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.
I posted this question before in the forum connected to MPR 2 but I think it relates more to MPR 3 so I'm posting it again:
My client is designing a hotel which will be built in two phases. First phase will consist of the undergroud part, one floor above the ground (bowling, disco etc.) and one tower above this (hotel). The second phase will be an addition and will consist of a second tower placed over the already existing first floor (close to the other tower and it will also be a hotel). The Client wants to have two separate certificates for each phase. How should we register these project to comply with MPRs?
Can we register first phase and then separately register the other phase as an addition? If yes, how do I register an addition, how can I mark in LEEDonline that this project is an addition to a previous project? Another question is: since this is going to be a vertical addition what will be the LEED project boundary? Can the addition use the same project boundary as the other building and get points related to its site or should the baundary be equal to the addition footprint?
Or is it more appropriate to register both phases as a campus project?
Our project is an addition to a school - LEED NC. The addition has separate mechanical systems and a firewall that separates it from the existing building (non LEED certified).
We will be disturbing the site all around the existing non-LEED building, so my understanding is we need to include the existing building in 'ALL relevant credits and prerequisites', unless somebody has some insight!?..
My main question is; what does 'ALL relevant credits and prerequisites' mean?......(e.g. do I include the FTEs for the addition and existing building? etc.). Does it just mean site related credits and prerequisites?
Thanks in advance
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?
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
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 am working on a project that is a part of campus. This project will be located next to a 4-story existing parking garage shared by other adjacent non-LEED certified buildings. The question I have is whether this parking garage needs to be included to the LEED project boundary. If so, does the garage need to comply LEED prerequisites and credits as well? If the existing parking garage should be included to the project boundary, this will include existing hardscapeHardscape consists of the inanimate elements of the building landscaping. Examples include pavement, roadways, stone walls, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios. and landscape features around the garage as well. Does this mean the irrigation water calculation needs to include the existing irrigation area around the garage?
YP, is the parking garage part of the LEED project scope? If not, and it's simply adjacent to the LEED project, then it probably doesn't have to be included in the LEED boundary. If it is being built at the same time under basically the same project scope, and services the occupied building, then I probably would include it, and it would be factored into all relevant credits.
I am working on a project who has two buildings in his land, but only one of them (an office building) will be in the process of becoming LEED NC. Both buildings are sharing the same parking and entrance to the street.
For the Erosion credit, as well as for the LEED site delimitation (we are also considering to maximize green spaces, etc) should I include all the project site or only delimited to the office building and a little bit around?
Thank you for helping.
Laurence, although some of the details here are sketchy, based on what you describe, you would exclude the non-LEED building from your LEED boundary, and applicability for most LEED credits.
For SSp1, it wouldn't really make sense to artifiically limit the ESC plan to the certified building—it would be relevant to the whole site.
We are working on a new LEED NC building that is part of a campus. The scope of work includes below ground parking underneath our building, as well as resurfacing of an adjacent parking lot. It is anticipated that the surface lot will be developed as a new building at a future phase. As such, we are providing a party wall with no fenestration facing this lot. All parking spaces, below ground and surface, will serve the entire campus. A percentage of total spaces will be dedicated to FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. occupants of our building. Given the informatiion above, do you think it is required that we include the surface parking within our LEED project boundary?
Hi Ilana, given the information above I would lean towards a yes answer. Since some of the surface area parking will be used by your NC occupants then you should include the surface area parking within your LEED project boundary. This especially holds true if you have dedicated FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. parking spots on the surface parking area for your new occupants. Since the occupants of your LEED NC project will be using either the surface area or under building parking area, it would be difficult to exclude these areas from your LEED NC project boundary. Please correct me if I am wrong and also please keep me informed on how this goes. Good luck.
Thanks very much for your response. To clarify, the parking we are including will serve the entire campus, which has multiple buildings. Parking is not reserved for nor necessarily used by FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. occupants of the building, though it could be. It is used by whomever on the campus pays for it. I'm not sure if this changes the interpretation however.
Ilana, I'd say it's a tossup whether to include in the current project's LEED boundary. Safer to include, but could arguably be excluded.
We have a project that involves an existing Shop building that will include some electrical and mechanical upgrades, but also part of the project scope is to add on a space to the exterior for classroom spaces, and to gut and renovate the existing interior of an portion attached to the building for some additional classrooms and supporting space. The project seems to meet all the MPR's but I just don't know what rating system this will fall under, since it is the directive to only go for 1 rating for the project scope. help?
Nicole, could you please post this to our rating system selection forum? Thanks.
Is it possible to submit to the Leed certification only one of two adjacent new buildings, an office building and an industrial plant ? Both will be designed & built at the same time, but only the office buliding is intended to be Leed certified.
