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 (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.) 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 New Construction and Major Renovations
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.
I am working on a LEED certification for a new building that is attached via a small circulation bridge to an existing LEED-Certified building on a college campus. The new project crosses the boundary of the existing building and I'm unclear how to deal with this line crossing business?
I understand that each project needs to have a unique site boundary, but nowhere does it say what to do in the instance of building within an existing boundary. Does this require modifications to the LEED-certified bldg's documentation?
I believe these should be considered separate based on my reading of MPR2, which addresses the fact that sites can contain LEED-ineligible and -eligible bldgs, but does not mention certified bldgs. I'm assuming that's because they need unique boundaries. It also says "Buildings that have no physical connection or are physically connected only by circulation, parking, or mechanical/storage rooms are considered separate buildings and individual projects for LEED purposes", from which I assume that these can be considered separate and so must then have separate boundaries.
Additionally, I've reviewed the LEED Campus Guidance, which is difficult to understand as a newcomer, but it says "Both the LEED campus boundary and LEED project boundaries must comply with the Minimum Program Requirements and MPR Supplemental Guidance for the applicable rating system."
I still am unclear on how to resolve intersecting project boundaries though because it sounds like each requires an independent boundary. I think this may be covered by the shared sites for campus, but I am reluctant to pursue LEED Campus unless there are truly no other options.
The project is a stand-alone office building but it's connected to the existing building to the south by a 70' covered link. We are considering to limit the LEED boundary to the new building but the existing building as plenty of employee showers and changing rooms. Can we claim SSc4.2 points with the existing showers and changing rooms without affecting other credits?
Joann, can you post this question to our SSc4.2 forum? There might also be some guidance to check on that page. It's not for this forum because unless you're considering including the other building in the boundary, it's not a boundary issue.
We are certifying a ~30K sf building that shares its site (legal parcel) with a large 8 story garage. The two structures are being designed and built on a similar timeline but ultimately the garage does not serve the building, it just happens to be adjacent to it. USGBC confirmed that the garage should not be included in the LEED project.
If you can picture the layout: small, certifiable building in question is to the east, garage is directly west and the detention pond for the site is southwest of the garage.
How should we draw our project boundary? We would like to include the detention pond as it provides stormwater control for the whole site and would make us eligible for another point. Is it reasonable to draw the boundary around the whole parcel, with a hole in the middle where the garage would be? Can we then exclude the garage from open space/hardscapeThe inanimate elements of the building landscaping. It includes pavement, roadways, stonewalls, wood and synthetic decking, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios. calculations?
Curious to see what your experiences are.
Yes, you can have a donut-shaped project boundary. :)
Project consist of 5 Storey Warehouse & 1 storey ASRS (Automatic Storage & Retrieval System). Both are connected in each floor to facilitate the movement of goods. ASRS is completely automatic and non habitable space. For LEED certification, is it okay to exclude the ASRS by drawing a LEED boundary. Thanks
Vinoth, is there any HVAC in the ASRS? Plumbing? What is the power use, and is it on its own system, or is it tied into the warehouse?
Hi Tristan, there is no HVAC system in ASRS and only minimal lighting for maintenance purpose. It's like an automated warehouse, which eliminates man power completely. It has its own system (Crane & Conveyor), however the goods are moved in & taken out via conventional warehouse. Thanks
We are working on a project with 4 office buildings and a multi-storey car park. We are unsure whether to go for campus certification as the project is phased. There is a masterplan to include a phase 2 further down the line which would total 7 buildings on the site. Seen as we would be registering under v3 would all buildings within the campus have to be built by the June 2021 deadline? Would you recommend approaching this project as certifying each building individually as opposed to campus certification?
Francis, I would probably certify the buildings individually. I don't see a ton of advantages to campus certification in general, and as in your situation there can be complications that are introduced.
I am working on a project with 3 towers over a shared 2-storey basement. Each tower is being certified separately. I am trying to define the LEED boundary in the basement to line up with the parking spaces designated to each building. My question is does the LEED boundary in the basement define the project LEED boundary at ground level also? Or can I have a different LEED boundary in the basement than at ground level?
Francis, you can have a different boundary in the basement. It's a 3D boundary.
we set our site boundary per USGBC rules on this (building, portion of site regularly used by and relating to function of the building, etc). there is an adjacent tract of land also under construction by same owner but that building is not pursuing LEED. contractor is asking about things such as conduit underground, utility infrastructure underground etc. some of it relates to leed building, some doesn't. for example, we have storm drain filters but what about the conduit the rain water goes in. if it's made out of recycled content does it help with recycled material credit?
MR credits for recycled content, etc. only address Divisions 03 – 10, 31 6000, 32 3000, and 32 9000. So if it's not in one of those divisions, it's great if it's regionally sourced and has recycled content, it's good for the planet, but it's not part of the scope of documentation.
