This Bird's Eye View text is from USGBC's MPR Supplemental Guidance Revision #2. See the Credit Language tab for the MPR requirements.
In order to ensure fair and consistent evaluation for all projects - particularly under the Sustainable Sites credit category - it is necessary to have guidelines for an acceptable LEED project boundary. All site conditions and impacts related to a building must be considered and addressed in the certification process to ensure a complete and thorough examination of the environmental impacts of a building.
Land assigned to previous projects may be re-assigned to LEED-EB: O&M projects
Any land associated with a previous LEED project may be re-assigned to a LEED-EB: O&M project with no restrictions.
When non-contiguous parcels may be included in the LEED project boundary
Non-contiguous parcels of land may be included within the LEED project boundary if the conditions below are met.
a) The parcel(s) where the LEED project building resides is separated by land that is owned or controlled by an entity different than the owner of the land associated with the LEED project building (e.g. a public right-of-way through the site controlled by the city).
b) Those parcels separated from the parcel on which the LEED building resides directly supports or are associated with normal building operations of the LEED building. See additional guidance on the following page of this document.
c) The non-contiguous parcels are no more than 1⁄4 mile (0.40 kilometer) walking distance apart.
d) There is a clear and safe walking path between the parcels.
e) In aggregate, the parcels meet the requirements of all MPRs, prerequisites, and attempted credits
f) All parcels share the same common regulatory jurisdiction and are owned, leased, or managed by the same organizational entity.
g) The project team provides a narrative and a map to demonstrate compliance withitems (a) through (f) above.
The Additional Details section of PIf1 LEED Online v3 should be used for this purpose.
When land included in submittals may be excluded from the LEED project boundary Land described in this section is not required to be included in the LEED project boundary, and therefore is not subject to consideration for prerequisite, other credit, or other MPR compliance.
ALL RATING SYSTEMS: STORM WATER DESIGN CREDITS
Any land used solely to earn this credit, but not otherwise required to be included by MPR #3.
LEED-EB: O&M, SUSTAINABLE SITES CREDIT 5 SITE DEVELOPMENT-PROTECT OR RESTORE HABITAT
LEED–RETAIL: NC, SUSTAINABLE SITES CREDIT 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT-PROTECT OR RESTORE HABITAT
Any land donated to a land trust to meet the requirements of option 2
When facilities included in submittals may be excluded from the LEED project boundary
Occasionally, project buildings use facilities (e.g. parking lots) that are outside of the LEED project boundary as part of their calculations the parking, bicycle storage, shower/changing rooms, and/or on-site renewable energy credits. This is allowable when the facilities serve the LEED project, and at least one of the following two conditions is met:
a) The facilities are not a part of the LEED project construction scope.
b) The facilities are physically separate from the LEED project by land not owned by the LEED project owner (or, if on a campus, physically separate such that the inclusion of the facilities in the LEED project boundary would be difficult or unreasonable).
If the facilities meet one of these conditions, they may be excluded from the LEED project boundary, and therefore they will not be considered for other prerequisite, credit, or MPR compliance. However, those facilities also cannot be used to show compliance for other LEED projects, unless the sufficient capacity is present.
There are showers in a building adjacent to the LEED project building. The showers may be excluded from the LEED project boundary even if they are used to show compliance with Sustainable Sites credit 4.2: Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms in LEED-NC, but they may not be included in the calculations for Water Efficiency prerequisite 1. In addition, the showers cannot be used to earn this credit for an additional LEED project unless the required shower-to- Full Time Equivalent (FTE) ratio is met for both projects.
Real property no longer attributed to a certified building
If a certified building is demolished, all property attributed to that LEED project may be assigned to another LEED project.
When land not owned by the LEED project owner may be included
Land that the LEED project owner does not own (i.e., leases, has an easement on, or has no claim to) may be included within the LEED project boundary if it can very clearly be shown to support building functions (this includes stormwater management strategies) or is a part of the construction scope. Otherwise, it should be excluded.
