45

45 -To prevent loss of soil during c onstruction by stormwater runoff and/or wind erosion, including protecting topsoil by st ockpiling for reuse. -To prevent sedimentation of stor m sewers or receiving streams. -To prevent pollution of the air w ith dust and particulate matter. In no way does the 2007 Florida Building Code m eet the objectives set forth by LEED for this prerequisite. There were no other similarities found between LEED-NC 2009 and the 2007 Florida Building Code in the Sustainable Sites Category. As expected the number of similarities was minimal as the Building Code focuses more on structures and the Sustainable Sites category focuses more on aspects of the physical site Thus, through following the 2007 Florida Building Code a project does not comply with any Sust ainable Site Credits or Prerequisites. Alachua County Unified Land Development Code It is expected that the Alachua County Un ified Land Developm ent Code will have more similarities to LEED-NC 2009 Sustainable Sites Prerequisites and Credits than the 2007 Florida Building Code due to the ULDC dealing with mo re development type i ssues. Section 406.12 of the ULDC requires that construction sites have a stormwater pollution pr evention plan that is compliant with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The requirement for Sustainable Sites Prerequisite 1: Construction Activity Polluti on Plan is to have a pollution prevention plan that is compliant with the EPA 2003 general permit or local standards (the more stringent of the two). However, in Alachua C ounty the local standards and the EPA 2003 general permit are the same. Thus by following the ULDC Pr erequisite 1 is achieved in the Sustainable Sites Category. Sustainable Sites Credit 1: Site Selection is addressed to some means by the ULDC. The Alachua County ULDC in secti on 406.26 states that all specie s listed under CFR 17.11 and 17.12, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, F.A.C. 5B-40.005, Regulated Plant

PAGE 46

46 Index, F.A.C. 68A-27, Rules Relating to Endangered or Threatened Species and those identified as S1, S2, or S3 by the Florida Natural Areas Inve ntory habitats shall be permanently protected. However, the ULDC allows for development of t hose lands with a special permit that shows how the listed species habitat will not be disturbed. This does not comply with SSc1: Site Selection, because endangered species habitat can still be de veloped on with a special permit, however, in most cases the ULDC (without the special permit) complies with SSc1 for not developing threatened or endangered species habitats. The Alachua County ULDC also addresses SSc1 by means of restricting development within a distance of wetlands and bodies of water. The ULDC has a lis t of Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs), which are more protected under the ULDC than non-OFWs waters. In section 406.43 of the ULDC, waters that ar e non-OFWs and equal to or sma ller than half an acre have a 35 foot development buffer around them, water greater than half an acre that are non-OFWs have a 50 foot development buffer, waters which have pr otected vertebrate habita t within 300 feet of the water and are dependent on the water have a 75 foot development buffer, and OFWs have a 100 foot development buffer. These buffers are all minimum buffer distances according the the Alachua County ULDC. Most wetlands are consider ed to be OFWs according to the ULDC and thus section 406.43 meets the LEED requirements for not developing within 100 feet of a wetland of SSc1. On the other hand, not developi ng within 50 feet of a body of water, a requirement of SSc1, is only met by the ULDC if the water is above 0.5 acres, has protected vertebrate that are dependent on th e water, or is an OFWs. So co mpliance with this part of SSc1 is on a case to case basis. The last part of the SSc1: Site Selection th at is addressed by the ULDC is not developing within 5 feet of elevation of a 100 year flood plain. Section 406.57 of the Alachua County ULDC

PAGE 47

47 deals with development in 100 year flood plains and prohibits development in a 100 year flood way. However, a flood way is a smaller part of the 100 year flood plain and thus the ULDC is not compliant with LEED SSc1 for not de veloping in the 100 year flood plain. Sustainable Sites Credit 1: Site Selection is not entirely addressed or complied with in the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code. Thus, being compliant with the ULDC does not translate into being compliant with SSc1: Site Selection. The ULDC addresses issues within the SSc1, but fails to meet equal standards. Sustainable Sites Credit 4.2: A lternative TransportationBi cycle Storage and Changing Rooms (SSc4.2) is addressed in some regards by the Alachua C ounty ULDC. The SSc4.2 requires bike racks for 5% of occupants at p eak occupancy times and showers for 0.5% of full time equivalents within 200 yards of an entrance for commercial buildings. Residential buildings require covered bicycle storage for 15% of th e building occupants. The ULDC requires that buildings have one bicycle parking spot for ev ery ten parking spots. By following the ULDC it may be possible to achieve SSc4.2 for number of bicycle spots in a commercial building, however, the ULDC does not require showers nor covered bike areas for residential buildings. Therefore by following the ULDC, SSc4.2: Altern ative TransportationBicycle Storage and Changing Rooms is not met. The Alachua County ULDC in section 407.15 has a required amount of parking for projects. Sustainable Sites Credit 4.4: Alterna tive TransportationParking Capacity provides three options for compliance. The first option is to not exceed minimum parking requirements for local code and provide preferred parking for carpools and vans that equates to 5% of total parking. The ULDC does not require carpool pref erred parking, but it does have a minimum

PAGE 48

48 amount of parking required, which makes Option 1 of SSc4.4 the only viable option without special permitting. LEED-NC 2009 Sustainable Sites Credit 5.2: Site Development Maximize Open Space has three cases. Alachua County ULDC has a requirem ent for open space and thus Case 1 of SSc5.2 must be followed. Case 1 requires that open space must exceed local open space requirements by 25%. Section 407.52 of the ULDC requires that op en space for urban projects be 20% and 50% for rural projects. So to obtain SSc5.2 a projec t in Alachua County for an urban project must have 25% or more open space and for a rural project must have 62.5% open space. The ULDC sets the requirements for SSc 5.2 rather than obtains it. Section 496.12 of the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code requires that 20% of the canopy on a site must remain after development. This has implications for Sustainable Sites Credit 7.1: Heat Island Eff ectNon Roof. SSc7.1 which require s that 50% of the hardscape be shaded by trees (current or within 5 years), shaded by architectural de vices with an SRI of 29 or greater, shaded by solar panels, be open grid paving system that is at least 50% pervious, or consist of materials with an SRI of 29 or greater. By following the ULDC requirement for canopy cover, assuming that canopy cover results in the same percentage of shade, 20% of the entire site will be shaded. Depending on the size of the site and footpr int of the building SSc7.1 could be met because hardscape is a percentage of the whole site. So by following the ULDC SSc7.1 is achieved or partially achieved with tree canopy shade. Analysis By following the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua County Unified Land Developm ent Code, some of the Sustainabl e Sites Credits under the LEED-NC 2009 rating system have been met or partially met. Table 3-1 shows these credits and the associated code that has implications in achieving the credit. The pa rtially achieved credits wi ll be looked at more

PAGE 49

49 closely in this section to determine how much mo re is required than code to achieve the credit and possible associated costs with the additional requirements. Sustainable Sites Credit 1: Site Selecti on by following code brings a project into compliance with not developing on a tract of land that is habitat to threatened or endangered species. The code almost always does not allow development within 100 feet of a wetland and 50 feet of a body of water, both which are re quirements of SSc1. However, the remaining requirements of SSc1 are not met by code. Those requirements not met by code are developing at least 5 feet above the 100 y ear flood plain, not developing on USDA prime farmland, and not developing on land that prior to acquisition was a public park (unl ess land of equal or greater value is traded). It is not a ppropriate to try and cost achievi ng these additional requirements because they have to do with site selection which is difficult to put a cost on. Thus, this credit is achieved at no additional cost if it is achieved; the credit is entirely to do with site selection. The next credit that is partially achieved by following code is Sustainable Sites Credit 4.2. The ULDC section 407.15 requires the greater of one bicycle parking spot for every ten car spots or two bicycle spaces for each employee or public entrance to the building. LEED SSc4.2 number of bicycle spots is based on the occupant load (5% of peak time occupants) and not on number or car spots which is based on square f ootage. This credit may be achieved by following code on some buildings; for exampl e buildings that are high in area but low in occupants. Either way bike parking spots are at a low cost. However, to achieve SSc4.2 it is required that shower and changing facilities be provided for 0.5% of fu ll time equivalents. This is not addressed by code; however, adding showers is at low cost, as pointed out by Matthiess en and Morris (2007). The ULDC reflects that SSc4.2 has minor support for achievement, but either way it is a low cost credit to achieve.