We have an existing 13 Story Downtown Multifamily LEED NC v2009 registered project consisting of 210,000 sf and 200 units which will be gutted. The ground floor has approximately 5 commercial/retail tenants occupying 12,000 sf. The project owner is the (new) building owner.
Question: Is it possible to exclude the tenant spaces on the ground floor from building certification and associated credit calculations, in essence drawing the LEED boundary such that the 12,000sf of retail is excluded from the project?
Details: No work whatsoever will be performed in the commercial space.
The tenants were inherited from the previous owner and are on a multi-year lease. They are not part of the residential portion in any way or its operations and maintenance. Tenants include a convenience store, a fast food sub shop and restaurants.
With respect to control, there is a master lease with a local development organization that holds leases with the 5 retail tenants, and this legacy master lease is leaves the building owner with essentially no control/influence over the space.
Thank you for your assistant.
We are working on a Hotel that is both a renovation and major new construction. 5 floors of hotel are being built on top of a section of large existing exhibition space, and the lower section of the exhibition area under the Hotel, will be renovated for a new lobby, restaurant, etc.. My understanding is the project boundary will just be the area directly related to the new LEED Building, we would not have to include the entire exhibition hall that is not in the scope. Is this the correct interpretation?
Along this same line, in a Credit like MR 1.1, can the entire exhibition hall be included as part of the existing GSF, although it is outside of our LEED boundary? We would need this SF meet the minimum ratio of new to existing for the credit.
Also, the Exhibition Hall and Hotel are on a Pier, over water. Not sure if this makes a difference, but any feedback would be great.
Andrew, if you don't include the exhibition hall in your LEED boundary you can't take credit for it in a credit like MRc1.1. There are some exceptions for this for other credits—see the guidance under Bird's Eye View, above.
You can potentially draw the project boundary to exclude the exhibition hall, but just make sure that you can do so consistently and reasonably. Check guidance on MPR2 for more detail on this specific issue.
I have basically two questions in one, regarding how to treat additional buildings on your site.
Project Background: I have an 880,000 SF site. We are renovating the existing building on site (footprint = 180,000 SF) and it is pursuing LEED CS 2009. There is an existing parking garage (footprint = 100,000 SF) that we are also renovating. It is not connected to the main building. There are potentially two new buildings (footprint = 30,000 each) that will be built within the same LEED Boundary. These buildings will not be connected to either the parking garage nor the 180,000 SF building pursuing LEED CS certification. Everything on site is under the same ownership.
1. How do I treat the Parking Garage? For site calculations, do I add the garage footprint with my 180,000 SF 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 do I treat the garage as "flat" and since the top level is concrete, treat it as a hardscapeThe inanimate elements of the building landscaping. It includes pavement, roadways, stonewalls, wood and synthetic decking, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios. surface? The garage is also 3 stories tall. Do I include the GSF of the garage (300,000 SF) with the building GSF? The language that you treat the non-certifying building as "an extension of the certifying building" is slightly throwing me off. If I take this literally, I believe the garage footprint would be added to the building footprint. But then I'd want to add the GSF of the garage with the GSF of the building, but fear this could throw off other calculations? Would then the top level of the garage be treated as a roof and be added to my main building roof SF?
2. How do I treat the potential 2 new buildings? These buildings could or could not happen. If they do happen, the owner has said they will not pursue LEED certification. Our current site plan shows this area as "future building." I'm not sure what to calculate this square footage as - in the interim, it will be grass, as we await the decision of the owner to build or not to build. Should I count the SF as grass then? Or do I remove the SF from the LEED boundary? If I remove the SF from the LEED boundary, would it be gerrymandering if I have two rectangular cut outs within my LEED boundary?
Thank you for reading my novel of a question...any insight is appreciated. I posted this under CS too.
Krissy, I have a similar situation and I am curious if you found any insight. I agree that the language to treat the non-certifying building as an extension of the certifying building is vague. How did you choose to proceed?
We have a question about LEED boundary calculation as below:
In order to save the land, our company has set up a shared parking lot in the area, so this project does not have new parking spaces. The parking lots, which we call it “Traffic Center” is built for the whole surrounding building, including this project. The traffic center is located at the northwest of the project site. Both traffic center and the LEED Project are belong to the same owner.Our project team also have permission to use these parking lots.Traffic Center are not calculated into the LEED boundary.
1. can traffic center not within the LEED boundary?
2. Total building area (All Floors) is about 18442m2=198436sf including 52m2=560sf office area and 18390m2=197876sf commercial area. According to the regulation of Malaysia, they have two ways to calculate the parking lots. One is only as commercial building, another is mixed office and commercial center, which one can we use? and there are about 2000m2=21000sf reception room and VIP room in the third floor, can it calculate into the office area?