If yes, how to define the site boundary ? Shall the footprint of the non-Leed new building be included into the total site area ? into the built area ?
I have a similar situation two buildings on a site (dormitory & industrial plant) which will be built at the same time and only one will be certified (LEED 2009 NC).
Answer from GBCI was:
...., just because another building on the site will be under the same construction contract, built at the same time and has the same owner does not mean it must be included in the LEED project submission. Only the portion of the site which is associated with and will be disturbed for the LEED building project must be included in the LEED project boundary. Therefore if work being done on the project site is only related to the non-certifying building, this can be excluded. Most likely when you submit your LEED project for review you will need to discuss which portions are excluded and why they are not related to the certifying building."
Therefore I assume that you do not have to include the non-LEED building in your project boundary.
Thank you very much Elke for your answer, which indeed gives a full answer to my first question.
Could you please (or someone else) now answer the other ones : how to define the site boundary ? Shall the footprint of the non-Leed new building be included into the total site area ? into the built area ?
Serge, there is not a need to include the non-LEED building or site area in the LEED project boundary, just because it is being built at the same time. See the MPR guidance above for how to draw the boundary.
Thank you Tristan, the MPR guidance indeed tells that "a Non-Leed certifiable building on site" can be included within the project boundary, which means that it can also be excluded, as far as "a non-Leed certifiable building" may designate a building that its owner does not intend to certify ...
I need some input.
I have a project with an existing LEED boundary. The client did some site work - hardscaping and landscaping within the boundary after our project was occupied. Does this create a problem for us and our original LEED project? It seems to me that a building owner should be able to work on their site without affecting the certification of a building. Please comment asap -- infact a direct comment to my email is appreciated email@example.com.
Susan, a BD&C certification is really a snapshot in time. It is understood that a building will change over time, and as long as long-term agreements required by LEED such as MPR6 are adhered to, well, there are no LEED police, as people say. Management is encouraged to register with LEED-EBOM to keep the ball rolling.
That said, if the kind of work you describe took place within the scope of work of the project that got certified, then it should be reflected in the LEED application. If the LEED application hasn't yet been finalized, then you should modify it. And, while there aren't LEED police, there is a certification challenge policy discussed in the LEED certification manual.
Our Project consists of land that is property of the owner. Part of the property is private but part of the property will be publicly accesible (although owned by the Project owner) and the owner has the obligation to maintain the área. The part will be impacted in the sense that it is a vegetated área that will be landscaped with trees and an irrigation system.
Question is: Can we include that área in the LEED boundary knowing it will later be "public".
Also, the Project has a parking on the land which is property of the owner. Next to the Project, there is another parking that does not belong to the owner and is public, but the owner has the obligation to maintain it and they will use it. Can we include that part of the parking in the leed boundary, although it is not part of the owner property.
Emmanuel, LEED is not really concerned with how a site is going to be used in terms of public vs. private. What LEED does care about is listed under the requirements above.
The parking is a little more nuanced. Is the parking part of the scope of project work? Does it support normal operations of the building? Check the guidance above and post back here with additional questions and comments.
thanks for your comment. I undestand the landscaping area may be included.
The parking is an existing parking and is not part of the scope of work.
The owner will construct their own parking (adjacent to the existing one) but they will also use the existing parking (which they do not own but which they will use in addition to their private one)
The case can easily be made to exclude the existing parking from the LEED project boundary.
we're facing a complex situation with regard to the determination of our LEED project boundary. The entire site comprises 4 buildings of which only 3 are to be certified at this stage. All 4 buildings are connected via an underground garage that takes up the entire site. Where to draw the project boundary inside the underground garage?
Jens, is there any logical way to divide the garage up among the four buildings? I would look at some way of doing that.
Hello Tristan, there is in fact a division of the garage in accordance with its usage between hotel and office. We were simply wondering if that should be sufficient as an explanation regarding the requirement of certifying a "building in its entity"...
...Also the parking capacity and its subsequent criteria/ credits are influenced as a consequence of dividing the underground garage into a certified part and another part that is excluded from the certification boundary. Is that viable in your opinion?
Jens, the "building in its entirety" is the occupied portion of the building. The parking garage is not really considered LEED-certified space, just within the boundary of the LEED certified building. So if you think of it that way, it makes sense (in my opinion) to divide the garage into functional units corresponding to each respective tower.
Regarding your last question, one thing you should probably watch is that the garage is divided fairly and not "gerrymandered" to the unfair advantage of the LEED project. If this is done fairly and conservatively, then I don't see any issue.