Project boundaries that include other buildings
There are many situations in which it is appropriate for the LEED project boundary to include another building. These include:
In such cases, the LEED rating will only officially apply to the project building, although the ancillary structures (other buildings) may have to be accounted for in the calculations for the LEED project. The following guidance addresses these situations, breaking them into two categories: 1) LEED-certifiable building on site and 2) not LEED-certifiable building on site.
LEED-CERTIFIABLE BUILDING ON SITE
If there is another LEED-certifiable building on the same site as the LEED project building, it is not required to certify, but in order to take credit for aspects of the site that are shared between the buildings, the project(s) should refer to the 2010 Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects (AGMBC). The 2010 AGMBC describes the certification process for multiple building situations. It allows for all site attributes to contribute to LEED certification by the use of a Master Site project to document shared Campus Credit strategies. Note that this guidance can be applied to vertically attached buildings, in which case the master site boundary and the individual site boundaries can coincide on all edges.
NON-LEED-CERTIFIABLE BUILDING ON SITE
If there is a non-LEED-certifiable building within the LEED project boundary, the project team can include the non-certifying building within the project boundary in ALL relevant submittals that are allowed and appropriate for each individual credit and prerequisite, essentially treating the non-certifying building as an extension of the certifying building.
Temporary structures erected for the purposes of supporting construction administration work that will be removed at construction completion, are not subject to this MPR and will not be required to certify.
How to define land that is associated with and directly supports a building
This MPR requires that ‘The LEED project boundary must include all contiguous land that is associated with and supports normal building operations for the LEED project building....’. This includes land altered in any way as a result of the LEED project construction, with exceptions as detailed above, and features enjoyed primarily by the building users, such as:
Often, land is shared with other buildings, extends into large areas of land, or has other attributes such that it is unclear where the project boundary should be drawn. Although many of these situations are addressed in this document, there will always be unique circumstances that cannot be anticipated. In this case, it is the responsibility of the project team to determine a reasonable boundary that meets the intent of LEED and the available guidance as much possible.
Two neighboring stores are being constructed, and one is pursuing LEED certification. A new parking lot with fifty spaces will be shared by the two stores. The certifying store estimates that it will use twenty parking spaces on a regular basis to serve its employees and customers. Therefore, the project team must draw its LEED project boundary to include twenty spaces and forty percent (20/50 = 40%) of the supporting hardscape (driveways, sidewalks, etc).
A construction project on a college campus will result in a new student center and a new storm-water infrastructure, including drainage pipes and a retention pond. The infrastructure will serve the new building as well as other buildings on campus. It is at the project team’s discretion to include this infrastructure in their LEED project boundary or not. However, if it is included it must be included consistently for all applicable prerequisites and attempted credits.
Gerrymandering is defined in the document’s glossary below as ‘To divide and assign land in such a way as to give unfair, inconsistent representation to one parcel over another.’ Gerrymandering can also be described as the exclusion of site area from the LEED Project Boundary that is associated with or directly supports building functions in order to achieve a LEED prerequisite or credit.
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for Commercial Interiors
If any land was or will be disturbed for the purpose of undertaking the LEED project, then that land must be included within the LEED project boundary.
My project is an office tower located on a plot of land housing 5 other buildings. All hardscapeHardscape consists of the inanimate elements of the building landscaping. Examples include pavement, roadways, stone walls, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios. and landscape on the ground outside these buildings are not within the scope of work of my project. However, the underground parking for the tower extends way beyond the building boundary. What should be the correct LEED boundary when above ground does not belong to me, but below does?
Bernard, your LEED boundary can go in three dimensions, and include space below ground while excluding space above that. (Although it seems a bit unusual to building underground parking without disturbing and working on the hardscapeHardscape consists of the inanimate elements of the building landscaping. Examples include pavement, roadways, stone walls, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios. above it within the same scope of work.)
I have a similar situation, for LEED C&S 2009, we want to certify the office spaces of a tower, the bottom part will be a shopping mall, with separate owner, separate entrances and separate systems. We also want to include the underground parking levels that will be designated for office users. Is this LEED Boundary division allowed?