Thanks for any advice!
It was recently brought to my attention that our Master Site (under the older "block" registration process) has changed since our original design intentA written document that details the ideas, concepts, and criteria that are determined by the owner to be important to the success of the project.. We are completing the Design credit review for a 3rd LEED project but the campus is already built and has expanded beyond our original boundary. I realize that everything within the Master Site will need to be reassessed for Master Site credit conformance. Question: do we also need to include expansion beyond the original LEED Master Site boundary when we re-visit these credits? We didn't read anything that directly addresses our situation in the Supplemental Guidance. Thanks for any help. DG
Hello, I have questions regarding the following:: MPR supplemental Guidance, Revision #2, MPR #3, item 3., states that "LEED projects located on a campus must have project boundaries such that if all the buildings on campus become LEED certified, then 100% of the gross land must be included within a LEED boundary."
Whereas in the LEED Campus Guidance for Projects on a shared Site, April 1, 2014, p. 9, Determining the LEED Campus Boundary, 3rd bullet reads: ". . . it is not necessary that the sum of all individual LEED project boundaries make up the entire LEED campus boundary area."
There seems to be a conflict here; has anyone seen a clarification or have further insight?
Has there been an answer to this found?
We have a 16 story building which is going under major renovation.
The new Owner wants to get the building certified as C&s.
The issue is that the ground floor will be shared with a Hotel.
None system will be shared by the two Owners, nor HVAC, electrical, lighting or other.
How can we define the project baundary in this case?
I have a project that is on a 50 acre site that will be all developed. The project will have (7) structures on the site. Six of the structures are canopies, sheds or buildings that do not meet the minimum occupied square footage to meet the LEED 2009 requirements. The one building that does meet the requirements is a small 3,000 building that has its own parking area, the rest of the site will be mostly paved and used daily for large trucks and operations. The small building supports the drivers of these trucks.
In defining the LEED boundary I plan on drawing the boundary around the building and it's parking lot, because it is the area supports the normal operation of the building going for LEED.
The rest of the site, while part of the same parcel, will be developed at the same time, will not be attempting LEED, and will not be included.
Is this a reasonable interpretation of a reasonable LEED boundary? Even though it is not including all of the construction and disturbance?
I know the other option would be to include the entire site disturbance in the LEED boundary, and provide submittals on the other non-certifiable buildings. The issue is that the team feels that the other structures, covering 30,000 SF, will skew negatively the much smaller 3,000 SF certifiable structure.
Thank you for any comments.
Our project preliminary review points toward gerrymandering the LEED project boundary. It is a golf course clubhouse with geothermal pond on an existing putting green and paths. We included a tight lot line (20 feet from structure) around the building itself plus a tight line around the adjacent pond.
The access road to the clubhouse and adjacent villas are not part of the LEED construction project and are being designed and built by an entirely different team.
We are not sure how to adjust the LEED project boundary when we have no information or documentation on the access road or the villas. Currently the access road will be maintained as a construction entrance for the villa project. That contractor will complete the road several years from now.
The development (landscape and new chiller yard) associated with our LEED project reaches across a road that is owned by the city and not the client. Should the road be a part of our LEED project boundary? It doesn't feel right to exclude the disturbed site across the road, but it also doesn't seem fair to count that impervious hardscapeThe inanimate elements of the building landscaping. It includes pavement, roadways, stonewalls, wood and synthetic decking, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios. in our calculations since the road itself was not a part of our project.
Our project, a 200,000 sqft CS office tower (much more to the 20% of the total area) shares 3 levels of underground parking lot with two other buildings (Movie theater, shops, restaurants). All buildings are physically and administrative detached, but all of them over the underground parking lot. All buildings have independent administration and utilities, including water and energy metering. We are planning to use for our energy efficiency calculations only the number of parking spaces that correspond to the office tower, and we will ensure that signage is clear about the certification scope, but it's impossible to place physical or administrative divisions in the common underground parking lot. How could we be sure that we have a valid LEED project boundary?
Hi, we want to achieve the Precertification for a CS project.
There are two office buildings, almost identical, on the same parcel. They share four underground parking levels. We want to certify both of the buildings as one.
The Reviewer told us that since they only share the underground levels, we have to certify each building.
Actually, they also share Dressing Rooms and showers designed to achieve Credit SS4.2 and trash room, to achieve MR Prerequisite 1.
Are these shared spaces enough to consider the complex as only one building?