PAGE 50

50 Sustainable Sites Credit 4.4 can be achi eved by following the minimal parking requirements for Alachua County and not exceedi ng the minimal amount of parking. Therefore this credit is free and in the design process can even save money by cu tting additional unneeded parking spots. In section 407.14, the ULDC fo r commercial buildings between 20,000 square feet and 200,000 square feet requires 4.5 spots pe r 100 square feet. By strictly following code SSc4.4 is achieved. The LEED credit for open space, SSc5.2, requires that for jurisdictions with zoning requirements the standard be exceeded by 25%. In section 407.52 of the ULDC the open space requirement is 20% for urban sites and 50% for rural sites. Thus to obtain SSc5.2 in Alachua County open space must be 25% for urban sites and 62.5% for rural sites. Fo r urban sites that is only increasing the open space by 5% of site area, which can be accomplished through early planning and space conscious design efforts and therefore this credit has minor support for achievement. Sustainable Sites Cr edit 5.2 should be at a low to no additional cost in Alachua County. In addition, Matthiessen and Morris (2007) show that this is a low cost credit. Sustainable Sites Credit 7.1: H eat Island EffectNon Roof requires that 50% of the site have shading from trees (current or within 5 ye ars), shading by architectural devices with an SRI of 29 or greater, shading by solar panels, open grid paving system that is at least 50% pervious, or the hardscape consisting of materials with an SRI of 29 or greater. The Alachua County ULDC requires that 20% of the total site have canopy cover. This provide s a percentage of the 50% of the site that must meet LEED requireme nts and thus the credit has minor support for achievement. The remainder of the required prescriptive compliance can be accomplished through products that are SRI of 29 or greater on the hardscape, this is low cost if it is done early in the design process. Matthiesse n and Morris (2007) also state th at this is a low cost credit by

PAGE 51

51 changing the SRI of the hardscape compone nts or by shading. Thus SSc7.1 through code compliance is partially obtained, but the additional requirements for achieving the credit are at little additional cost. Credits not Addressed by Either Code Sustainable Site Credits that are not addressed by follo wing the 2007 Florida Building Code or the Alachua County Unified Land De velopm ent Code in the section above are mentioned briefly in this section. The remaining Sustainable Sites Credits will be evaluated for potential cost using Matthiessen and Morriss study (2007) as discu ssed in the lite rature review. In addition, insight into the credits with knowledge of Alachua County will be discussed. Sustainable Sites Credits 2, 3, and 4.1 all deal with site selection. It is difficult to talk about cost in terms of these credits due to them bei ng a result of the physical site. Matthiessen and Morris (2007) mention that the only additional co st that could occur from these credits is an increased price of land. Thus, cost of these credits will not be discussed. Alternative Transportation Credit 4.3: Low-Emi tting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles requires preferred parking for low-emitting and fuel efficient vehicles, a discount on parking passes for low-emitting and fuel efficient vehicles, low-emitting and fuel efficient vehicles for employees, alternative fuel stations, or a low-emitting and fuel efficient vehicle ride sharing program. These paths of compliance with SSc4.3 requi re little to no cost to implem ent. For instance one of the more expensive paths of compliance is probably a lternative fueling statio ns for 3% of vehicle parking. This could be met by installing plugs for hybrid and electric car s, which would only be at a moderate cost, according to Matthiessen and Morris (2007). Prefe rred parking, discounted parking passes, or a riding share program would be at a low additional cost. Sustainable Sites Credit 5.1 requi res that greenfield sites have limited disturbance and that previously developed sites have the greater of 50% of the site excluding the footprint or 20% of

PAGE 52

52 the entire site be restored to natural habitat. If the site is a greenfield then careful planning and construction layout can reduce dist urbance at little to no additi onal cost and achieve SSc5.1. If the site is previously developed to restore ha bitat it obviously costs slightly more, but as Matthiessen and Morris (2007) point out it is at a low cost. So by either compliance path SSc5.1 can be achieved at a low cost. The Stormwater Design Credit, SSc6.1 a nd SSc6.2, can vary in price according to Matthiessen and Morris (2007). Cost s can vary due to the amount of infrastructure needed to comply with both credits. In addition, some sites may require more expensive equipment/infrastructure to meet the dema nds of SSc6.1 and SSc6.2 due to site specific characteristics. In Alachua County, the same holds true for these credits. The cost can range from low to high depending on the site and location. Sustainable Sites Credit 7.2: H eat Island Effect: Roof require s high solar reflective index (SRI) roofing, a vegetative roof that accounts for 50% of the r oof, or a combination of the two. A green roof is a high cost compliance path. Ma tthiessen and Morris (2007) claim that a high SRI roof has moderate cost implications The green roof is more expensive, however, if a green roof is used other credits may be achieved. The final Sustainable Sites Credit, SSc8.0, place s requirements on lights to help reduce the amount of light pollution caused by the project. This requires sh ades, directional lighting, and other architectural features to achieved SSc 8.0. This credit requires more stringent light standards and thus has a low additional cost according to Matthiessen and Morris (2007). Being in Alachua County has no effect on the low cost of this credit. Summary By com bing the data gathered from the cred its obtained or partia lly obtained by the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua C ounty Unified Land Development Code with

PAGE 53

53 Matthiessen and Morriss data, implications fo r cost were discussed for LEED projects in Alachua County for the Sustainable Sites Category. The credits were that were partially or fully achieved were given an achievabili ty score as seen in Table 31. The results are presented in Table 3-2. One Sustainable Sites prerequisite SSp1, and one credit, SSc4.4, were can be achieved at no additional cost in Alachua County. Table 3-1. Sustainable Sites Credits addressed by the 2007 Florida Building Code and/or the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code LEED-NC 2009 Credit Code Achievability Score SSp1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention 3307.1 FBC/406.12 ULDC 4 SSc1: Site Selection 406.26, 406.43 and 406.57 ULDC 2 SSc4.2: Alt. Trans.-Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms 407.15 ULDC 2 SSc4.4: Alt. Trans.-Parking Capacity 407.15 ULDC 4 SSc5.2: Site DevelopmentMax. Open Space 407.52 ULDC 2 SSc7.1: Heat Island EffectNon-roof 496.12 ULDC 2 Table 3-2. Sustainable Sites Credits Study Findings Credit Addressed by Code? Cost SSp1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Yes No Additional SSc1: Site Selection Yes NA SSc2: Development Density and Community Connectivity No NA SSc3: Brownfield Redevelopment No NA SSc4.1: Alt. Trans.Public Trans. Access No NA SSc4.2: Alt. Trans.Bicycl e Storage and Changing Rooms Yes Low SSc4.3: Alt. Trans.Low-Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles No Low SSc4.4: Alt. Trans.Parking Capacity Yes No Additional SSc5.1: Site DevelopmentPr otect or Restore Habitat No Low SSc5.2: Site DevelopmentMaximize Open Space Yes Low to High SSc6.1: Stormwater DesignQuantity Control No Low to High SSc6.2: Stormwater Desi gnQuality Control No Low to High SSc7.1: Heat Island EffectNon-roof Yes Low SSc7.2: Heat Island EffectRoof No Moderate SSc8: Light Pollution Reduction No Low

