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 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.
Dear LEED User Team.
We have a client who is interested in certifying NC a new industrial plant.Adjacent to the future new plant is an existing office building which obviuously supports the administrative operation of the future new plant. However this existinb building will not be part of the LEED assessment or the contract.
Can you confirm the existing office building can be excluded from the LEED project boundary and scope.
Xavier, I would definitely exclude the office building from the LEED boundary and project documentation, as it is a separate building, and existing, etc.
Thank you very much for your response. Always very useful.
Just a final check. The existing office building would share the same party wall as the future new build industrial plant. The future new industrial plant and the existing office block have different entrances, however they are not a completely separate building.
Do you still think it will be safe to exclude the building and there would be no trouble with the gerrymandering issue?
The registered project includes commercial core and shell space with an adjoining housing tower which will be scored under the Evergreen Sustainable Development Standard. In terms of relative square footage, over 60% of the total project area is associated with the commercial Core and Shell, therefore we have registered the project under core and shell.
The team has currently drawn the LEED boundary to exclude the housing portion of the project because the phasing of the project has the housing portion being constructed after the commercial core and shell space and the housing is potentially part of a separate construction contract and separate set of documents. Please advise if this approach is acceptable.
Skotieono, more information is needed to see if these attached spaces can be separated per LEED. I'd recommend reviewing the guidance above and then posting back here with more specific questions.
I am working on a new construction of a hospital building on a site where a new MOB and a shared parking garage will be also constructed.
The owner is pursuing LEED certification for the hospital but not for MOB. Regarding to the project boundary, I assume the MOB will be excluded from the LEED project area since the MOB is not in part of the LEED project scope. How about shared parking lots and shared parking garage? Do I include 100% of the parking spaces to the project boundary?
The surface parking lots and the parking garage will be used by the building users from both buildings.
Any information you can provide me would be greatly appreciated
How is the project phased? How is the land development happening? If all this work was happening around the same time, I would probably have a campus approach to the site. This would mean I may have to figure and proportion things like parking between the two buildings but I'd want to get the land piece done properly for the LEED project. It would also avoid the gerrymandering problems. Develop what you think is a reasonable approach and reach out to your review team.
Thank you, Susan.
Your advice definitely helped me set the project boundary.
About MPR 3, LEED doesn’t say the project shall include non-certifying building within the project boundary in all relevant submittals. Instead, it says, “…the project team can include…”
Does this mean a parking garage can be excluded from MR and IEQ credits? What happens with EA p1 Energy Performance?
I really appreciate your help.
This is posted in the CI forum and most of my work is in NC and HC; caveat emptor! In the Bird's Eye above, they discuss the construction scope. Is the parking garage part of the same construction project and budget as the LEED building? You're in a gray area and at some point you have to make the call. Bear in mind that parking garages can't be LEED certified on their own. Including the garage will muddy up the IEQ and EA credit calculations.
To clarify, this just looks like the CI forum but it is the same forum for all v2009 rating systems for MPRs. Which seems to be more confusing than anything, so maybe I will undo that.
But YP, if the parking garage is in your boundary and in your construction scope you have to include it in all applicable credits, including SS, MR, and to the extent that it is consuming energy, EA.
There are 3 buildings in a single site and these 3 buildings have a shared basement parking. I would like to know if 2 buildings from this site can be certified together under the LEED EB rating system?
For more information, we referred the certification guidance for attached buildings and it states that the LEED EB system may not use this guidance for horizontally attached buildings. Hence my understanding is that, a horizontally attached building is not eligible for LEED EB O&M Rating system or should I refer any other books/guidance to clarify my doubt.
Please do comment on this.
Sathish, LEED-EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. is typically applied to a single, whole building. There is additional guidance posted above about how to interpret horizontal connections. However, generally speaking if only parking is shared between buildings and not HVAC, etc., they are considered separate buildings.
working on an industrial plant located on previous farmland the developer has leased some additional lands where he´s put the site facilities. Do i have to alter the LEED boundary to include these into the LEED project?
In PIForm 1 it says under #3. Must Use a reasonable site boundary
"The LEED project boundary does not include land that is owned by a party other than that which owns the LEED project unless that land is associated with and supports normal building operations for the LEED project building."
The area will be remediated after construction works have been finished.
Thanks for advice
Doreen, the LEED boundary should include all land that is supporting the normal operations of the building, and it is also typical to include all land that it is within the construction scope of the project. How does your project fall under these two measures?
I am remodeling only one floor of a 9-story building. The tenant occupies the whole floor but it is not remodeling all the rooms within their space. The remodel is about 80% of the floor.
My question is: Is the LEED Boundary the full floor being remodeled or only the areas undergoing the remodel?