Our project is currently registered under NC 2009. This 66,500sf project consists of a new classroom addition to an existing 53,000sf building, which achieved LEED silver under NC 2.2. The project also reconfigures 4,870sf, within the existing building. However; although under the same architectural contract, work in the area under question will not commence until the this project is complete and does not include the addition of any equipment. Additionally, these reconfigured rooms are not contiguous with the main project area and so being it could be considered gerrymandering if these areas were to be included in the LEED project.
The area under question is 4,870sf and work will not commence until the Phase 3 project is complete. All elements of the reconfigured area maintain or improve the LEED aspects of the building and are as follows:
Fluorescent lights remain or are upgraded to LED fixtures.
No additional mechanical equipment - minimal ductwork/ diffuser reconfiguration and associated airflow adjustment/balancing.
4 of the 5 existing sinks in the work area are being relocated with one being deleted.
All finishes to be replaced will be equivalent to Phase 3 finishes and comply with current LEED requirements.
The new addition will be placed over the priority parking spaces provided for the existing Phase 2 SS credits. The existing spaces will be relocated and added to with additional priority spaces to fulfill the Phase 3 LEED requirements.
If our proposed LEED boundary meets the intent of MPR 3, we would not include this reconfigured area or any of the changes in our LEED documentation.
Should we include the reconfigured spaces in our LEED boundary?
We have a factory project to be registered under LEED New Construction. The project has a Main building and additionally Pump room, STP room and a guard room which serves the need of the Main building, but are not physically connected to the main building (only connected through a passage at outdoors).
Should we include all the ancillary buildings in the LEED boundary and consider these area in the LEED Certification Built up area & also to meet all the prerequisites?
Thanks in Advance!..
Aswin, more than likely I would include them in the LEED boundary as ancillary support buildings, but you have some flexibility on this. See the guidance above.
I think Tristan is right. We had a similar project a couple of years ago.
I would also recommend you to set up a call with your review team BEFORE submitting the preliminary review. This decision can change your whole project strategy so I would rather have their approval in advance. During the call they will probably ask you to tell them the 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. of each building and if you can show them that the FTE of your main factory building is much greater than the others, they will probably let you consider them as "ancilliary".
Thanks Tristan & Gustavo,
On referring to the MPR, "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".
Do the Non certifiable buildings in ancillary structures be accounted for all credit calculations such as energy & water credits (or) considering the building as hardscapeThe inanimate elements of the building landscaping. It includes pavement, roadways, stonewalls, wood and synthetic decking, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios. areas will suffice the requirement.
Project is adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean. The sand dune is protected with many native plant species and a nesting habitat for 5 different endangered turtle species. Can the water line define the extent of our LEED boundary?
Thomas, you should follow the MPR3 guidelines (above) to see the boundary line. I'm not exactly sure from your post what your question or uncertainty is. Care to clarify?
We are working on a development where the project site is composed of two adjacent parcels of land. There are four-buildings total on this site (3 new and 1 a major renovation) that are pursuing LEED BD+C 2009. These buildings are connected only by exterior shell and do not share any interior amenity spaces. All four projects will be under the same construction contract however, three of the buildings will be constructed at the same time with the fourth at a later date. I have 2 questions which I hope are clear enough:
1) Can the first phase consist of multiple buildings, while the second phase will consist of only one building when documenting for LEED?
2) Are we allowed to submit the first three buildings as a "group" within the first phase while the second phase will still only consist as one building. In this instance, I am not sure if this fourth building would then be certified as an individual or if it can be certified within the group as well, just at a later date.
Thank You for any guidance!
We are retrofitting approximately 1/6th of an existing manufacturing facility and constructing a small ancillary structure for mechanical equipment. The plant utilities for our work area are located on the other side of the existing building. The existing building is certified under EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems. only.
1.) Is it permissible to exclude the existing building shellThe exterior walls, roof, and lowest floor of a building, which serve to separate and protect the interior from the elements (precipitation, sunlight, wind, temperature variations). and remaining 5/6 of the existing facility from the LEED boundary if no work will occur here?
2.) May we treat the distant plant utilities as a DESDistrict energy system: a central energy conversion plant and transmission and distribution system that provides thermal energy to a group of buildings (e.g., a central cooling plant on a university campus). It does not include central energy systems that provide only electricity.?
JP, is this a LEED-NC certification? LEED-NC is a whole-building rating system. There are some cases where you can exclude a portion of a building, but this sounds like an extreme example to me. What is your case for doing so under MPR3 guidelines?
This question has been asked many times and I'm wondering if anyone has some more recent experience with a submittal. Our project is part of a 5 building campus to be built over the next few years. Construction on the future phases will not begin until after at least a full year of our project's operation. We will be doing site prep work for the future buildings but only minimal grading and seeding (to avoid erosion, sedimentation, etc.). The MPR seems to contradict itself in this situation, requiring us to include all land associated with the project undertaking but not allowing us to include anything that does not support normal building operation. Any recent submitters have any wisdom on this one? Any particular rulings that might clarify? Thanks!
