×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Project Priorities Survey Draft
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Drag
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Summary AI Search Full Document

Summary

All Hide

Project Priorities Survey

For use with Criterion 1.1, the Project Priorities Survey is intended to kick off an integrative design process that prioritizes information gathering, understanding and prioritizing the resident experience, identifying climate hazards, and setting objectives for building performance and resident health and comfort, as well as project coordination and buy-in from all related development stakeholders. 

For big-picture feedback on the Survey, place your comments on the first page of the document. For feedback on an individual word, phrase, or section, place your comments where you see fit.

Expand

AI Tools

Hide

Welcome to your personal document assistant, powered by AI.

You can ask me questions and I will review the document to provide answers with page references for you. Please be patient, it might take a second and note that I might not always get it right - if you have questions it's easy to check the page sources or contact staff to clarify.

Start with a general question and then follow up with additional questions to narrow the focus of the response if needed.

What would you like to know?

Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

Susan King Aug 27 2025 at 5:48PM on page 3

Comment
Suggest that the resident and community member engagement not be mandatory. When the project is zoned by right, these meetings can introduce delays and cost prohibitive changes to a developer's project goals. Future residents are commonly unknown.

Gretchen Armijo Aug 27 2025 at 4:04PM on page 4

Comment
I understand using County Health Rankings because it is a reliable source; however being at county scale it may not particularly inform the local community's and resident's health needs. In the absence of having access to census tract-level data, though, it's better than nothing.

Gretchen Armijo Aug 27 2025 at 1:09PM on page 3

Comment
I agree; one resident is not enough. A focus group of residents is very effective. We have had a focus group after residents completed the initial Healthy Housing Outcomes Survey, to hear their more specific thoughts.

Amy Otley Aug 26 2025 at 6:11PM on page 6

Comment
Since climate risk assessments will become mandatory this seems redundant. Consider removing.

Brett Little Aug 26 2025 at 11:43AM on page 1

Comment
I agree with another commentator that this exercise is often done well after the project is far into design, and the comments cannot influence design. To fix this, I think EGC needs to lobby all the state QAPS to build this requirement into their LIHTC applications.

Next, this survey would do well to focus primarily on multiple tenant/resident engagement (not just one), health, and climate risk, and forget the energy and building maintenance stuff. Drop the mission statement, too.

Brett Little Aug 26 2025 at 11:39AM on page 7

Comment
I would advise removing this; most teams do not have a project mission and have no interest in writing one. Instead, they pay consultants to do the work and then sign off on the statement.

Brett Little Aug 26 2025 at 11:38AM on page 7

Comment
It is challenging to assign this rating without a uniform standard.

Brett Little Aug 26 2025 at 11:37AM on page 6

Comment
My favorite resource is link, but they limit how many you can do for free. You should negotiate with them to make it available for free to EGC TAPs.

Brett Little Aug 26 2025 at 11:36AM on page 6

Comment
I suspect most won't know or understand.

Brett Little Aug 26 2025 at 11:36AM on page 6

Comment
This is a great resource, but it is not kept up to date, as far as I understand. Is anyone keeping it updated?

Brett Little Aug 26 2025 at 11:35AM on page 5

Comment
This is done in the OM section. Why make people do it twice? Consider removing it.

Brett Little Aug 26 2025 at 11:35AM on page 5

Comment
This is done in the required energy model section; why make people do it twice? Consider removing it.

Brett Little Aug 26 2025 at 11:33AM on page 3

Comment
No one we know really knows how to answer this question. I am not saying it is not good, no one understands what it is or the value though.