Luciana, in this case where the remodel encompasses the vast majority of the floor, I think it would be simpler and clearer in terms of your LEED project boundary, in defining the LEED-certified space (a key part of the intent behind this MPR) to include the entire floor. If there are clear ways to distinguish between the LEED and non-LEED spaces, then it might make sense to do that, however.
Thank you Tristan. So if I include existing walls and finished spaces would those qualify for MRc1.2 Building reuse?
That would be a good question to post to that forum on our site. I think the answer is yes, but would want to double-check the info on that page.
I think that cutting that little bit of space out could be considered "gerrymandering" the boundary. I would include them and use them as compliance for MRc1.2 if there is enough there to do so.
Our building includes offices attached to a manufacturing facility by a hallway and kitchen area. The initial goal was to just get the offices and kitchen area LEED certified for EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems.. Is this even possible? I would add the manufacturing portion to the exempted areas section of PIf3 however it states that exempted areas cannot be more than 10% the square footage of the entire building. The manufacturing area is definitely more than 10% of the square footage. Is there anything we can do to exempt this space or is there another type of LEED certification we can seek?
Michael, LEED-EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. is a whole building rating system, and it is typically appropriate to include the whole building. If I wasn't going to include the whole building, I'd want to have a clear distinction between the spaces in terms of HVAC, services, etc., and not just function.
client has a office building (previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development." land) being built along a waterway at a major US port. the building is set back from the water the appropriate amount to comply with regulations. the building is purely an office building, with associated parking. However, the same contractor will also be building a bulkhead at the waterline for barges to dock. the barges that will dock here are related to the company whose office is being built, but the people who work these barges and get on and off will not be using the office building. nor will any "deckhands" that assist at the bulkhead. these people will be using a neighboring other facility.
my question is, would the bulkhead need to be included in the LEED project boundary? The only relation is has to the office building seeking certification is that the land is owned by the same owner, and the same contractor building the office building will also be building the bulkhead. aside from that, they function and operate completely separately.
Michael, it doesn't sound to me like the bulkhead should be included. It is not supporting the main function of the office building, is not connected physically, and only shares owner and contractor only.
I've been looking through the forums and documentation and get some conflicting information. We're trying to establish an appropriate LEED project boundary for our project. It's an office within a sort of company campus. It will be built and connected to an adjacent parking garage (already built) used by the company and its other office buildings. A small percentage of the parking garage will be allocated for this building. No new parking will be built. The MPR guidelines says we can exclude the parking from our boundary if it is not included within the construction scope. But also states we should include any area that services our building. I would lean towards not including the parking in our boundary, but I'm not sure.
Also if we're providing the preferred parkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system. spaces for the fuel efficient vehicles for credit SSc4.3 does that have any impact on whether or not to include the spaces within our boundary?
Can someone please clarify? Thank you.
For LEED-CI, it's generally more common that the parking areas are excluded from the LEED-CI Project Boundary as that shared area is not really in your scope of work/under the direct control of the LEED-CI tenant. That does not impact your ability to still go for the parking credits (similar to how you'd treat the boundary if you had other shared amenities such as bathrooms or a fitness center).
Note that LEED-CI does not include a credit for providing preferred spaces for low-emitting/fuel-efficient vehiclesFuel-efficient vehicles have achieved a minimum green score of 40 according to the annual vehicle-rating guide of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.; do you mean that you intend to pursue SSc3.3 (preferred parkingPreferred parking, available to particular users, includes designated spaces close to the building (aside from designated handicapped spots), designated covered spaces, discounted parking passes, and guaranteed passes in a lottery system. for car/vanpools)?
If you mean to go for SSc3.3, you would just want to provide plans and a narrative clarifying how many spaces of the existing parking garage are allocated to your specific LEED-CI project. The signage would then need to designate those spaces as reserved for your tenant's specific use (i.e. "ABC Company/Dept. Car/Vanpool Vehicles Only"). If you cannot reserve the spaces for your specific LEED-CI space, I have heard of LEED-CI projects being allowed to meet this based on the LEED-NC thresholds (5% of the overall parking capacity of the garage/shared parking lots). LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. 1669 talks about this somewhat when the number of spaces allocated to the LEED-CI space is limited compared to the number required by the credit. Generally a narrative saying that you cannot reserve them for your space but that the building has now provided the amentity to all occupants would probably be helpful to show that you are still meeting the intent of the credit.
One caution - make sure to read LEED Interpretation 10206 regarding which spaces are considered to meet the definition of "preferred" in parking garages when you do your layouts of the newly reserved preferred spaces. Depending on whether your project registered before the LI was posted (7/1/2012), you might be held to this requirement.