I am Working on a project with a 2 story addition. A portion of the project includes a major renovation to the building entry. My question lies with where to define the project boundary. The addition has been designed with new Mechanical equipment reflective of the LEED requirements, however the entry renovation is supported through the existing buildings mechanical system. The existing building is not a LEED certified building and is not be up to LEED standards.
Will I need to include the lobby area in my project boundary or can this be excluded?
With the completion of the construction there will not be a definitive line to where this separation between where the existing and addition takes place which makes the delineation difficult. However my concern is that the existing mechanical system will compromise the ability to achieve the LEED status for the addition.
The existing building is approximately 9,00 sf. the addition is approximately 5,000 sf and the lobby major renovation area is approximately 1,200 sf.
Any comments/suggestions would be much appreciated.
If the lobby connects to the addition, you would probably want to include that area in your project boundary. The MR credits will be harder to calculate if you need to exclude the value of those materials from your calculations. GBCI can be concerned with what area "gets a plaque, and they want a clear demarcation between LEED certified and non-certified areas. If the lobby is not connected to the addition, then they might prefer to exclude it.
You should probably contact the LEED customer service through the GBCI website, and indicate you have a technical certification question. The support for such questions has dramatically improved and it will make the documentation easier if you can clear this up.
I'm working on a project which is a new office building. It includes underground parking for the building users. The owner, a private developer, only owns the site corresponding to the exact footprint of the building . The streets that are surrounding the building are under the ownership of the municipality. The tricky thing is that the underground parking will extend a little under one of the streets. Therefore, the developer will rebuild the street on behalf of the city after building the underground parking. The street will remain under the municipalitie's ownership.
Should the portion of street that we be rebuilt within the project for the city be included in the project boundary?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Sarah, I think you could go either way on this, relative to the street—include it because it is in the construction scope, or exclude it because it is not under ownership and doesn't support the function of the project building (aside from being public infrastructure).
Thanks Tristan for your answer. We'll try excluding it and see if it is accepted this way.
We are working on a new residence hall which is located between two existing (non-certified) residence halls on a college campus. The parking and therefore some of the landscaping associated with the new hall is located on the opposite side of the existing parking lot furthest away from the new hall. In the end, all the parking lots will serve all three residence halls and most likely the new lot will be used more by one of the existing halls and the old parking lot will be used more by the new hall. Our question is how to determine the LEED boundary which will take on a very complex shape in order to include the new hall, new parking lot and some connected landscaping while jogging in and around the existing halls and existing parking lots. Is this approach typically well received as long as I can associate proportionally equal parking with building? In part I'm trying to think ahead as the two existing residence halls are slated for future remodel and would therefore be seeking future LEED certifications. I want to draw appropriate boundaries so when tasked with a future project, there's some logic to the established boundaries. Thanks for your help!
Jason, you're on the right track. You're thinking about exactly the right issues, and although the LEED boundary will end up looking odd, if you follow the logic you are already aware of, and consult with the MPR guidance, I think you'll get there.
An office building was constructed and awarded LEED Silver. Now, a new building is being planned to be constructed inside the LEED project boundary of the the already certified LEED project. Is this possible? how do we demarcate the LPB for the new building?
Husam, it is possible to do this. What you need to watch out for is double-dipping, i.e. taking credit for site features that contributed to the original LEED certification.
Most likely a very tight project boundary is going to make sense. Consult the Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects (AGMBC) for more guidance.
Please post back here with specific issues or obstacles.
A campus have several projects, and 4 of the projects are connected with sidewalk/spatial corridors, seems a whole building, but they have different functions, in this situation, can we still certify the 4 projects as one or we only can certify 4 projects separat?
while lining the boundary on the map, can the LEED certification project boundary line overlap with other building footprintBuilding footprint is the area on a project site used by the building structure, defined by the perimeter of the building plan. Parking lots, parking garages, landscapes, and other nonbuilding facilities are not included in the building footprint.? or keep some distance with other facilities?