Brett Little Aug 26 2025 at 8:12AM on page 3

Comment
In the survey, you are instructed to have one conversation with one community member or resident, and for new construction, you are advised to speak to the building manager or residential service staff of a similar building. However, how does this really get to what is needed and provide a good understanding? For 2020, we have been working with developers to survey their staff and build a culture of surveys for residents. You should require significantly more people to be surveyed. There should be a requirement to survey all residents of existing buildings and new construction, or to survey all residents of the owners' other properties. We have set up a survey tool to do just this and have been using it with owners and developers to gather feedback Tenant Satisfaction Survey - GreenHome Institute link

Katie Ackerly Aug 26 2025 at 1:49AM on page 1

Comment
I have a lot of thoughts about this template and idea.
1. first, the fact that identifying health and resilience priorities are two of four categories, when they essentially duplicate other credits, is confusing and clunky.
2. community engagement is more about the process of learning priorities than it is about the priorities themselves. it might be too prescriptive in tracking methods and too open-ended in guiding what priorities are meant to be identified through this process.
3. It strikes me that zero over time does not belong here. It feels overbearing.

I do like the idea of a single project priorities survey but i would have a couple suggestions:
1. Turn this into a true working template - currently it reads like a long rationale. make a single matrix of health-equity/opportunity-resilience considerations to prompt discussion. (btw the equity/opportunity vulnerabilities/assets are arguably missing from the discussion, include things like communications/language barriers, digital access, barriers to certain services or modes of mobility (especially worth digging in to opportunity for family properties).
2. If you think it's important to require community engagement then make that its own credit.
3. Add under recommendations a way to attach this/ consolidate it with the developer's standard project requirements. THIS document is the real ground truth, so to be successful, outcomes of the PPS should ideally live with, or travel with, that document or else it will be ignored.

Katie Ackerly Aug 26 2025 at 1:35AM on page 3

Comment
suggest adding "residents of a similar property"

Jocelyn Aug 20 2025 at 1:28PM on page 1

Question
Some project teams expect the sustainability consultant to complete this document well after starting design, or simply do not understand the underlying concept of integrative design and just don't prioritize it much less actually talk to constituents. Does EGC have any thoughts on how to incentivize (besides this document being mandatory) development and owner teams to complete this exercise according to its actual intent rather than a box-checking exercise after the fact?

Pamela Cabrera Aug 18 2025 at 2:00PM on page 3

Comment
Perhaps asking to have at least one or more community meetings open to the public (residents + community) would best capture feedback from the community than speaking to one person.

edgar.flagg Aug 17 2025 at 3:30PM on page 1

Comment
While in support of the goals of the 2026 Criteria, especially the focus on health, energy, and resilience. I remain concerned about the overall cost burden of certification on affordable housing. Both direct consultant fees and indirect costs from prescriptive requirements increase per-unit costs at a time when affordable housing is under heavy public scrutiny for being too expensive. Enterprise should consider streamlining compliance pathways so that the Criteria advance sustainability without reducing affordability.

Rachelle Macur Aug 14 2025 at 3:27PM on page 8

Question
Is signature of developer/owner no longer needed?

Rachelle Macur Aug 14 2025 at 3:26PM on page 5

Comment
may need to offer examples for #2 or better explain "aspects"

Rachelle Macur Aug 14 2025 at 3:25PM on page 5

Comment
If include fuel types question in PPS, remove from the EGC online forms when registering the project

Rachelle Macur Aug 14 2025 at 3:25PM on page 3

Comment
Include recommendation to compensate residents and community members for their time and expertise

Rachelle Macur Aug 14 2025 at 3:24PM on page 3

Comment
Suggest requiring talking to more than "one" resident - it's too limited and very difficult to glean insight from. At least 6? This could still be a single conversation in the form of a focus group, etc.