I completely agree that this is self-contradictory. I followed the rule to include all land disturbed for the undertaking of the project and then got questioned for why my LEED project boundary was not a normal shape. We included the land disturbed to put in new sanitary sewer line. My take away is make it as box like as possible or if not include a profuse explanation of why you included irregularly shaped parcels of land.
We have a project on a university campus. The university maintains the roads on the campus, although there is public access 24/7.
Our building site has a minor campus road/driveway to another building running through it. On the west side is the building and vehicle parking. On the east side of the road there is a large area being landscaped (native plants) as part of the LEED project, which we hope to use to gain SSc5.1 & 5.2. No work is being done on the road itself.
So since this road is owned by the university, do we need to include any of it in the LEED Project Boundary, or is it OK to exclude it as one would with public street?
Were we to include it, how would we decide what part to include?
Susan—If this is a stand-alone NC-2009 project, USGBC's MPR Supplemental Guidance applies (http://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-2009-mpr-supplemental-guidance-revis...). Page 24 allows non-contiguous land parcels if the land between is owned or controlled by an entity different from the owner of the land associated with the LEED project. However, since the university owns both the roadway and the two parcels, it appears that you must include the roadway.
Are you sure that the roadway remains entirely undisturbed? Check the project’s Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan to see if the plan encompasses parts of the roadway. Project documents also often include Site Utilization Plans or “Use of Site” specifications that designate which areas contractors may use for construction activities. Include in the LEED Boundary any portions of the roadway that may be closed during construction.
You mention that the project is on a college campus, but you did not say whether the campus is registered as a Master Site as described in the LEED Campus Guidance for Projects on a Shared Site. If so, additional rules may apply. See http://www.usgbc.org/resources/campus-guidance.
We're working on a project that renovates a tiny portion (interior fit out only) of an existing building and involves an addition right next to the renovated portion. There is no site work involved adjacent to the renovation. For this reason we would like to exclude the site area adjacent to the renovation from the LEED site boundary. Is there a precedent to or guidance on this issue? Can the LEED site boundary exclude the renovated building portion altogether and the site around it? Thank you.
I am doing a project in Lahore, Pakistan for the British Council. It is a 6,000sf library located on a 50,000sf site. The site has two entrances flanked by guard rooms, a prayer area, storage spaces and a main building covering an area of 15,000sf. We have registered the project with a site area of 29,000sf which includes all areas effected by construction.
Now I realize the area defined in the site is not reasonable, a corner of the site in not included so as to keep prayer area out of LEED boundary, all parking is included but it has more parking stall than required by credit 4.4, the entrances are common so at places the LEED boundary hugs the main building which is again quite odd. I was thinking of registering site first and taking the campus approach but the client is disagreeable on spending more money on project registrations.
I want some advice on how proceed with redefining the project boundary.
I'm not sure whether I can (or should) include a parking garage in a project I'm working on. The parking garage is located in an adjacent building and has a separate owner. The parking is designated for use of the tenants of our LEED building.
The parking garage consists of the top four floors of a six story building. We will not be including the lower floors in the LEED project.
Am I allowed to include the parking structure in the LEED project boundary? If I do not include the parking structure in the LEED project, can I still take credit for parking related credits SS C 4.3 and SS C 4.4? The parking spaces will be designated for LEED building tenant use in the long-term.
Lastly, if the parking garage is not included in the LEED project boundary, can I pursue SS C 7.1 Option 2, using the parking garage?
This project is a park project in NYC. The original completed bid set was issued in 2009, and the LEED boundary did not include parking or additional infrastructure. These features of the project did not exist when the project was designed for LEED - but, instead were requested to be added later in process after CD were issued in 2012 as a combined set. My question is, we haven't submitted any documentation yet, but the LEED boundary and design and completed credit documentation reflect the original 2009 design. In this case, can we keep the original LEED boundary or do I need to change it and revise all completed credit documentation?
Courtney—If I understand your post correctly, you have a LEED NCv2.2 project registered in 2009, before the v2.2 registration sunset. Design documentation was prepared but never submitted to LEED-Online. In the meantime, the design has changed, so the original documentation is no longer valid. Is this right?
If so, you must revise the design documentation (and possibly the boundary) to reflect the current design. (The added parking could significantly change several credits.) Since the project has not yet submitted any documentation, you may still change any of your Project Information. However, an increase in GSF could bump you into a higher fee bracket.
Also, you need to act quickly. I believe that you must make your Design submittal before the NCv2.2 sunset date. I think the deadline is this coming June.