PAGE 54

54 CHAPTER 4 WATER EFFICIENCY The W ater Efficiency Category of Leadersh ip in Energy and Envi ronmental Design 2009 deals entirely with water use reduction and wa ste water reduction. Water Efficiency is not addressed by the 2007 Florida Building Code in any manner. However, the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code does have re quirements for water efficient landscaping. 2007 Florida Building Code No W ater Efficiency Credits were obtained or partially obtained by following the 2007 Florida Building Code. Alachua County Unified Land Development Code The Alachua County ULDC has suggestions for appropriate landscaping to the clim ate and even has species lists that they recommend a proj ect uses. However, these are just suggestions by the ULDC. In section 407.43 the ULDC has some basic xeriscaping requirements for development. The section requires that plants be groupe d into high water, m oderate water, and low water zones to reduce overwater ing, that planted areas have th ree inches of mulch, and that turf grass only be planted in area s that have pedestrian traffic, recreation, or to be used for soil erosion control. These requirements by the ULDC all have implications for water use reduction for landscaping. Water Efficiency Credit 1: Wa ter Efficient Landscaping has two compliance paths the first which requires a 50% reducti on from midsummer baseline calculation and the second compliance path requires that no potable water be used for irrigation. By following the ULDC xeriscaping requirements neither of thes e compliances paths are met, however, there should be a reduction in wa ter use for landscaping.

PAGE 55

55 Analysis The 2007 Florida Building Code did not address any of the requirem ents presented by the standards of the LEED-NC 2009 Water Efficiency Category. The Alachua County Unified Land Development code did not meet any of the standa rds, however, it did provide minor implications for WEc1: Water Efficient Landscaping. Sectio n 407.43 of the ULDC provides basic standards for xeriscaping that has implications for obtaini ng points under WEc1, as seen in Table 4-1. Water Efficiency Credit 1: Water Efficien t Landscaping is slightly addressed by the Alachua County ULDC. By following the ULDC the credit is not achieved. However, Matthiessen and Morris (2007) claim that this credit is at a low co st when turf grass is avoided. This is true for Alachua County as well; turf gr ass requires sufficient wate ring and thus is not in compliance with WEc1. By selecting all native, draught tolerant plant species this credit is easily achieved at little extra cost. Thus WEc1 is at a low cost to achi eve when turf grass is avoided. Credits not Addressed by Either Code Water Efficiency Credits that are not addressed by follo wing the 2007 Florida Building Code or the Alachua County Unified Land De velopm ent Code in the section above are mentioned briefly in this section. The remaining Water Efficiency Credits will be evaluated for potential cost using Matthiessen and Morriss study (2007) as discu ssed in the lite rature review. In addition, insight into the credits with knowledge of Alachua County will be discussed. The newly created prerequisite of the Water Efficiency Category requires buildings to use 20% less water than baseline calculations. This is achieved through lowflow fixtures, water saving strategies, and other means. Matthiessen and Morris (2007) view th is reduction as having a low cost of implementation. The location of the pr oject has little to do with this credit and thus Alachua County would be expected to have the same low cost of implementation. By simply

PAGE 56

56 adding low flow aerators on sinks low-flow toilets, and othe r low cost water reduction technologies this prerequi site can be achieved. Water Efficiency Credit 2: Innovative Wastewater Technologies requires that 50% of the wastewater be treated to tertiary standards and infiltrated onsite or a reduction of potable water for sewage conveyance by 50%. To treat wastewat er onsite and infiltrate it tends to involve expensive infrastructure and equipment. The alternative, reduction in potable water for wastewater conveyance, can be accomplished through using low-flow toilets, waterless urinals, and non-potable water to flush toilets (such as ra inwater or treated gray water). Matthiessen and Morris (2007) show this credit has a low cost to achieve through a reduction of potable water being used for sewage conveyance. This is beca use the low flow alternat ives are often no more expensive than the standard fixt ures and a waterless urinal may be even less expensive due to no need for flush valves and waterlines. However, if rainwater is being used for sewage conveyance the price may increase. WEc2 should however, be ab le to be achieved at little additional cost by selecting the appropriate low cost technologies. The final Water Efficiency Credit, WEc3: Water Use Reduction, requires a reduction in water use by 30% for 2 point, 40% for 3 points or 45% for 4 points. Obviously the higher reduction the more cost associated with achieving the points. Matthiessen and Morris (2007) said that this credit was at a moderate expense due to having to use more expensive technologies to achieve greater water savings. Matthiessen a nd Morriss study was based on the old LEED system and thus required less of a percent reducti on in water use. However, since the report has been written the demand for water saving technologi es has increased. If it is assumed that the increase in demand has lowered the initial cost of these more expensive technologies has been canceled out by the increase in water reduction per centage, it can be safely concluded that this

PAGE 57

57 credit can still be obtained at a moderate pr ice for 2 points. More poi nts would require more money and a 45% reduction would probably be high in cost to achieve. Summary By com bing the data gathered from the cred its obtained or partia lly obtained by the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua Count y Unified Land Development Code with the Matthiessen and Morriss data, implications fo r cost were discussed for LEED projects in Alachua County for the Water Efficiency Cate gory. The achievability score for the Water Efficiency Credit partially achieved is presented in Table4-1. The results are presented in Table 4-2. None of the Water Efficiency Credits or Pr erequisite can be achieve d at no additional cost. Table 4-1. Water Efficiency Credits addr essed by the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code LEED-NC 2009 Credit Code Achievability Score WEc1: Water Efficient Landscaping 407.43 ULDC 1 Table 4-2. Water Efficien cy Credits Study Findings Credit Addressed by Code? Cost WEp1: Water Use Reduction Yes Low WEc1: Water Efficient Landscaping No Low WEc2: Innovative Wastewater Technologies No Low to High WEc3: Water Use Reduction No Moderate to High* *Achieving 2 points is at a moderate cost

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 5 ENERGY AND ATMOSPHERE The Energy and Atm osphere category of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design New Construction 2009 deals with the aspects of a projects energy and th e refrigerants effects on the atmosphere. The 2007 Florida Building Co de should have many similarities with the LEED-NC 2009 Standards via primarily the En ergy Code. The Alachua County Unified Land Development Code does not address energy or refrigerants as they are not development issues. 2007 Florida Building Code Energy and At mosphere Prerequisite 1: Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems requires six prescriptive items be met. The six requirements are (1) designate a commissioning authority to lead, review and oversee the commissioning process, (2) develop owners project requirements and a basis of desi gn, (3) incorporate comm issioning requirements into the construction doc uments, (4) implement a commissioning plan, (5) verify the installation and performance of the system to be commi ssioned, and (6) complete commissioning summary report. The systems that are required by LEED to be commissioned ar e the HVAC&R, lighting and day-lighting controls, domestic hot water systems, and renewable energy systems. The Florida Building Code does not refer to comm issioning per say. However, in Section 13407.ABC.2.6 the code states that HVAC Control syst ems shall be tested to ensure that control elements are calibrated, adjusted, and in prope r working condition. This suggests that some form of testing and balancing or commissioning should occur, but to what degree is not called for by code. In addition, the Flor ida Building Code only requires that the HVAC control system be commissioned. Therefore by following the 20 07 Florida Building Code, EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Systems is not achieved.