Rachelle Macur Aug 14 2025 at 3:23PM on page 2

Comment
Consider removing "supportive housing" and "mixed income" from this section and adding a question about AMI % serving (usually a range) and, if supportive housing, asking if there is wrap around services.
in reply to Mitchell's comment

Rachelle Macur Aug 14 2025 at 3:21PM on page 2

Comment
Agree. Or remove as it may be covered by items above and/or "other"

Rachelle Macur Aug 14 2025 at 3:20PM on page 1

Comment
For the whole doc it would be nice to have some graphic design work done. It's too much text and feels overwhelming ... ideally simplify, reduce text, and add images/graphics where we can

Erin Feeney Aug 8 2025 at 2:31PM on page 7

Comment
Missing power outages - very critical from a resilient design standpoint

Erin Feeney Aug 8 2025 at 2:20PM on page 6

Comment
This relies on historic data. It would be good to encourage teams to look at future data.

Erin Feeney Aug 8 2025 at 1:52PM on page 3

Comment
Also a good idea to talk to maintenance staff

Katie Wholey Aug 7 2025 at 12:28PM on page 6

Comment
As noted in another comment, also suggest asking for more detail on whether they only review present-day historic data or if they also looked at future climate projections and what time horizons/climate scenarios they looked at.

Katie Wholey Aug 7 2025 at 12:26PM on page 5

Comment
Could we specifically prompt consideration for solar + storage to support some of these systems as well (and provide backup with the storage which provides a resilience benefit)?

Katie Wholey Aug 7 2025 at 12:25PM on page 5

Comment
I will take a look at Criterion 5.1 as well to see if this is integrated there, but I suggest that we also flag in this section that these upgrade and replacement decisions should also integrate resilience needs, e.g. moving equipment if replacing and susceptible to flooding, providing additional backup power if needed, etc.

Katie Wholey Aug 7 2025 at 12:23PM on page 5

Comment
Suggest broadening this statement to also include climate resilience - health impacts can also occur from wildfire smoke, extreme heat (especially if the building does not have access to cooling), etc.

Katie Wholey Aug 7 2025 at 12:20PM on page 4

Comment
This could also be connected with resilience - if residents have specific medical needs that require refrigeration for medicine for example, then the project should make sure to include backup power to ensure residents have access to medicine in a power outage, etc.
in reply to Mitchell's comment

Katie Wholey Aug 7 2025 at 12:18PM on page 7

Comment
Agreed with this! In addition to resilience hubs, it would be great to prompt users to connect their mission statement with a clear definition of what resilience means for the project.

Katie Wholey Aug 7 2025 at 12:14PM on page 7

Comment
When asking if the hazard is applicable, consider layering in a question about whether the hazard is applicable in the present-day risk vs. future climate risk (and which future climate scenario was used - year, specific RCP/SSP, etc.)

Katie Wholey Aug 7 2025 at 10:18AM on page 6

Comment
Agreed with the comment below about the fact that there are other national tools that could be utilized as well. I would suggest that this reads more like... "if state plans are unavailable, utilize relevant national climate and hazard data sources. Some examples include..."

{firstname} Shealia Jul 31 2025 at 4:57PM on page 1

Comment
We need someone to explain to the Seniors or anyone at the Edgewood Campus why do you want Solar and what is the benefit. Not someone who comes in to sign up individuals without explaining solar.

Mitchell Jul 29 2025 at 7:05PM on page 2

Comment
Would spell out more what is meant by this

Mitchell Jul 29 2025 at 6:52PM on page 7

Comment
Resilience hubs also could be a good example, link

Mitchell Jul 29 2025 at 6:50PM on page 2

Comment
Suggest adding tribal populations, pediatric (under 18), persons with behavioral health conditions (mental health and substance use disorders)

Mitchell Jul 29 2025 at 6:45PM on page 6

Comment
Other tools also may be available see e.g., link;link;link

Mitchell Jul 29 2025 at 6:40PM on page 4

Comment
Maybe also note that these can be online surveys, focus groups, etc., in-person or perhaps best a mix of methods

Mitchell Jul 29 2025 at 6:38PM on page 2

Comment
Add 'persons with mental health conditions and substance use disorders'; add tribal or indigenous populations; define 'populations affected by certain traumas', add pediatric populations/youth (<18)
View all