Thanks for the reply, I think you get linked to the same forum for all corresponding credits in each rating system. This project is a LEED-NC project so would that make a difference in how the boundary is interpreted?
We are working on a new construction of an office building located on a site where 3 other buildings will be also constructed. The buildings belong to different owners and the boundaries between the buildings above ground are clearly defined. However the 4 buildings share underfloor parking spaces. The parking spaces belong to another owner and are connected to all buildings but specific parking spaces are dedicated to each building users. In addition in these 3 underfloors of parking spaces under the building to be certified there are storage spaces as well as the central technical room for ventilation belonging to the owner of the building to be certified.
My question is: do we have to exclude the parking spaces from the LEED project boundary? In this case can we still use the parking spaces to earn the credit under SSc4.3 and SSc4.4 and how? or is it possible to include the parking spaces even if it belongs to another owner? In this case, we should maybe make sure that if the other buildings decide to get certified they cannot certify our parking areas with them and the parking floors must be clearly separated. is that right?
What does LEED say about multiple ownership? What does LEED say about using areas to earn credits that will not be certified with the project?
We are welcome to any comment, previous experience or advices.
Severin, as this is mostly about compliance with SSc4, I would suggest posting your question to SSc4.3 or SSc4.4 (whichever you are most concerned about). It would make more sense to look at the specific issues in that context.
My project is a renovation of one floor of a 4 story office building. The entire floor is leased by one tenant. No initial fit-out is in the scope of work. We are targeting LEED CI certification.
The renovation is in pockets of work in 5 different areas.
In this situation I understand LEED still wants the certified portion of the project to be clearly definable from areas not included in the project boundary.
I see 2 options for defining the project boundary:
• Link the different pockets into one larger space. This would result in an alteration of less than 60% of the project boundary, which appears to not be enough according to the supplemental guide. It would also be hard to clearly define the project boundary.
• Only certify one chunk of the project, 2,900 square feet of conference rooms & reception, all in one area and easier to define the project boundary. The other smaller pockets of work would not be included in the project boundary.
I believe the second option is the obvious choice. Please comment if you see any issues with this approach.
I plan to upload the plans showing the LEED project boundary for design review.
I appreciate the help.
I believe that you can certify the large floor plus the pockets and that there is language on this in LEED. (For some reason the AGMBC comes to mind but doesn't make sense for CI but I'll keep working on it.) Hopefully someone will come back from break and know.
Jerry, I agree that option 2 is more obvious and clear. However, there is the disadvantage of documenting a smaller space within the context of a larger project. I would explore option 1 a bit more. When you reference the 60% threshold, are you referring to the rating system selection guidance? ... Because that has a flexible threshold of 40%–60% for rating system selection. Perhaps a larger boundary would be a better fit with the rating system, and in terms of your documentation.
My case is similar, I am remodeling only one floor of a 9-story building. The tenant occupies the whole floor but it is not remodeling all the rooms within their space. The remodel is about 80% of the floor.
My question is: Is the LEED Boundary the full floor being remodeled or only the areas undergoing the remodel?
I am reposting this question, hoping to get a response. It was under PIf2, but maybe this is the better area to post it.
I am working on a new building being added to an existing corporate campus. The project includes a new building and a new skyway connection to an existing building. Under the skyway, very minimal work will be done. It will be limited to that required to support the structure.
The skyway is being included within the LPB, but the LPB won't go to the ground in this area. It is my understanding that LPB's can work in three dimensions. When calculating the "total site area within the project boundary," therefore, I am inclined to exclude the square footage of the skyway. Or only include the square footage being disturbed to support the skyway.
Does this seem like a logical approach?
Thanks in advance
I would include the skyway itself within the LEED project boundary, and also include any ground support. Seems logical.
We are currently preparing our project for final review, and realized that that we drew our project boundary in such a way that disqualifies us from SSc8. We need this credit to reach Gold, and are therefore considering redrawing the boundary so that the light trespass stays within the 10' allowable boundary. This won't negatively affect other credits (some of which were already approved), but we are concerned that GBCI will disqualify us for redrawing the boundary in order to gain a point.
The reference guide states you can't gerrymander to "exclude" portions of the site, but we want to INCLUDE more of the site. Do you think they will accept our redrawing of the project boundary?
A speedy reply would be much appreciated!
CM, as long as you are following the principles in terms of drawing your LEED boundary, i.e. including land within your construction scope and supporting the building activities, and not overreaching in a way that isn't compatible with that, I don't see any issue.
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?
Santiago, start by reviewing the MPR supplemental guidance above. What's your opinion from that? Remaining uncertainties?
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?
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.
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 2014 – BuildingGreen, Inc.