PAGE 59

59 Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 2: Mi nimum Energy Performance requires that new buildings have a 10% improvement in baseline building performance and be in compliance with ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007. The 2007 Florida Building Code only meets the standards of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-20 04, this would comply with the LEED 2.2, however, LEED 2009 updated its standards. Th e 2007 Florida Building Code does not meet EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance, however, the 2010 Florida Building Code would be expected to be in compliance with AS HRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 as ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 would be ve ry dated at that point. The Florida Building Code does not address refrigerants beca use they are addressed under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to the Montre al Protocol. These Amendments require that no new Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerants be used beyond 1996. Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 3: Fundamental Refr igerant Management requires that zero CFC-based refrigerants be used in new buildings HVAC&R systems fo r compliance. By obeying the Clean Air Act Amendments, EAp3 is achieved. The 2007 Florida Building code has the same pr oblem with Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1: Optimize Energy Performance as with EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance. The 2007 Florida Building Code uses ASHRAE/IESNA St andard 90.1-2004 as the minimum standard and EAc1 uses ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-20 07. However, by following the 2007 Florida Building Code a typical buildi ng is around 15% more efficient than a baseline building as defined by ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004. Thus two points could be achieved for a 14% improvement by following Building Code, excep t for the fact that the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 is used instead of AS HRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007. Therefore, by following the 2007 Florida Building Code no point s would be awarded from EAc1: Optimize

PAGE 60

60 Energy Performance because the 2007 standard is more stringent than ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004. LEED-NC 2009 EAc3: Enhanced Commissioning has six more requirements on top of the EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Sy stems. One of the six requirements is met by following the 2007 Florida Building Code. In s ection 13-102.1 of the Building Code it states: An operating and maintenance manual shall be provided to the bu ilding owner for all commercial buildings. The manual shall include basic data relating to the design, operation and maintenance of HVAC systems and equipment. EAc3 requires that a systems manual be create d so future operating staff can operate the commissioned systems. However, this is one of the six requirements. None of the other five requirements for EAc3: Enhanced Commissioning are met by the 2007 Florida Building Code. Alachua County Unified Land Development Code No sim ilarities were found between the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code and the Energy and Atmosphere Category of LEED-NC 2009. The ULDC does not address energy and atmosphere topics as covered in LEED-NC 2009. Therefore the ULDC will not be discussed in this section. Analysis The Alachua County Unified Land Developm ent Code did not address any of the requirem ents set for by the Energy and Atmosphe re Category. The 2007 Florida Building Code showed multiple implications for achieving credits in the Energy and Atmosphere Category of LEED-NC 2009 as seen in Table 5-1. Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 1: F undamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems is not achieved if the 2007 Florida Building Code is followed as seen above; however, there is shared intent by the code and LEED. Co mmissioning is implied by the building code, but to the degree EAp1 requires is not met. The cost of achieving this prerequisite is imperative if

PAGE 61

61 obtaining LEED certification is a project goal. This prerequisite requires involving a commissioning authority which along with othe r requirements adds cost. However, obtaining EAp1 can be considered to be achieved at a low cost according to Matthiessen and Morris (2007). The second prerequisite, EAp2: Minimum Energy Performan ce, is partially achieved by following the 2007 Florida Building Code. The code requires that buildings be in compliance with American Society of Heating, Refrigera tion, and Air Conditioning Engineers/Illuminating Engineers Society of North America Standard 90.1-2004. EAp2 requires a 10% improvement to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007. The ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 has become more energy efficient. However, by following the 2007 Florida Building Code it can be assu med that a 10% improvement to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 can be achieved with no to li ttle additional cost. In addition, Matthiessen and Morris (2007) state that the first few Optimize Energy Performance Credits under LEED 2.2 are at low cost to achieve. The first LEED 2.2 Optimize Energy Performance Credit under LEED 2009 is this prerequisite. Thus it can be concluded that EAp2 can be achieved at a low first cost. Once again with Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1: Optimize Energy Performance the standard that is followed is ASHRAE/I ESNA Standard 90.1-2007, while the 2007 Florida Building Code follows ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004. Therefore there is major support for achievement of the LEED credit through code Even though the 2007 Florida Building Code is around 15% more efficient than ASHRAE /IESNA Standard 90.1-2004, this does not carry over to being 15% more efficient than ASHRAE /IESNA Standard 90.1-2007. So this credit is no easier to achieve in Alachua County than in othe r parts of the United St ates. Thus, Matthiessen and Morris (2007) can be followed in terms of cost. Therefore the first few points under this

PAGE 62

62 credit can more than likely be obtained at a low cost. However, the points after that are more than likely high in cost due to more expensive strategies for energy reduction. The 2007 Florida Building Code only achieves approximately one sixth of Energy and Atmosphere Credit 3: Enhanced Commissioning and therefore only has minor support for achievement. This credit requires additional personal, training, and meetings. Due to these requirements Matthiessen and Morris (2007) suggest that this credit can be achieved at a moderate cost. It can be assume d that this credit can be achieved at a moderate cost, as the 2007 Florida Building Code does not require a signifi cant amount of this credit to be achieved. Credits not Addressed by Either Code Energy and At mosphere Credits that are not addressed by following the 2007 Florida Building Code or the Alachua County Unified La nd Development Code in the section above are mentioned briefly in this section. The remain ing Energy and Atmosphere Credits will be evaluated for potential cost usi ng Matthiessen and Morriss study as discussed in the literature review. In addition, insight into the credits with knowledge of Al achua County will be discussed. Energy and Atmosphere Credit 2: On-site Re newable Energy require s that the building produce a certain percentage of renewable energy on-site to achieve th e credit. In Alachua County the only truly feasible s ource of renewable energy on mo st projects is photovoltaics. Photovoltaics even with tax incentiv es and rebates are still at a high first cost. Matthiessen and Morris (2007) support this assump tion. Thus EAc2 is at a high first cost credit to achieve. Energy and Atmosphere Credit 4: Enhanced Re frigerant Management requires refrigerants have to low global warming potential and low oz one depletion potential. This credit is not discussed in terms of cost by Matthiessen a nd Morris (2007), however, it is a credit that is commonly obtained certified buildings Thus it is assumed that this credit is at a low first cost, because only low cost.

PAGE 63

63 Matthiessen and Morris (2007) claimed that EAc5: Measurement and Verification was at a high initial cost due to the re quirements of the credit on the bu ilding information system. This credit requires an accurate measurement system for the building components which requires additional controls and systems to monitor the buildings energy systems. This credit remains a high cost credit for Alachua County as location does not affect the co st of this credit. The last Energy and Atmosphere Credit, EAc6 : Green Power, requires that the project purchase 35% of their energy from renewable sources for two years. Gainesville Regional Utilities, the main power company in Alachua County, provides the opportunity to purchase green power. This service is at a fee on top of usual energy charges a nd thus is at a moderate cost to projects. Matthiessen and Morris (2007) show that this cred it is typically at a moderate first cost as well. Summary By com bing the data gathered from the cred its obtained or partia lly obtained by the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua Count y Unified Land Development Code with the Matthiessen and Morriss data, implications fo r cost were discussed for LEED projects in Alachua County for the Energy and Atmosphere Category. Table 5-1 shows the achievability scores for each achieved or partially achiev ed credit through local c odes. The results are presented in Table 5-2. Only one of the Energy and Atmosphere Credits, EAp3, can be achieved at no additional cost for a project in Alachua County.

