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.
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?
Thanks for any advice!
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!
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 sytems. 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 GBCI 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.
I am working on a building on a hospital campus. The Site Boundary over which the charity building owner has a lease includes an area (about 1/5 of the total site area) that is to be landscaped by the hospital campus i.e. we will just leave this area empty at the end of construction and the hospital will complete landscaping at some stage. This means that we do not have any details on what the landscaping design will be (although the masterplan indicates that the site will be landscaped with local native plants). Can I exclude the section that will be landscaped by the campus but ultimately within the boundary of area we have a lease over? Or do I have to wait / push a 3rd party to provide suitable documentation showing he landscape design of this space. This obviously impacts the irrigation credit and the site selection credits.
I think you need to include it if you are leasing it and your construction disturbs it. Just leaving it empty and waiting for someone else to do something doesn't align with environmentally positive construction practices.
Since the hospital will use native plantings eventually, they must have some sensitivity to LEED. I would reach out to the hospital or other project team and find a way to get this done.
Thanks Susan. I do agree - I will talk to the hospital - I think the main issue will be with timing - i.e. they wont do the design until we are nearly finished construction and then they will do their design. This will mean that we wont be able to submit for a Design Review (or will have to wait until construction is nearly finished to do it).
I present a case to confirm the selection of certification must have a project.
In a lot of 3900sqf there is a two-storey house with a total area of 4500sqf built on an area which over the years has changed from residential to commercial.
The owner has made a lease for 10 years of the lot, with all the home built to a bank branch, because now the street has become commercial use.
The bank branch has developed an architectural proposal for modifications in the home without demolishing the lot at 100%, it is estimated that approximately 4840sqf culminate. This intervention has an extension on the second floor, and a reduction in area occupancy of the facade to give option to park users; also walls within the project will be demolished to make a distribution according to a bank branch. New specialties to the project (electrical, sanitary, air conditioning, mechanical, etc..) Will be proposed and currently not supply future needs.
Considering this should register the project for LEED-CI certification or LEED NC: MR?.
If more Scopes are required to resolve this consultation do not hesitate to submit it.
Alan, from the details you have provide this sounds like a major renovation and should be considered for LEED-NC.
We are building a LEED project next to an existing road. It is a gravel road owned by the same entity that owns the LEED project, and they also own the property across the road. We will be changing the grades and ditches on our side of the gravel road. Is it reasonable to put the LEED boundary straight down the middle of this road?
Lawrence, that seems quite reasonable to me.
We have a campus project consists of 2 towers with retail corporate considered LEED CS and 2 residential towers that are not LEED certified , is underground parking on 5 levels with a design criterion of energy-efficient lighting from standard ASHRAE 90.1-2007 .
For the operation and functioning of parking lots, are separated as follows :
The distribution of the parking lot corresponding to the residential towers are located in the basement 1, 2 and 3 to 50 %
The distribution of the parking lot corresponding to the office towers and retail are located in the basement 1, 2, 3 to 50% and 4, 5 in 100% of the entire parking lot.
It is important, the separation of parking from levels 1 , 2 and 3 are physically divided by a wall.
Our question is :
How do we consider our LEED Baundary , as parking in residential towers do not apply for LEED?
Gabriel, I am going to focus on the question you asked at the end and the put aside the other detail for now. Let me know if this approach is confusing.
Are you referring to the 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. stating that parking garages cannot be LEED certified? If so, that only applies to certifying parking garages on their own.
Parking supports the normal operations of a building and should be included within the boundary. In your situation it is typical to divide up parking areas and levels among individual LEED projects.
The question we have is in the EAp2 in the energy model, considering the parking garage of the residential towers will not be LEED certified.
We do not want to benefit from an area that is not for us.
Reviewing the forum mentioned that there was no problem in dividing the parking garage operation.
What do you recommend?
I posted this in the PIf1 forum before seeing this one. I tried to delete it there, but couldn't see how. Sorry for the repost.
The project in question is being constructed on an dense, urban medical campus. All future buildings on campus are to be LEED.
The site was originally a surface parking lot. This project is using half the site. Apx half the parking lot is to remain and is being disturbed by rework (some new islands, etc) for updated traffic flow, repair as the existing lot is being used as construction layoff space, and some utility work. The original LEED boundary we drew was the same as the construction limit line on the drawings - including everything I described above. In the future though, there has been some initial planning for another building on an adjacent lot. At that time the remaining parking lot from our project would be demo'd for part of future 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. and vegetated, pedestrian plaza. The LEED boundary required for that future project overlaps with disturbed area from this project (and our current LEED boundary). This seems like a typical situation for urban campus' as the next project might not be for 10 years and the site needs to look finished in the interim.
It seems no matter how we draw the boundary we are in conflict with requirement 1 or 4 of MPR #3.
MPR #3 requirement 1 states that 1.The LEED project boundary must include... all land that was or will be disturbed for the purpose of undertaking the LEED project
MPR #3 requirement 4 states "no given parcel of real property within the LEED project boundary has ever been or ever will be attributed to another LEED project building"
I have many, many thoughts about this exact issue and have discussed this with USGBC and GBCI people. Here are some thoughts beyond yes, this is a problem.
1. Carefully consider declaring this a campus and using the associated guidelines. This keeps you out of MPR3, requirement 4 issues. However, there are some very real downsides to making the hospital a campus.