Looking forwards to your reply.
Michael, buildings that are basically separate but just connected by corridors should probably be certified separately. See MPR2.
The LEED boundary for each project should be distinct.
Is it possible to have a LEED boundary that differs from the actual limit of disturbance shown in the construction documents?
Yes. Sometimes limits of disturbance on stormwater management plans cover a larger development of which only 1 building and part of the property is seeking certification.
We are developing the design phase of a LEED Project which is already registered in the LEED online. This project is an adittion to an existing building (same owner) and in the LEED Boundary registered is only including the new construction. The designers of the Domestic Hot Water system are planning to use an existing boiler located within the Existing Building because the hot water systems of this Building is able to provide it to the new construction. Considering this issue, is it necessary to modify the LEED Boundary including the part of the existing building which the boiler is located? And considering this issue, is it possible to modify the LEED Boundary into the LEED Registration data of this project?
Mauricio, it is possible to modify the LEED boundary. If you can't edit this yourself, contact GBCI for assistance.
I don't necessarily think you need to include the boiler in your boundary, but that's another question....
Dear experts, I would like to hear about your comments on the following issue:
In one of our projects, a residential building is being constructed on top of a shopping mall both of which are constructed at the same time and belong to the same owner. However, we would like to certify only the residential building, not taking into account the energy consumption and water use of the shopping mall? Is this possible? and if so, how can we determine the LEED project boundary?
Thanks in advance
Orçun, I apologize for the long wait in order to deliver such a simple answer, but from your question I am not sure if you have reviewed the guidance for MPR2 and MPR3 in detail. There is quite a lot of good guidance on exactly your situation up above, and it would help to be able to respond to more specific questions based on your application of that guidance to your situation. Cheers.
I have an issue properly defining the project boundary for a Train Station on a large overall site which includes the station, outdoor plaza, train platforms, large parking lots, a substation, and service buildings for the train maintenance crew. We only intend to certify the the actual station building which houses 2 ticket sales people but all of the construction is under one contract. I understand that the "LEED project boundary must include all contiguous land that is associated with and supports normal building operations for the LEED project boundary", as of now my logic is to include the station, the outside plaza (which has bus drop off, benches, and bike racks), and the closest parking deck (ticket sales employees would park there). The rest of the site I would exclude because the station does not rely on the platform, train maintenance facilities, and train parking lot to operate. If I am forced to include the entire site under construction, I will be less than 2% gross building floor area compared to site area.
I don't want to be accused of "gerrymandering"
Please assist with this issue
Thanks for your help!
Michael, I think your logic is good. The goal is a LEED-certified building, not a LEED-certified site.
Our project is an addition to a school - LEED NC. The addition has separate mechanical systems and a firewall that separates it from the existing building (non LEED certified).
We will be disturbing the site all around the existing non-LEED building, so my understanding is we need to include the existing building in 'ALL relevant credits and prerequisites', unless somebody has some insight!?..
My main question is; what does 'ALL relevant credits and prerequisites' mean?......(e.g. do I include the FTEs for the addition and existing building? etc.). Does it just mean site related credits and prerequisites?
Thanks in advance
Padraic, "relevant credits" means that you don't need to document the sidewalk in IEQp1, but you do in IEQc7.1.
As a side note, I think you should review the MPR3 guidance and possibly exclude the existing building from the boundary (like a donut hole).
Hello, just a question about LEED Project Boundary.
Our project consist in a renovation of an existing building of 9 stories above grade and one below grade for parking areas and other building facilities such as changing rooms and bicycle racks.
The story below grade have a square footage bigger than the ground floor footage.
The ground floor building footage is 9,000 sf while the below grade area is 12,000sf.
The outside area at the ground floor level ( 12,000 – 9,000 =3000 sf), which is hardscapeHardscape consists of the inanimate elements of the building landscaping. Examples include pavement, roadways, stone walls, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios., IS NOT OBJECT OF ALTERATION. We are not sure about the correct LEED Project Boundary.