PAGE 64

64 Table 5-1. Energy and Atmosphere Credits addres sed by the 2007 Florida Building Code and/or the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code LEED-NC 2009 Credit Code Achievability Score EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems 13-407.ABC.2.6 FBC 1 EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance Section 13 FBC 3 EAp3: Fundamental Refrigerant Management 1990 Clean Air Act 4 EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance Section 13 FBC 3 EAc3: Enhanced Commissioning 13-102.1 FBC 1 Table 5-2. Energy and Atmosphere Credits Study Findings Credit Addressed by Code? Cost EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems Yes Low EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance Yes Low EAp3: Fundamental Refrigerant Management Yes No Additional EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance Yes Low-High* EAc2: On-Site Renewable Energy No High EAc3: Enhanced Commissioning Yes Moderate EAc4: Enhanced Refrigerant Management No Low EAc5: Measurement and Verification No High EAc6: Green Power No Moderate *The first few points can be achieved at a lo w cost, but the rest ar e typically high cost

PAGE 65

65 CHAPTER 6 MATERIALS AND RESOURCES The Materials and Resources Category of Lead ership in Energy and Environm ental Design New Construction 2009 addresses building reuse, recycling, wa ste diverting, and sustainable materials. These are items that are not directly related to the focus of the 2007 Florida Building Code. Thus, there are no similarities between the 2007 Florida Building Code and the MR Category of LEED-NC 2009. In addition, the Materi als and Resources Category does not address any development issues and thus the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code has no similarities with the MR Category of LEED-NC 2009. 2007 Florida Building Code No Materials and Resources Credits were obt ained or partially obtained by following the 2007 Florida Building C ode. The 2007 Florida Building Code does not address materiality as covered in LEED-NC 2009. Therefore prerequisites a nd credits are not discussed in this section. Alachua County Unified Land Development Code No Materials and Resources Credits were obt ained or partially obtained by following the Alachua County Unified Land Developm ent Code. The ULDC does not address materiality as covered in LEED-NC 2009. Therefore prerequisites a nd credits are not discussed in this section. Analysis Through following the 2007 Florida Building Co de and the A lachua County Unified Land Development Code no Materials and Resources Credits are achieved or partially achieved. In both codes materiality is not mentioned. Therefore prerequisites and credits are not discussed in this section.

PAGE 66

66 Credits not Addressed by Either Code Materials and Resources Cred its that are not addressed by following the 2007 Florida Building Code or the Alachua County Unified La nd Developm ent Code in the section above are mentioned briefly in this section. The remain ing Materials and Res ources Credits will be evaluated for potential cost usi ng Matthiessen and Morriss study as discussed in the literature review. In addition, insight into the credits with knowledge of Al achua County will be discussed. The prerequisite for the Materials and Resour ces requires a dedicated space for recycling glass, corrugated cardboard, paper, plastic and meta l. This prerequisite is at a low cost when recycling facilities are local. Alachua County has local recycling faci lities and thus this prerequisite can be achieved at a low first cost. In addition, most buildings already have areas set aside for waste handling, as noted by Matthiessen a nd Morris (2007). The Building Reuse Credits, MRc1.1 and MRc1.2, requires that a certai n percentage of the existing building be reused in the new project. This credit is at a low cost because it reuses the existing building. However, as pointed out by Ma tthiessen and Morri s (2007), these credits are at no first cost, but other credits th at the project are trying to achieve are often more difficult and costly to achieve. Thus, this credit is not typically sought by certified projects. Materials and Resources Credit 2: Construction Waste Manage ment requires that certain percentages of construction debris be diverted from landfills. This credit requires recycling facilities or some sort of salvage facilities th at are local to the site. Matthiessen and Morris (2007) state that this credit can be achieved at a low cost if recyc ling facilities are local. Alachua County has recycling companies an d salvage companies that are lo cal. Thus MRc2 is at a low cost in Alachua County. The Material Reuse Credit, MRc3, requires th at percentages of ma terials used in the building be salvaged or reused components to ac hieve the credit. Matthie ssen and Morris (2007)

PAGE 67

67 state that these components are usually difficult to find in the percentage that is required for achieving the credit. The physical location of the site does not play a significa nt role into the cost of this credit. Thus th e credit is at low first cost, as Matt hiessen and Morris (2007) stated, for Alachua County. Similar to MRc3, MRc4, requires that percentage s of materials used in the building consist of recycled content. This credit, unlike MRc3, is a credit that is typically achieved according to Matthiessen and Morris ( 2007). If the project uses steel as th e superstructure, the project is well on its way to achieving this credit as steel is ma de almost entirely of recycled material. This credit is a low first cost cr edit and this assumption is supported by Matthie ssen and Morris (2007). Materials and Resources Credit 5: Regional Materials requires that the project use certian percentages of materials that are extracted, harvested and manuf actured within 500 miles of the jobsite. This credit is based on the physical location of the project. Ma ny projects in Alachua County have achieved this credit. Thus, it can be concluded that buildi ng materials that are considered regional materials can be found within 500 miles of Alachua County. Therefore, this credit can be achieved at a low first cost. The Rapidly Renewable Resources Credit, MRc6, is at a high first cost according to the Matthiessen and Morris (2007). Th e cost of this credit is typically high because of the high percentages required to achieve the credit. It is typically difficult to achieve these percentages at a reasonable cost. Thus, MRc6 is a high first cost credit to achieve. The final credit in the category, Material and Resources Credit 7: Certified Wood, requires that a certain percentage of the wood on the project be Fo rest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified wood. This credit, as reported Matthie ssen and Morris (2007), is a low to high cost

PAGE 68

68 credit. It ranges in price because the cost of FSC certified wood changes as supply and demand changes. Also the amount of wood used in a project can have an effect on the cost of this credit. For instance, a wood superstructure building woul d have a high cost of obtaining this credit, while a building with the only wood being trim could achieve this credit at a relatively low cost. Summary By com bing the data gathered from the cred its obtained or partia lly obtained by the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua Count y Unified Land Development Code with the Matthiessen and Morriss data, implications fo r cost were discussed for LEED projects in Alachua County for the Material and Resources Category. The result s are presented in Table 6-1. There were some changes in cost, from Matth iessen and Morriss study, of Material and Resources Credits for Alachua County. Table 6-1. Materials and Res ources Credits Study Findings Credit Addressed by Code? Cost MRp1: Storage and Collection of Recyclables No Low MRc1.1: Building ReuseMaintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof No None* MRc1.2: Building ReuseMainta in Interior Nonstructural Elements No None* MRc2: Construction Waste Management No Low MRc3: Materials Reuse No Low MRc4: Recycled Content No Low MRc5: Regional Materials No Low MRc6: Rapidly Renewable Materials No High MRc7: Certified Wood No Low to High *Achieving the credit may increas e the cost of other credits

PAGE 69

69 CHAPTER 7 INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY The Indoor Environm ental Qual ity Category of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design New Construction 2009 deals with ind oor air quality, lighti ng, views and thermal comfort. The areas covered by the IEQ Category are not development related issues and thus there are no similarities between the IEQ Category of LEED 2009 and the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code. On the othe r hand, there are simila rities between the 2007 Florida Building Code and the IEQ Category of LEED-NC 2009. The similarities are discussed below. 2007 Florida Building Code The first prerequisite of the Indoor E nvironmental Quality Category, Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance, for mechanically ventilat ed spaces (only feasible option currently in Alachua County) requires that th e indoor air meet the more stringe nt of sections 4 through 7 of American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers 62.1-2007 or the local code. The 2007 Florida Building Code requires in section 13-409.ABC.1.1 that the ventilation system meet the minimum require ments of section 6.1 of ASHRAE 62.12004. The standard of the code is dated and thus no portion of IEQp1 of achie ved through following the section 13-409.ABC.1.1 of the code. Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 2: Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control requires, under the first option, that smoking be prohibited in the building and that outdoor smoking areas be located at least 25 feet from entries, air intakes and operable windows. This credit is not addressed by the Florida Building Code; however, it is addressed by the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act. The Florida Clean Indoo r Air Act (s.386.204, F.S.) prohibits individuals