2. Review any site items that were done or will be done for the project years prior to the building occupancy. One of our projects had a road constructed in a separate project that I included in the LEED boundary for a current project. The road had to be built for the LEED project to occur so for me this fell into requirement #1. While talking to the GBCI, they were surprised that I had had that interpretation and they were going to discuss this kind of issue internally. In short, there may be some leeway, which leads to my next thought.
3. Talk to the GBCI and get them to pre-approve your LEED project boundary. Hospitals have some of the trickiest project boundaries around and it is going to take a conversation with them. Getting something from them in writing will help when your in final review and the reviewers have all changed. You know it takes years for hospital project to get built.
4. I interpret requirement 4 on hospital campuses to mean those credits like storm water that are meant to be 'lifetime'. Avoiding those kind of credits with your current project should help your future arguments if you do not declare the hospital as a campus.
As for what we do here, we tend to avoid the campus declaration if we can. We don't like the thought that the whole existing building / collection of buildings would need to be considered. We have been able to work around MPR issues by talking with the GBCI and in some ways, getting lucky. We do have one urban hospital with a campus since there was no way around it. Fortunately, it is not a massive urban campus.
Thanks for all your insight. This is not the first LEED project on the campus for this organization (making it more confusing is the campus is made up of multiple organizations) and I doubt at the current design/construction phase registering a Master Site is a viable option.
I believe we will need to push forward as a single building certification.
You recommended to talk to the GBCI and get them to pre-approve your LEED project boundary. What channels have you used to communicate with GBCI/USGBC? Did you have it approved as a formal inquiry?
I have used the contact us link from the website, but those response emails seem to take weeks if not a month to receive. I hear you can have a representative assigned to your project but only after the design submission has been made? Any information you have about quickly and efficiently communicating with GBCI would be appreciated.
I am working on a new residence hall for a college campus and have a couple of questions in regards to the LEED project boundary.
Due to multiple scheduling impacts, the site work and deep foundations for the project was done prior to completion of the building documents, and due to overlapping construction on campus, a portion of a future project to re-route the campus chilled water loop was included. I understand the LEED project boundary should include any site disturbed by the construction of the project, but all of this was done ahead of time under a separate project contract, completed by a separate contractor while the building documents were being completed. The building documents were then bid out separately.
In addition, an adjacent street that was to have minimal disturbance was completely redone to accommodate the new campus chilled-water loop, which was only done to minimize the construction at this location after the completion of the new residence hall. Had it not been added, it would have been done with the rest of the chilled water loop project in the future. It just seemed easier and cheaper for the University to add that section now while the area was already being disturbed.
My question is if we need to include that street as part of the LEED project boundary? It is rather steep and downstream of our water quality unit, thus making it impossible to achieve the storm water quality water credit. I don't want to exclude it if it is going to be viewed as gerrymandering the site, but if that portion of the chilled water loop project had not been included into the site and deep foundations project, I do not think we would have included it anyway. Is that, along with the fact that it was done as a separate project/contract enough to exclude it from the LEED project boundary? Or would it just be considered a phase of the building project and thus need to be included?
We are working on a project that consists of 2 buildings: office building and workshop building. The owner wants to certify only the office building.
The land is all owned by the same entity and there is no property line to divide the 2 buildings. The buildings have a shared parking lot, pedestrian 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., roadways around the buildings, and utilities area (with separate meters).
Can we draw a boundary line directly through the pedestrian hardscape where the office is separated from the workshop? If so, how should we include the shared parking lot, hardscape, utilities area in the LEED project boundary?
- Attempting LEED EB: O&M Certification for a historical train/transit station
- The first floor of the station has an opening/threshold (no enclosures) that connects to an underground tunnel that lead to the railway terminals/portals.
- The first floor of the station has a separate MEP system from that of the connecting tunnel
- Even though the station and tunnel are technically connected, can the LEED Project Boundary exclude the tunnel since it's only purpose is for circulation and the MEP systems are separate?
I am currently defining LPB for 3 different LEED projects under the same developer. The underground parking area is shared between the buildings in these projects.
I understand that an LPB can be 3 dimensional. However, the basement is of irregular shape and there are no demarcations of dedicated lots for the users of each building.
I am at risk of "invading" into the basement of a building from another LEED project while I am trying to get enough parking lots for my current one. Is this acceptable?
Kent, I would avoid "invasions." Draw your current project's LEED boundary in a way that will allow for reasonable boundaries for the other projects as well.
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?
Xavier, for connected buildings I recommend reviewing the guidance posted at the top of this page.
However, a party wall separation, and separation of HVAC, electrical systems, etc, is typically sufficient for LEED purposes.
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.
Hi Tristan, I have a related question. I am working on a new construction project that has both a building on land and on the river adjacent to it. The building in the river will NOT be mobile, it will be tethered down. These buildings are being constructed simultaneously by the same owner. They also share an address. Does the building on the river comply with this MPR and if so, can it be included in our single project registration?
Karen, what are the functions of the two buildings and are they related? Typically LEED-NC is a whole building, i.e. single building, rating system, but there are exceptions to that, particularly if the buildings are closely related in function.
Part of your question seems to be about MPR2, so I'd post your question there.
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
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.