You did not say whether construction is complete, underway, or yet to start. Your Construction submittal must capture everything within your boundary (ESCAn Erosion and Sedimentation Control (ESC) plan is a collection of measures designed to reduce pollution from construction activities by controlling soil erosion, waterway sedimentation and airborne dust generation & Waste for the entire site, MR costs & data for added paving, VOCA volatile organic compound (VOC) is a carbon compound that vaporizes (becomes a gas) at normal room temperatures. VOCs contribute to air pollution directly and through atmospheric photochemical reactions (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides and carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) to produce secondary air pollutants, principally ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrate. & IAQIndoor air quality: The quality and attributes of indoor air affecting the health and comfort building occupants. IAQ encompasses available fresh air, contaminant levels, acoustics and noise levels, lighting quality, and other factors. data for any added interior space, etc.). Moving the boundary may be problematic if you cannot get documentation for the entire site.
Finally, this post is in the NC-2009 MPR3 forum, but LEEDv3 MPRs do not apply to v2.2 projects. NCv2.2 boundary rules were a bit more flexible. Refer to the NCv2.2 Reference Guide or contact USGBC/GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). for help adjusting your boundary.
Thanks for the reply, Jon. I left out some details, its a NCv2.2 and will stay that way, we are not upgrading to 2009. So, yes, we are planning to submit the design credits as close to sunset (June) date as possible because then we'll have 18 months before we need to submit the construction credits.
Anyway, the construction credits have not been started so it would only be the design credit documentation we are talking about. The only thing that seemed to changed from the original design was/or will be the LEED boundary. Why I am confused is because the project limit years ago (aka LEED boundary) enclosed the project building and some hardscapeThe inanimate elements of the building landscaping. It includes pavement, roadways, stonewalls, wood and synthetic decking, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios./vegetation surrounding the building. Then, years later the Parks Dept wanted them to add more surface area to service the park at large, and NOT necessarily relating to the building.
I will certainly allocate a few parking spots to the project, but would it really be necessary to re-draw the entire LEED boundary to include the new parking lot and a lot lot of extra pathway, land that is really for the park use and not directly serving the LEED project?
Any feedback on this would be appreciated. Thanks!
Courtney—As I noted before, NCv2.2 had no MPRs. The Boundary rules were more flexible, but also more vague. The v2.2 Reference Guide says little about the Boundary, so you must rely on old CIRs (LEED Interpretations). Stick close to the 2009 MPRs, and you should be safe. However, the old rulings may offer more latitude if you need it.
While researching a similar question, I once downloaded a batch of Boundary rulings from the Interpretation Database. For general Boundary rulings, enter the keyword “boundary” (http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=boundary). Filter by Rating System Version “v2 – LEED 2.2”, Credit Category “Introduction/Other”, and Date from 1999-01-01 to your registration date. Click “Download” and you should get a Excel file with all of the rulings. Change the Category to SS, WE, EA, MR, IEQ, & ID for rulings relating to each.
(The Database is touchy. Filtering the rulings seems to get harder. Even if these instructions work for you now, there’s no guarantee that they will a month from now.)
After researching rulings, we contacted GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). to test our conclusions. They offered some advice, but none of it binding. Once you determine a suitable Boundary, keep track of which Interpretations you based it on in case it is challenged during Review.
If anybody else has some insights….
USGBC's MPR Supplemental Guidance (http://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-2009-mpr-supplemental-guidance-revis...) also may be useful. If you haven’t seen this yet (the link at the top of this page appears broken), this guide very neatly outlines the ins and outs of the LEED-2009 MPRs. It includes many “exceptions” that may not be immediately apparent if you look at the text of the MPRs by themselves.
If you choose to emulate LEEDv3 Boundary rules, this is a good place to start. Then, if you need more flexibility for your v2.2 project, you might find it in the old CIRs.
We are working on a project with 2 stories for underground parking. About the half of the parking space is built for building users as required by local zoning requirements. The other half of the parking space is built for public usePublic or public use applies to all buildings, structures, or uses that are not defined as private or private use., but is also required by the municipality. The parking space for the building users will be reserved through signage.
Can we draw the project boundary between the two underground parking stories and exclude the parking space intended for public use, because only the half of the parking space is built for building users? Or do we have to include the whole parking space?
Thanks in advance!
'The LEED project boundary must include .......all land that was or will be disturbed for the purpose of undertaking the LEED project.'
What if a small section an adjacent campus parking lot that does not serve the building had to be ripped up and replaced for the extension of campus chilled water and steam loops? We are hoping not to have to include this area in the site boundary.
My understanding of defining boundary is pretty straight forward: the building, the site around the building that relates to that buildings operations, and the area of site disrupted by construction.
on this particular site, w/ building use requirements and parking requirements relative to site size, there just isn't much land left to go for "protect and restore habitat" and other things like storm water credits.