PAGE 70

70 from smoking in an enclosed indoor workspace. Therefore, by obeying Florida laws, IEQp2: Environmental Tobacco Smoke C ontrol requirements are met. Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 2: Increase Ventilation for mechanically ventilated spaces requires that the quantity of outdoor air be ing brought into the building be 30% above the more stringent of ASHRAE 62.1-2007 or the loca l code. The 2007 Florida Mechanical Code is more stringent than ASHRAE 62.1-2007 as seen in Table 7-1. The local code is much more than 30% above ASHRAE 62.1-2007 and thus it can be argued that IEQc2 is achieved. Thus by adhering to the 2007 Florida Building Code, IEQc 2 requirements for outdo or air are achieved. LEED-NC 2009 IEQc6.1: Controllability of Systems: Lighting requires individual controls for at least 90% of occupants to control indivi dual task needs and preferences. In addition, for multiple occupant spaces there must be controls to suit their lighting needs and preferences. The 2007 Florida Building Code seems to be in li ne with IEQc6.1 requirements. In section 13415.ABC.1.2 the code states: Each space enclosed by ceiling-heig ht partitions shall have at least one control device to independently control the general lighting with in the space. Each manual devices shall be readily accessible and located so the occ upants can see the controlled lighting. This suggests that every area of a building must have controllability of the lighting for that particular area. In addition, in section 13-415.ABC.1.3 the code requires lighting controls for task lighting and supplemental task lighting. Howe ver, task lighting is not required for all workspaces. By being in compliance with these two sections of the 2007 Florida Building Code it appears that the requirements of IEQc6.1: Controllability of Systems: Lighting have minor support from the code for being achieved. Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 8.1: Daylight and Views: Daylight under LEED 2.2 required a minimum glazing factor of 2 percent was achieved in a minimum of 75 percent of all regularly occupied spaces. LEED-NC 2009 IEQc 8.1 does not have a compliance option of

PAGE 71

71 calculating a glazing factor as LEED 2.2 did. Howe ver, Option 1 of IEQc8.1 remained the same and requires a simulation that show s all regularly occupied areas receive 25 foot candles of light and a max of 500 foot candles on September 21 at 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM on a clear day. Section 1205.2 of the 2007 Florida Building Code requires a minimum net glazed area that is 8 percent or greater of the floor area being served. Assu ming that the old LEED 2.2 compliance path of a 2 percent glazing factor meets th e 25 foot candle minimum, then the Florida Building Codes 8 percent glazing factor would also meet it. From these assumptions it can be implied that by following the 2007 Florida Building Code, IEQc8.1 is achieved or very clos e to being achieved. Alachua County Unified Land Development Code No Indoor Environm ental Quality Credits were obtained or partially obtained by following the Alachua County Unified Land Developmen t Code. The ULDC does not address indoor environmental quality as covered in LEED-NC 2009. Therefore prerequisites and credits are not discussed in this section. Analysis The Alachua County Unified Land Developm ent Code did not address any of the requirem ents set for by the Indoor Environmen tal Quality Category. The 2007 Florida Building Code showed multiple implications for achieving credits in the Indoor Environmental Quality Category of LEED-NC 2009 as seen in Table 7-1. The first prerequisite of Indoor Environm ental Quality, IEQp1: Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance, requires that mechanical ly vented spaces meet ASHRAE Standard 62.1 2007 or local code, whichever is more stri ngent. The 2007 Florida Building Code is less stringent than this standard as it confor ms to ASHRAE Standard 62.1 2004. The ASHRAE Standard 62.1 from 2004 to 2007 has more stringent standards; however, the 2007 standards build upon the 2004 standards. This means that to obtain the prerequisite, the difference between

PAGE 72

72 the ASHRAE Standard 62.1 2004 and ASHRAE Sta ndard 62.1 2007 must be met and thus there is major support for achievement of this credit. Th is is minimal and thus should be at low cost. Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 8.1: Daylight and Views: Daylight as mentioned previously is more than likely achieved by code as the amount of area served by the glazing is not specified. Therefore the code only has minor support for achievement of IEQc8.1. However, if the credit is not achieved through followi ng the 2007 Florida Building Code then minimal changes to the building design will have to take place to achie ve the credit. Matthiessen and Morris (2007) show this credit to be low to high in cost, but with how close the code is, it can be assumed that this credit is at low first cost or no first cost to achieve in Alachua County. Credits not Addressed by Either Code Indoor Environm ental Quality Credits that are not addressed by fo llowing the 2007 Florida Building Code or the Alachua County Unified La nd Development Code in the section above are mentioned briefly in this section. The remaini ng Indoor Environmental Quality Credits will be evaluated for potential cost usi ng Matthiessen and Morriss study as discussed in the literature review. In addition, insight into the credits with knowledge of Al achua County will be discussed. Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 1: Ou tdoor Air Delivery M onitoring requires for mechanically ventilated spaces that carbon diox ide levels and airflow rates be monitored by a system that alarms operations staff if there is a change in levels. This credit is mentioned by Matthiessen and Morris (2007) to have a low init ial cost. To achieve th is credit carbon dioxide detectors and air flow detectors mu st be installed, which are typical ly already in the system. This should be able to be achieved at a low cost. Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan Credits, IEQc3.1: During Construction and IEQc3.2: Before Occupancy, require that an air quality management plan be set in motion both during construction and prior to occ upancy. IEQc3.1 requires that SMACNA IAQ

PAGE 73

73 Guidelines be met, absorptive materials be pr otected from moisture, and the use of Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 8 filters in air handlers during construction. Matthiessen and Morris (2007) report this credit is achieved at lo w first cost. It is more managerial cost than a material or design cost because to achiev e the credit a good deal of coordination with subcontractors must take place. IEQc3.2 requires a flush out prior to occupanc y of the building or during the beginning of occupancy. The alternative to this flush out is to test the air quality. A flush out in Alachua County is almost not feasible due to the high hu midity. The flush out requires the air be at a certain temperature and certain humidity and to achieve these standards in Alachua County a large amount of energy would have to be cons umed to condition the air to meet the IEQc3.2 standards. Thus in Alachua County the path of compliance for this credit should be air quality testing. This can be done at a low first cost, when compared with the fl ush out. Matthiessen and Morris (2007) also show that this cr edit is achieved at a low first cost. The Low-Emitting Materials Credits, IEQc4.1, IEQc4.2, IEQc4.3 and IEQc4.4, have prescriptive requirements for the maximum lim its of volatile organic compounds for achieving these credits. Location has no effect on these cr edits and thus building in Alachua County has no special implications for these credits. Matth iessen and Morris (2007) state that low VOC products are no more expensive than standard products and thus these credits are at low first cost to achieve. Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 5: Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control requires entry way floor systems to limit extern al pollutants entering th e building, exhausting in areas where hazardous gases or chemicals are pr esent, MERV 13 or higher air filters, and appropriate disposal of hazardous liq uid wastes to achieve the credit. This credit is at a very low