Should we consider the below grade area (12,000sf )or just the ground floor (9000 sf), excluding the hardscape area?
If we consider, as LEED Boundary, just the ground floor area (9000 sf), can we include in the LEED application the total below grade area and pursue the credits about parking and building facilities sited below grade?
Mario, your LEED boundary can go in three dimensions. Include the relevant area below grade while excluding at-grade area that does not meet the standards for inclusion.
We have a hangar project with an admin building attached all new construction. Does the boundary only need to include the construction that will do with the hangar/admin only? There are some support areas beyond the project site that will involved to provide power, sewer, etc. But I don't feel they need to be included in the project boundary.
Does the project boundary have to include the construction staging area? Due to security & locaton of the site staging for construction has to be ouside of security perimeter which is not within the project site.
These are probably simple questions, appreciate any help. thanks! Nicole
Nicole, I'd want to hear more from you about these support areas and whether they are site features, or more like infrastructure upgrades in the surrounding area. Regarding the staging area, you are supposed to include in the boundary any land disturbed for the LEED project, but there can also be arguments for excluding that land based on the guidance above, so again, please include more detailed questions if this is still an issue for your project.
Our project is in NYC and pretty much on zero-lot line property with very little open space. The city requires the project to install street trees that are outside the property line so where should we draw our LEED boundary? MPR #3 says to include any land that supports "building functions" - i guess this would help with stormwater management. I am confused if we are required to include land outside our property line and if we did include this land up to the installed street trees, then would we have to include the sidewalks into our credit calcs? Please advise. Thank you very much! It seems this question probably comes up a lot in urban settings.
I would not expand the LEED boundary to include the street trees, on the logic that the land is not owned by the project, and it does not support building operations (only to the extent that normal urban infrastructure like sidewalks do).
If you were claiming some stormwater or heat island benefit from the trees, that would be a different story....
I am working on a project that is a part of campus. This project will be located next to a 4-story existing parking garage shared by other adjacent non-LEED certified buildings. The question I have is whether this parking garage needs to be included to the LEED project boundary. If so, does the garage need to comply LEED prerequisites and credits as well? If the existing parking garage should be included to the project boundary, this will include existing hardscapeHardscape consists of the inanimate elements of the building landscaping. Examples include pavement, roadways, stone walls, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios. and landscape features around the garage as well. Does this mean the irrigation water calculation needs to include the existing irrigation area around the garage?
YP, is the parking garage part of the LEED project scope? If not, and it's simply adjacent to the LEED project, then it probably doesn't have to be included in the LEED boundary. If it is being built at the same time under basically the same project scope, and services the occupied building, then I probably would include it, and it would be factored into all relevant credits.
I am working on a project who has two buildings in his land, but only one of them (an office building) will be in the process of becoming LEED NC. Both buildings are sharing the same parking and entrance to the street.
For the Erosion credit, as well as for the LEED site delimitation (we are also considering to maximize green spaces, etc) should I include all the project site or only delimited to the office building and a little bit around?
Thank you for helping.
Laurence, although some of the details here are sketchy, based on what you describe, you would exclude the non-LEED building from your LEED boundary, and applicability for most LEED credits.
For SSp1, it wouldn't really make sense to artifiically limit the ESC plan to the certified building—it would be relevant to the whole site.
We are working on a new LEED NC building that is part of a campus. The scope of work includes below ground parking underneath our building, as well as resurfacing of an adjacent parking lot. It is anticipated that the surface lot will be developed as a new building at a future phase. As such, we are providing a party wall with no fenestration facing this lot. All parking spaces, below ground and surface, will serve the entire campus. A percentage of total spaces will be dedicated to FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. occupants of our building. Given the informatiion above, do you think it is required that we include the surface parking within our LEED project boundary?