I just read the fine print in the supplementary document to MPR's and saw that for the two storm water credits, you can include land that you might not otherwise include - for no reason but to help get this credit?
am I understanding this right?
the owner does own adjacent land, but it is not involved w/ this construction nor is it related to the day to day activities and operations of this building.
based on this, it seems to me that we would be allowed to incorporate a big chunk of that land to pursue storm water credits more realistically.
similarly, under supplemental explanation of MPR - it also states protect restore habitat can use adjacent land that is otherwise not included in LEED boundary IF it is donated to a land trust. what exactly is a land trust? a legal document that requires owner to engage an attorney - for his own land? or just a letter from owner stating they will not alter the use of that land away from native (and non-turf) vegetation?
finally, is there a preferred way by LEED reviewers to show this on the site plan? (it seems wordy to write all this in on the site plan).
I have posted this last week but i haven't got any replies so i am re-posting:
"We have an administration complex consisting of two basement levels having parking and utility rooms, and above ground a 4-storey podium and a tower both serving as office spaces. the two basement levels are shared between the podium and tower and extend over their combined area. The only link between the tower and podium above ground is a corridor/bridge at several floors, otherwise they are independent structures. All components will be constructed at the same time. and will be served from a utility plant outside the project site. The client has requested to certify only the tower as LEED and exclude the basement and podium from the certification. Is this approach acceptable and if yes how do we define the project boundary. Thank you in advance."
We have an administration complex consisting of two basement levels having parking and utility rooms, and above ground a 4-storey podium and a tower both serving as office spaces. the two basement levels are shared between the podium and tower and extend over their combined area. The only link between the tower and podium above ground is a corridor/bridge at several floors, otherwise they are independent structures. All components will be constructed at the same time. and will be served from a utility plant outside the project site. The client has requested to certify only the tower as LEED and exclude the basement and podium from the certification. Is this approach acceptable and if yes how do we define the project boundary. Thank you in advance.
We have a project with the following site constraints:
The LEED Project Boundary includes 2 new buildings: an office tower, and a small bank building. The office tower is part of the LEED Certification, but the bank building is not. However, because the underground parking takes up the entire site area, we have drawn the LEED Project Boundary at the underground perimeter, which means that, above grade, the small bank building is within the Project Boundary.
The PIf4 LEED Boundary plan clearly shows that the small bank building is excluded from the LEED Certification. However, on the template, we have included the entire site area as the LEED Project Boundary, since that is true underground.
For credit SSc5.1, the template automatically calculates the amount of open vegetated space as the LEED Project Boundary - the 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. (in this case we have only accounted for the office tower) x 50%. However, this calculation does not account for the footprint of the small bank building.
Therefore, the question is: how do we account for the footprint of the small bank building which we need to subtract from the LEED Project Boundary in order to arrive at the correct calculation for vegetated space? Should we include that footprint as part of the Building Footprint value (adding it to the office tower)? Or, since the roof of the bank is vegetated with native species, should we include that area as part of the vegetated area (we are achieving SSc2), even though the building itself is excluded from certification?
Our project is a new football stadium on a college campus. Is it acceptable to limit our project boundary to include just the pressbox / suite tower? The pressbox / suite tower and associated spaces will be utilized year round. We would not include concessions and restroom 'buildings' under the bleacher system, which are limited to occupancy during football season only and provided with heat to prevent pipes from freezing prior to being winterized after the season is complete. If it is acceptable to include only the pressbox / suite tower, how would we go about factoring in parking for the project?
I am working on a project where the LEED Boundary had already been set prior to my participation. The project is a Streetcar Vehicle maintenance facility owned on a City block owned by a City. The Masterplan of the the project indicates that a portion of the block could be developed by the city at a later date and leased to the managing company. The team set the LEED Boundary to exclude this entire half of the site because of the possibility of developing this future land.
I am not sure that we can exclude this part of the site from the LEED Boundary. The contractor is utilizing the entire site for construction/staging. They have also had to remove existing underground storage tanks from this area of the site for cleanup of the site.
Please let me know your thoughts. If you do believe that it would be acceptable, how would I document this. The Designer had assumed that we could use a campus or multiple buildings concept. But I believe that you have to document the multiple buildings on a master site to do this.
The MPR very specifically states that any land being disturbed for the purpose of undertaking the LEED project must be included in the site boundary. It further states that if a campus approach is being used than 100% of the gross land area of the campus must be included in the individual building's site boundary.
The team is going to have to revise the site boundary to include the entire block.
Can someone help me with this please?. I am working now in a health care LEED Project. The LEED Boundary was set already when we submitted the MPR. Because the site is tight, the contractor has to store the top soil outside the LEED boundary. Is this acceptable? do I have to add this area into my LEED boundary?.