PAGE 74

74 first cost when hazardous gases and chemicals are not present because it only requires floor mats and MERV 13 air filters. However, when hazard ous chemicals and gases are present additional exhausting equipment and facili ties are required. This can drive up the cost, but these are typically required. The second Controllability of Systems, IE Qc6.2: Thermal Comfort, requires thermal controls for 50% of occupants, controls for all multi-occupant spaces, and that the indoor environment meet the thermal comfort in ASHR AE 55 -2004 to achieve the credit. To achieve this credit the HVAC system must be able to pr ovide different temperatures in different areas. This increases the cost of the HVAC system dramatically. Matthiessen and Morris (2007) state that this credit is achieved at a high first cost and is typically not achieved by certified projects. IEQc7.1: Thermal Comfort: Design require s that the HVAC systems and building envelope meet ASHRAE 55-2004 and demonstrate compliance with section 6.1.1 to achieve the credit. Matthiessen and Morris (200 7) stated that this credit wa s achieved at no additional cost. This is because most standards meet the requirements of this credit. The second Thermal Comfort Credit, IEQc7.2: Thermal Comfort: Verification, requires that a thermal comfort survey be administered 6 to 18 months after occupancy and if 20% of occupants are not the situation must be rectif ied. This credit was addressed by Matthiessen and Morris (2007) to be a moderate cost. It requir es a survey with corre ctive action if 20% of occupants are not satisfied. These requirements can be achieved at a moderate first cost. Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 8.2: Daylight and Views: Views requires that 90% of occupants have a direct line of sight outdoors via glazing betw een 30 and 90 inches above the finished floor. This credit is by good planning and installing glazing on in terior partitions and according to Matthiessen and Morris (2007) the resu lting cost is typically low to moderate. This

PAGE 75

75 credit must be targeted early in the design proc ess to remain a low first cost credit. However, additional glazing may be expensive and have an adverse affect on energy performance. Summary By com bing the data gathered from the cred its obtained or partia lly obtained by the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua C ounty Unified Land Development Code with Matthiessen and Morriss data, implications fo r cost were discussed for LEED projects in Alachua County for the Indoor Environmental Qualit y Category. Credits achievability scores are presented in Table 7-2. The results are presented in Table 7-3. One credit s and one prerequisite are reported to be at no additional cost in the Indoor Environmental Quality Category, IEQp2 and IEQc6.1. Table 7-1. Outdoor Air Requi rements by Standards/Codes Use Type ASHRAE 62.1 (cfm/person) FL Mech. Code (cfm/person) Prison Cells 5 20 Classroom 10 15 Office Space 5 20 Hotel Room 5 20 Table 7-2. Indoor Environmental Quality Credits addressed by the 2007 Florida Building Code LEED-NC 2009 Credit Code Achievability Score IEQp1: Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance 13-409.ABC.1.1 FBC 3 IEQp2: Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control The Florida Clean Indoor Air Act (s.386.204, F.S.) 4 IEQc2: Increased Ventilation 403.2 FBC 4 IEQc6.1: Controllability of SystemsLighting 13-415.ABC.1.2 and 1.3 FBC 2 IEQc8.1: Daylight and ViewsDaylight 1205.2 FBC 2

PAGE 76

76 Table 7-3. Energy and Atmosphere Credits Study Findings Credit Addressed by Code? Cost IEQp1: Minimum Indoor Ai r Quality Performance Yes Low IEQp2: Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control Yes No Additional IEQc1: Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring No Low IEQc2: Increased Ventilation Yes No Additional IEQc3.1: Construction Indoor Air Quality Management PlanDuring Construction No Low IEQc3.2: Construction Indoor Air Quality Management PlanBefore Occupancy No Low IEQc4.1: Low-Emitting MaterialsAdhesives and Sealants No Low IEQc4.2: Low-Emitting MaterialsPaints and Coatings No Low IEQc4.3: Low-Emitting MaterialsFlooring Systems No Low IEQc4.4: Low-Emitting MaterialsComposite Wood and Agrifiber Products No Low IEQc5: Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control No Low IEQc6.1: Controllability of SystemsLighting Yes Low IEQc6.2: Controllability of SystemsThermal Comfort No High IEQc7.1: Thermal ComfortDesign No No Additional IEQc7.2: Thermal ComfortVerification No Moderate IEQc8.1: Daylight a nd ViewsDaylight Yes Low IEQc8.2: Daylight and ViewsViews No Low to Moderate

PAGE 77

77 CHAPTER 8 INNOVATION IN DESIGN The Innovation in Design Category of Leadership in Energy and Environm ental Design New Construction 2009 deals with innovation in design, exemplary performance, and LEED Accredited Professional involve ment. Innovation in design and exemplary performance points are awarded for issues not covered by lead and for exceeding LEED standards. Therefore the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua C ounty Unified Land Development Code have no similarities with the ID Category of LEED-NC 2009. 2007 Florida Building Code No Innovation in Design Credits were obtaine d or partially obtained by f ollowing the 2007 Florida Building Code. The Florida Building Code does not address any exemplary performance as defined in LEED-NC 2009. Therefore credit s are not discussed in this section. Alachua County Unified Land Development Code No Innovation in Design Credits were obtained or partially obtained by f ollowing the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code The ULDC does not address any exemplary performance as defined in LEED-NC 2009. Therefore credits are not discusse d in this section. Summary Through following the 2007 Florida Building Co de and the A lachua County Unified Land Development Code no Innovation in Design Credits are achieve d or partially achieved. Matthiessen and Morris (2007) had a very di fficult time putting a price on the Innovation in Design Credit, IDc1, due to the ra nge of innovations that can achi eve the credit. However, IDc2, LEED Accredited Professional, is a ve ry low cost credit to achieve.

PAGE 78

78 CHAPTER 9 REGIONAL PRIORITY The Regional Priority Category of L eadership in Energy and Envir onmental Design New Construction 2009 awards additiona l points to LEED credits that are viewed as important in different regions. The credits addressed by Alachua County are EAc1.3, WEc1, WEc1.2, MRc2, MRc3.1, MRc5 Option 1, MRc5 Option 2, and IEQc8.1. None of these credits were achieved by following the Alachua County Unified Land Developmen t Code as seen in th e previous chapters. However, one credit IEQc8.1 was achieved or partially achieved by the 2007 Florida Building Code. 2007 Florida Building Code One point from the Regional Pr iority Credit is ac hieved via IEQc8.1 which is achieved or partially achieved by the 2007 Florida Buildi ng Code as seen in Chapter 7: Indoor Environmental Quality. Alachua County Unified Land Development Code No Regional Priority Credits were obtained or partially obtained by following the Alachua County Unified Land Developm ent Code. Summary The credits that were designated as Regiona l P riority Credits to Alachua County were EAc1.3, WEc1, WEc1.2, MRc2, MRc3.1, MRc5 Op tion 1, MRc5 Option 2, and IEQc8.1. These credits have already been discu ssed in previous sections, however the cost of the credits based on the Matthiessen and Morriss stu dy are presented in Table 9-1.