Hi Ilana, given the information above I would lean towards a yes answer. Since some of the surface area parking will be used by your NC occupants then you should include the surface area parking within your LEED project boundary. This especially holds true if you have dedicated FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. parking spots on the surface parking area for your new occupants. Since the occupants of your LEED NC project will be using either the surface area or under building parking area, it would be difficult to exclude these areas from your LEED NC project boundary. Please correct me if I am wrong and also please keep me informed on how this goes. Good luck.
Thanks very much for your response. To clarify, the parking we are including will serve the entire campus, which has multiple buildings. Parking is not reserved for nor necessarily used by FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. occupants of the building, though it could be. It is used by whomever on the campus pays for it. I'm not sure if this changes the interpretation however.
Ilana, I'd say it's a tossup whether to include in the current project's LEED boundary. Safer to include, but could arguably be excluded.
Is it possible to submit to the Leed certification only one of two adjacent new buildings, an office building and an industrial plant ? Both will be designed & built at the same time, but only the office buliding is intended to be Leed certified.
If yes, how to define the site boundary ? Shall the footprint of the non-Leed new building be included into the total site area ? into the built area ?
I have a similar situation two buildings on a site (dormitory & industrial plant) which will be built at the same time and only one will be certified (LEED 2009 NC).
Answer from GBCI was:
...., just because another building on the site will be under the same construction contract, built at the same time and has the same owner does not mean it must be included in the LEED project submission. Only the portion of the site which is associated with and will be disturbed for the LEED building project must be included in the LEED project boundary. Therefore if work being done on the project site is only related to the non-certifying building, this can be excluded. Most likely when you submit your LEED project for review you will need to discuss which portions are excluded and why they are not related to the certifying building."
Therefore I assume that you do not have to include the non-LEED building in your project boundary.
Thank you very much Elke for your answer, which indeed gives a full answer to my first question.
Could you please (or someone else) now answer the other ones : how to define the site boundary ? Shall the footprint of the non-Leed new building be included into the total site area ? into the built area ?
Serge, there is not a need to include the non-LEED building or site area in the LEED project boundary, just because it is being built at the same time. See the MPR guidance above for how to draw the boundary.
Thank you Tristan, the MPR guidance indeed tells that "a Non-Leed certifiable building on site" can be included within the project boundary, which means that it can also be excluded, as far as "a non-Leed certifiable building" may designate a building that its owner does not intend to certify ...
I need some input.
I have a project with an existing LEED boundary. The client did some site work - hardscaping and landscaping within the boundary after our project was occupied. Does this create a problem for us and our original LEED project? It seems to me that a building owner should be able to work on their site without affecting the certification of a building. Please comment asap -- infact a direct comment to my email is appreciated firstname.lastname@example.org.
Susan, a BD&C certification is really a snapshot in time. It is understood that a building will change over time, and as long as long-term agreements required by LEED such as MPR6 are adhered to, well, there are no LEED police, as people say. Management is encouraged to register with LEED-EBOM to keep the ball rolling.
That said, if the kind of work you describe took place within the scope of work of the project that got certified, then it should be reflected in the LEED application. If the LEED application hasn't yet been finalized, then you should modify it. And, while there aren't LEED police, there is a certification challenge policy discussed in the LEED certification manual.
Our Project consists of land that is property of the owner. Part of the property is private but part of the property will be publicly accesible (although owned by the Project owner) and the owner has the obligation to maintain the área. The part will be impacted in the sense that it is a vegetated área that will be landscaped with trees and an irrigation system.
Question is: Can we include that área in the LEED boundary knowing it will later be "public".
Also, the Project has a parking on the land which is property of the owner. Next to the Project, there is another parking that does not belong to the owner and is public, but the owner has the obligation to maintain it and they will use it. Can we include that part of the parking in the leed boundary, although it is not part of the owner property.
Emmanuel, LEED is not really concerned with how a site is going to be used in terms of public vs. private. What LEED does care about is listed under the requirements above.
The parking is a little more nuanced. Is the parking part of the scope of project work? Does it support normal operations of the building? Check the guidance above and post back here with additional questions and comments.
thanks for your comment. I undestand the landscaping area may be included.