Your comments are appreciated
I'm still interested to have a point of view!
It seems that it is being disturbed for the purpose of undertaking the LEED project, so it should be included.
MPR3 describe situation for "Project boundaries that include other buildings".
If I understand correctly this is a choice of the project team to include or not those other buildings (with respect of the procedure for blgs smaller or bigger than 1,000sqft).
For building >1,000sqft it's kind of clear, but for ancillary bldgs <1,000sqft I am wondering if it is only a question of strategy or logic. If we want to exclude guardhouses, a waste collection area or let's say a small canteen because they won't bring particular benefits then we are free to do it. If at the opposite they would contribute then we simply include them.
Am I missing something?
We are working on an industrial facility with an adjacent office building that is looking for a NC certification LEED v2009. This project in a future includes several expansions in different phases as adjacent buildings, sharing the same building main entrance.
In the office building the interior space will be connected between phases. In the production area this is different, every phase will have a different process and will be separated with a wall so they will not share any systems, but they still will be sharing the same building entrance in the phase 1.
In this case it is difficult to define the LEED boundaries, because they will share the entrance and they will not be completely independent one from each other, but we cannot register all the phases as one project, because we don´t know yet when all the phases will be finished or if all the phases will be done, and we only have phase 1 in process.
Is there a way to define LEED boundaries in projects that consider future additions for one building, even if they share some elements? I have read the LEED v2009 MPR, which talks about projects with future additions, but it doesn´t mention what happens when the expansion shares elements with the first building (entrance, restrooms, etc.)
Or should the project look for the certification as one building only after the completion of the project?, which is not the best option, because it could take several years to be finished.
Thank you in advance!
Rosamaria, this is not a simple question and a thorough answer would require more detailed information on the area of the various phases and some plan detail.
I have a couple of thoughts, though. One is that with each successive phase you could recertify the whole building under LEED-NC. Basically start fresh each time, relying on the documentation you've previously completed to inform the new certification.
Depending on square footage, this could be done under the LEED-EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems. program, which would be more common.
Another option is to wait for the project to be complete and do it all at once under LEED-NC, or do it all at once under LEED-EBOM.
You can also do the phase-by-phase approach and just make boundaries where it makes the most sense. I think this could work out okay as long as you weren't double-counting site features, or doing anything else that would give a project an artificial advantage.
I agree with Tristan; he has given you good advice. A few more thoughts, have you read through the AGMBC? It should help you think through the additions more carefully.
It also sounds like you have an existing building that phase 1 is either renovating or expanding and renovating. What if you did NC for this phase and then moved them into EB+OM for the future additions?
Finally, I'd recommend reviewing your time frames against the sunset dates for v3 and compare it to v4. If they are long, moving the project into v4 may make the most sense. We do a lot of long range project planning and keeping an eye out for sunset dates has been very helpful in minimizing project impacts down the line.
We are seeking LEED certification for a new office building. A new separate parking garage building (under the same construction contract) falls within the LEED Boundary. I understand that the parking garage will not be certifiable as it does not meet the MPRs for occupancy.
The MRP Supplemental Guidance on page 26 states that
"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."
May we include the non-LEED-Certifiable building for credits that are relevant (as it contributes to SSc7.1 heat island non-roof & SSc4.4 ) and exclude the non-LEED-certifiable building from credits where it is doesn't contribute (eg. MR-5 Recycled content)?
For the Default Budget or Actual Budget for the MR's and IEQ's credits, must we include the construction cost of the non-certifiable parking garage if we are considering it for the SSc7.1 credit? Do we have to consistently apply the inclusion of the non-LEED-certifiable building across all credits?
I'm not sure and would recommend waiting for Tristan's response and/or contacting GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). directly for clarification, but my reading of this would lead me to believe that you would need to either include or include the garage consistently across the entire submittal. I.e. you can include it in "ALL relevant submittals" or exclude it in "ALL relevant submittals". Key word being the "ALL" in my opinion. I would be surprised if GBCI would allow you to include the garage in only SSc7.1 but then not MRc5, etc. To me, that just seems a little like gaming the submission. But again - I'd recommend asking for an official answer from GBCI directly as I could definitely be wrong on this issue (http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact/Contact-Us/Project-Certification-Que...).
That being said - I actually would expect a parking garage to positively impact your calculations in the MR credits (as typical concrete/steel parking garages would generally have significant recycled content and regional material values to contribute...).
Natalie, "relevance" isn't determined by whether including the garage will positively or negatively impact your calculations. It is determined by whether there are materials or systems in place that affect the LEED calculation. In almost all credits (excluding perhaps much of IEQ), there will be something that will affect the LEED credits, so the garage should be included in the boundary and in the submittal docs.
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.