PAGE 79

79 Table 9-1. Regional Priority Credits Study Findings Credit Addressed by Code? Cost EAc1.3: Optimize Energy Performance16% No Low WEc1: Water Efficient Landscaping No Low WEc1.2: Water Efficient Landscap ingNo Potable Water Use or Irrigation No Low MRc2: Construction Waste Management No Low MRc3.1: Material Reuse5% No High MRc5 (Option 1): Regional Materials10% No Low MRc5 (Option 2): Regional Materials20% No Low IEQc8.1: Daylight a nd ViewsDaylight Yes Low

PAGE 80

80 CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSION Summary Credits or Prerequisites Achieved Through Code Fewer credits and prerequisites were achieved through the 2007 Florida B uilding Code and the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code than expected. More credits were expected in the Energy and Atmosphere Category, but due to the dated standa rds of the 2007 Florida Building Code many credits were not fully achieved. In addition, no credits or prerequisites were achieved in the Water Efficiency Category or the Materials and Resources Category. Three prerequisites of Leadership in Energy and Environm ental Design New Construction 2009 were achieved through fo llowing Alachua County Codes (2007 Florida Building Code and the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code). These prerequisites are Sustainable Sites Prerequi site 1, Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 3, and Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 2. Two cr edits were also obtai ned by following Alachua County Codes. These credits achieved are Sustai nable Sites Credit 4.4 and Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 2. All credits and prerequisi tes achieved through following Alachua County Codes are presented in Table 10-1. Credits or Prerequisites Partia lly Achieved Through Code Many credits and prerequisite s were partially achieved to some degree by following the Alachua County Codes. Once again, no credits or prerequisites were par tially achieved in the Water Efficiency Catego ry or the Materials and Resources Category. No credits or prerequisites were achieved in these categories because the Alachua County Codes do not address these areas to the extent that LEED-NC 2009 does.

PAGE 81

81 Three prerequisites were partially achieved through following the Alachua County Codes. These prerequisites are Ener gy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 1, Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 2, and Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 1. In addi tion, nine credits were partially achieved through following the Alachua County Codes. These credits partially achieved are Sustainable Sites Credit 1, Sustainable Sites Credit 4.2, Sustainable Sites Credit 5.2, Sustainable Sites Credit 7.1, Water Efficiency Credit 1, Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1, Energy and Atmosphere Credit 3, Indoor E nvironmental Quality Credit 6.1, Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 8.1, and Regional Prio rity Credit 1. All credits and prerequisites partially achieved through following Alachua County Codes are presented in Table 10-2. Building LEED in Alachua County To attem pt LEED certification a project must me et all of the prerequisites of the LEED-NC 2009 system. In total there ar e eight prerequisites under th e LEED-NC 2009 system. By following the Alachua County Codes three prereq uisites are achieved and three more are partially achieved. The two prerequisites that are not partially achieve d or achieved through following Alachua County Codes are Materials and Resources Prerequi site 1: Storage and Collection of Recyclables and Water Efficiency Prerequisite 1: Water Use Reduction. However, both of these prerequisites can be achieved at low initial cost. Thus, a proj ect can be brought into LEED standards through obtaining all the prerequisi tes in Alachua County at a low initial cost. To achieve LEED certified unde r the LEED-NC 2009 system 40 points must be obtained. By following the Alachua County Codes three points are achieved and 13 to 15 points are partially achieved. Assuming all th e partial credits are achieved by a project, then 16 to 18 points are achieved. This leaves 22 to 24 more poi nts to achieve to ob tain LEED certified. Of these additional credits unaddressed by the Alachua County Codes, one credit, Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 7.1: Thermal Co mfortDesign, is typi cally achieved at no

PAGE 82

82 additional cost. As seen previously in the st udy, in Table 3-2, Table 4-2, Table 5-2, Table 6-1, Table 7-3, and Table 9-1, many additional credit s can be obtained at low additional costs. Therefore, a project should be able to be brought up to LEED certified standards without significant additional cost. Conclusion Alachua County Codes do not bring a project into com pliance with LEED prerequisites and therefore LEED certification is not possibl e by just building to code. However, the prerequisites not addressed by c ode can be obtained at a low initial cost. Three points are achieved at no additional construc tion cost through following the Alachua County Codes and one additional point through standard building practice. An additional 13 to 15 points are partially achieved through following Alachua County Code s. Thus through following Alachua County Codes, the 2007 Florida Building Code and th e Alachua County Unified Land Development Code, a project does not obtain any sort of LEED certification. However, these credits do provide a starting point for all LEED projects located in Alachua County. Future Studies The 2007 Florida Building Code will be rep laced when the 2010 Florida Building Code is released. It is expected that the 2010 code will update many of the energy related standards, such as ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004 to ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2007. If LEED 2009 does not change, then more credits will be achieved through following the 2010 Florida Building Code via the updated ASHRAE Standards. In addition, other changes may occur from the 2007 to the 2010 Florida Building Code which may have im plications for other LEED 2009 credits. However, LEED 2009 may change as well and set high standards which may cause the codes to have fewer implications or the code could potentially adopt LEED st andards at some point. It is

PAGE 83

83 also possible that with the release of ASHRAE 1 89P, sustainability standards, that the codes may become in line with LEED standard s and achieve many more credits. It would be helpful to the construction and de sign industry that every time building code or LEED is updated, a similar study be preformed. This will provide the industries an appropriate framework for building LEED in Alachua County a nd in the state. In addition, the credits not addressed by code can be looked at more closely in terms of Al achua County at the time of the study, which could provide more insight into low cost LEED credits. Table 10-1. Credits or Prerequi sites Achieved Through Code (A chievability Score of 4) Credit or Prerequisite Points SSp1: Construction Activity Po llution Prevention Required SSc4.4: Alt. Transportati onParking Capacity 2 EAp3: Fundamental Refrigera nt Management Required IEQp2: Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control Required IEQc2: Increased Ventilation 1 Table 10-2. Credits or Prerequisites Partially Achieved Throug h Code (Achievability Score of 1 to 3) Credit or Prerequisite Points SSc1: Site Selection 1 SSc4.2: Alt. TransportationBicy cle Storage and Changing Rooms 1 SSc5.2: Site DevelopmentMaximize Open Space 1 SSc7.1: Heat Island EffectNonroof 1 WEc1: Water Efficient Landscaping 2 EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems Required EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance Required EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance 2-4 EAc3: Enhanced Commissioning 2 IEQp1: Minimum Indoor Air Qu ality Performance Required IEQc8.1: Daylight and ViewsDaylight 1 IEQc6.1: Controllability of Systems: Lighting 1 RPc1: Via IEQc8.1 1

PAGE 84

84 LIST OF REFERENCES Green Building Initiative. (2009). Green Globe s Tools. (Apr. 23, 2009). International Code Council. (2008). 2007 Florida Building C ode, 1st Ed., ICC, Country Club Hills, IL. International Code Council. (2008). 2007 Florida Building Code, Mechanical, 1st Ed., ICC, Country Club Hills, IL. Matthiessen, L.F., and Morris, P. (2007). Cost of Green Revisited: Reexamining the Feasibility and Cost Impact of Sustainable Design in th e Light of Increased Market Adoption, Davis Langdon, New York. United States Green Building Council. (2009). LEED Reference Guide For Green Building Design and Construction, 2009 Ed., USGBC, Washington D.C. United States Green Building Council. (2009) United States Green Building Council Resources. (Apr. 23, 2009).

PAGE 85

85 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH David Treleven graduated from Western Reserve Academy in Hudson, Ohio in 2002. David then proceeded to attend The College of Wooster, a small liberal arts school in northeast Ohio. At Wooster, he majored in biology, minored in geology, and played on the Wooster Scots soccer team as goalie. During his college year s, David worked breaks from school for a small contractor at home as a laborer and during the summer s, David worked as summer staff for the Appalachia Service Project, a non-profit home repair organization. Even though his degree was in a different field, David decided that he wanted to be involved in construction in some form. Upon graduating from Wooster, David returned to Appalachia for one last summer. At that time, he was offered a job in Gainesville, Florida work ing as the construction coordinator for Rebuild Gainesville, a non-profit home repa ir organization. After about a year, David returned to school at the University of Florida to pursue his masters degree in building cons truction with a focus on Sustainable Construction. David continues to be involved with Rebuilding Together (formerly Rebuild Gainesville) and se rves as a board member.