The parking is an existing parking and is not part of the scope of work.
The owner will construct their own parking (adjacent to the existing one) but they will also use the existing parking (which they do not own but which they will use in addition to their private one)
The case can easily be made to exclude the existing parking from the LEED project boundary.
we're facing a complex situation with regard to the determination of our LEED project boundary. The entire site comprises 4 buildings of which only 3 are to be certified at this stage. All 4 buildings are connected via an underground garage that takes up the entire site. Where to draw the project boundary inside the underground garage?
Jens, is there any logical way to divide the garage up among the four buildings? I would look at some way of doing that.
Hello Tristan, there is in fact a division of the garage in accordance with its usage between hotel and office. We were simply wondering if that should be sufficient as an explanation regarding the requirement of certifying a "building in its entity"...
...Also the parking capacity and its subsequent criteria/ credits are influenced as a consequence of dividing the underground garage into a certified part and another part that is excluded from the certification boundary. Is that viable in your opinion?
Jens, the "building in its entirety" is the occupied portion of the building. The parking garage is not really considered LEED-certified space, just within the boundary of the LEED certified building. So if you think of it that way, it makes sense (in my opinion) to divide the garage into functional units corresponding to each respective tower.
Regarding your last question, one thing you should probably watch is that the garage is divided fairly and not "gerrymandered" to the unfair advantage of the LEED project. If this is done fairly and conservatively, then I don't see any issue.
We have the same situation, we are trying to certificate one tower of a complex of three towers, the whole complex have seven underground parking, but only the second underground parking is used by the occupants of our tower, all 3 buildings are connected via an underground garage that takes up the entire site. In this case is possible to define the LEED Boundary one tower and the second underground parking? Tks.
Fabiano, based on your description I'd say that makes sense, yes.
We have currently drawn our LEED boundary to include all areas that our building/scope of work is impacting. As this is a campus there are other buildings and site improvements that the client would like to make in the future. These future projects will also seek LEED certification. There is parking areas that are part of the campus on either side of our project boundary but not within our project boundary. These parking areas are slated to be renovated as part of the future projects mentioned above. We are not adding any parking with our project. The client encourages their staff to use public transportation and near by public parking as the campus has too little parking. Building users are not restricted from using the parking adjacent to our project (currently outside of our project boundary and scope of work). My question Is, is it safe to exclude the parking adjacent to our site from our LEED boundary as the client wants it to be associated with future construction projects and it is not part of our scope of work? I could get the client to write a letter that supports these claims if needed.
Also we seeking clarification on "temporary structures". As job site trailers and C trains (for staging) are temporary will these need to be included in the LEED boundary or can they be excluded?
Lisa, in most projects, jobsite trailers will be within the area impacted by the project and this within the LEED project boundary. However, that doesn't mean that you need to treat them as part of the square footage you are certifying—to the contrary, you most likely shoudn't.
Regarding including the parking, think about whether that parking supports the normal operations of the building, per the MPR language above. I'd review that, and post back here with your thoughts and further questions.
To support this project we installed a geo-thermal system under an existing playing field that is across the street from the new building addition we are certifying. After the geo-thermal field was installed the playing field was replaced exactly as the previous existing field. The field is not-continguous to the project building site. Should our LEED boundary include this area?
Since the geo-thermal field is supporting the project, yet the playing field that was existing has been put back in place and does not support this building, I am unsure whether or not the LEED boundary should jump the street and include this area. Any thoughts?
I think it woiuld be more in keeping with the MPR requirements (the land is being disturbed as part of your construction scope) to include that area. However, because the field is noncontiguous, I could see an argument for excluding it. Ulimately I think you'll need either to include it to be on the safe side, or get an official ruling from GBCI.
