Excerpted from LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development
Sample forms can be found on the right sidebar.
Any calculators related to this form can be found on the resources tab.
Can LEED-C&S be used for a distribution center that is design and constructed by the global construction group of a major product manufacturer with the operations and maintenance being controlled by the local arm of the same corporation? The local arm will have no control over design and construction and will only "take over" (same role as a tenant) when construction is completed. The two groups are independent of each other but owner is the same. Would it be based on how we fill out Appendix 3?
Hi Kath.. You have probably moved on by now, but if not: my recommendation would be to submit a letter from the owners or main points of contact explaining the situation and confirming the local owner has the ultimate end of project control. To me, it should clearly outline the relationship and provide a signatory affidavit of sorts.
The Lease agreement has already been completed on a Core and Shell project before language was inserted spelling out lighting level mandates and water flow rate mandates, etc.. We would like to add a document either as an 'add' to the existing lease agreement or as a seperate document altogether explaining the specific thresholds that the tenant needs to design to...both agreements would be signed by the landlord and by the prospective tenant. My question is which one would you prefer? if the document was separate from the official Lease Agreement, would that be acceptable as a 'Tenant-Landlord Agreement'? Once again, this would be signed by both parties. Thanks.
What is the distinction between Owner/Developer, Tenant and Lease Amendment?
The reference manual says "the party that has design control and oversight of the construction activities for a given system". But then refers to "sole control" by owner, "independent control" by tenant, and alternatively "tenant may have control over a system but the developer may enforce system requirements through a lease agreement, thereby influencing design and construction". So what kind of control are we talking about - sole, independent, or control with influence by other?
Since the latter is my case, future tenant will be guided by lease agreement set by owner for most of the items, do I check Owner/Developer because of the influence on future design, Tenant because the tenant will have control over the system in their TI and Lease Agreement because there is one?
If that is the case, there will be pages of rows with 3 radio buttons checked. That doesn't seem to yield many distinctions in the information given the seeming complexity of the form.
I understand what they are after, but does anyone know how to fill out the form correctly?
And a few more questions about the plumbing section. There are three lav faucets - public lav with aerator, public metering lav with aerator and metering faucets. If I am specifying public metering lav with aerator, do I only address that row? And then what, mark the other two rows as Not in Project Scope? And there's also a janitor's sink. As far as I'm aware, janitor's sinks aren't part of any plumbing LEED requirements at this point. So why include it here?
Did you ever get feedback on the specifics of this form? This is my first time filling it out for a CS project, and I'm having a hard time deciding which boxes are most appropriate to check. It's also hard to find definite guidance to use when explaining it to the client, too.
We have the Owner/developer controlling everything currently in the project scope. The future tenants have guidelines given to them in a lease agreement. Their work would not start until the CS project is complete. Most of our questions are between the Tenant and Lease Agreement columns.
It does not appear that any questions on this thread have ever been addressed...
I talked to a reviewer and got some guidance, so this is what I did on my recently certified warehouse with one small spec office build out in the corner but otherwise cold dark shell.
So radio button wise, the project doesn't have any lobbies or corridors at all so all that stuff was Not in Scope. Under the Build Out section, I checked both the Owner/Developer and Tenant boxes for everything and checked lease agreement also where applicable. Same thing under HVAC and Electrical except most everything was Not in Scope. With respect to the redundant metered faucet issue, I picked one to reflect our case and made the other one Not in Scope.
After all of which, consisting of checking a whole lot of boxes, I explained the heck out of it in the Special Circumstances. It seems to have worked. Weird form huh? Good luck.
Thanks for the quick response!
Yes, it does seem like an odd form, especially without a good description of what LEED considers each column to mean. I think we will go on instinct and do what you did: Explain everything in a little narrative, just in case. I don't think there's anything unusual about our project, but we'll probably do it anyway, just in case, to explain our logic.
I just noticed that on PIf5 on Table PIf5-1 the second part refers to a main corridor and the third part refers to a secondary lobby/corridors. What does this mean?
Our project is an speculative office building, with a main lobby.
Is main corridor the one that takes you from the lobby towards the elevators? and, Are secondary corridors all the ones that takes you from the elevator lobby (levels 2, 3, 4, 5, etc) to the leasable space?
I would like to have the same clarifications for these terms:
Main Lobby, Main corridors and Secondary corridors. Is there any stardard for this?
Thanks in advance.
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 2017 – BuildingGreen, Inc.