We have a project with a similar dilemma. Our building is a public/state project located on state forest land nearby other state owned buildings. The project boundary could be drawn logically to include all land impacted by the project scope/disturbance, EXCEPT that a tracking PV array will be placed 1000 ft away from our immediate site, in an open area between other existing buildings. This actually minimizes the disturbance so we don't have to cut down trees for sun access. Should we include or exclude the PV array platform and the narrow trench we dig to connect the power to our building? If we include the work as on-site, it will be contiguous, but a very long/narrow appendage of the site boundary.
If we exclude this work - calling it off site, we propose to require the same construction limits for the site work done in hopes of getting SSc5.1 (I believe we need to minimize disturbance to 10' for the small utility trench and the PV platform). I also understand that the Renewable Energy would still be counted as "on-site" for EAc2 as long as the energy generated goes directly to our building.
Does anyone have insights or follow-up on this issue?
I would include the PV and trench in the boundary, based on my reading of the MPR3 guidance above.
I'm working on an office project with underground parking. There is a LEED boundary which has been drawn for the street level, but the underground parking goes beyond this boundary. How should we address this situation? We are thinking on presenting the street level boundary as the oficial LEED boundary for the project, and explain the situation on the Special Circumstances section of PIf4. We think this is the best approach, since expanding the street level LEED boundary as a projection of the underground parking would affect many SS credits, and would not be faithful to the project's conception and work activities. Nonetheless, I would like to know your thought on this issue. Any ideas?
Luis, I would handle it as you describe, and basically look at the LEED boundary in elevation view as well as in plan view. I believe this is fairly common for CI projects.
Hi experts, I would appreciate your advice on the follwoing, please.
I am unsure to draw the project boundary in situation described below:
- Entire project site (including dormitory building) will be constructed under the same construction contract, the same time and the same owner.
- Project site is divided by a public road, requirements of MPR3 non-contiguous parcels fulfilled
- Site portion right to the road: main building (90,000 m2) as well as the utility area (process waterProcess water is used for industrial processes and building systems such as cooling towers, boilers, and chillers. It can also refer to water used in operational processes, such as dishwashing, clothes washing, and ice making. tank, gas farm, wastewater treatment plant)
- Site portion left to the road: car parking, shuttle bus parking on the lower part; dormitory building (15,000m2) on the upper part - this building is not going to be certified.
1) Is it possible to exclude completely the upper part of the left site (dormitory building & greenery) from my LEED project boundary, despite the fact that it will be constructed under the same construction contract, the same time and the same owner? (So that my LEED project boundary includes the right project site portion with the main building and the lower left project site portion with the parking spaces for the main building only.)
2) Or do I have to draw the LEED project boundary just equal to my project site boundary w/o considering the dormitory building?
Hoping to get an advise how to proceed...
I think your question boils down to whether you have to include two buildings in your LEED boundary, even though only one is being cerified, just because they have the same construction contract. The answer is that you do not. If I midunderstood the question, let me know!
Hi, we are dealing with new LEED hospitality project. The project will be constructed in two stages (two towers), with common parking under both of them constructed in the first stage. The garage will have one car entry and will serve both towers. Developer decided to certified the I stage of project and he is willing to keep possibility of certifying in future the second stage. We are wondering how to deal and assign in proper way the project boundary for this project for both certifications. Any help will be appreciated.
BH, I would look for a way to apportion the underground parking to each project, i.e. different floors, sections, etc.
Hi all. I have a LEED Certifiable Building (C&S V.3) within a site, that will also have a NON certified building within it. The first is an office building, and the second is a bank (small branch with 4000 sf approximate). The buildings are NOT attached. The offices will be rented and the bank will be sold to another entity. The bank is located in the corner of the lot.
Can I "exclude" the bank area from my LEED Boundary? The issue is that there will be construction going underneath, for all the underground parking spaces for the office building.
Also, the owner is not interested in certifying both... Any thoughts?
Do you know which LEED credits have the most LEED Interpretations and addenda, and which have none? The Missing Manual does. Check here first to see where you need to update yourself, and share the link with your team.
LEEDuser members get it free >
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC. Read more about our team
Copyright 2013 – BuildingGreen, Inc.