We have the same situation, we are trying to certificate one tower of a complex of three towers, the whole complex have seven underground parking, but only the second underground parking is used by the occupants of our tower, all 3 buildings are connected via an underground garage that takes up the entire site. In this case is possible to define the LEED Boundary one tower and the second underground parking? Tks.
Fabiano, based on your description I'd say that makes sense, yes.
We have currently drawn our LEED boundary to include all areas that our building/scope of work is impacting. As this is a campus there are other buildings and site improvements that the client would like to make in the future. These future projects will also seek LEED certification. There is parking areas that are part of the campus on either side of our project boundary but not within our project boundary. These parking areas are slated to be renovated as part of the future projects mentioned above. We are not adding any parking with our project. The client encourages their staff to use public transportation and near by public parking as the campus has too little parking. Building users are not restricted from using the parking adjacent to our project (currently outside of our project boundary and scope of work). My question Is, is it safe to exclude the parking adjacent to our site from our LEED boundary as the client wants it to be associated with future construction projects and it is not part of our scope of work? I could get the client to write a letter that supports these claims if needed.
Also we seeking clarification on "temporary structures". As job site trailers and C trains (for staging) are temporary will these need to be included in the LEED boundary or can they be excluded?
Lisa, in most projects, jobsite trailers will be within the area impacted by the project and this within the LEED project boundary. However, that doesn't mean that you need to treat them as part of the square footage you are certifying—to the contrary, you most likely shoudn't.
Regarding including the parking, think about whether that parking supports the normal operations of the building, per the MPR language above. I'd review that, and post back here with your thoughts and further questions.
To support this project we installed a geo-thermal system under an existing playing field that is across the street from the new building addition we are certifying. After the geo-thermal field was installed the playing field was replaced exactly as the previous existing field. The field is not-continguous to the project building site. Should our LEED boundary include this area?
Since the geo-thermal field is supporting the project, yet the playing field that was existing has been put back in place and does not support this building, I am unsure whether or not the LEED boundary should jump the street and include this area. Any thoughts?
I think it woiuld be more in keeping with the MPR requirements (the land is being disturbed as part of your construction scope) to include that area. However, because the field is noncontiguous, I could see an argument for excluding it. Ulimately I think you'll need either to include it to be on the safe side, or get an official ruling from GBCI.
We have a project with a similar dilemma. Our building is a public/state project located on state forest land nearby other state owned buildings. The project boundary could be drawn logically to include all land impacted by the project scope/disturbance, EXCEPT that a tracking PV array will be placed 1000 ft away from our immediate site, in an open area between other existing buildings. This actually minimizes the disturbance so we don't have to cut down trees for sun access. Should we include or exclude the PV array platform and the narrow trench we dig to connect the power to our building? If we include the work as on-site, it will be contiguous, but a very long/narrow appendage of the site boundary.
If we exclude this work - calling it off site, we propose to require the same construction limits for the site work done in hopes of getting SSc5.1 (I believe we need to minimize disturbance to 10' for the small utility trench and the PV platform). I also understand that the Renewable Energy would still be counted as "on-site" for EAc2 as long as the energy generated goes directly to our building.
Does anyone have insights or follow-up on this issue?
I would include the PV and trench in the boundary, based on my reading of the MPR3 guidance above.
I'm working on an office project with underground parking. There is a LEED boundary which has been drawn for the street level, but the underground parking goes beyond this boundary. How should we address this situation? We are thinking on presenting the street level boundary as the oficial LEED boundary for the project, and explain the situation on the Special Circumstances section of PIf4. We think this is the best approach, since expanding the street level LEED boundary as a projection of the underground parking would affect many SS credits, and would not be faithful to the project's conception and work activities. Nonetheless, I would like to know your thought on this issue. Any ideas?
Luis, I would handle it as you describe, and basically look at the LEED boundary in elevation view as well as in plan view. I believe this is fairly common for CI projects.
Hi experts, I would appreciate your advice on the follwoing, please.
I am unsure to draw the project boundary in situation described below:
- Entire project site (including dormitory building) will be constructed under the same construction contract, the same time and the same owner.
- Project site is divided by a public road, requirements of MPR3 non-contiguous parcels fulfilled
- Site portion right to the road: main building (90,000 m2) as well as the utility area (process waterProcess water is used for industrial processes and building systems such as cooling towers, boilers, and chillers. It can also refer to water used in operational processes, such as dishwashing, clothes washing, and ice making. tank, gas farm, wastewater treatment plant)
- Site portion left to the road: car parking, shuttle bus parking on the lower part; dormitory building (15,000m2) on the upper part - this building is not going to be certified.
1) Is it possible to exclude completely the upper part of the left site (dormitory building & greenery) from my LEED project boundary, despite the fact that it will be constructed under the same construction contract, the same time and the same owner? (So that my LEED project boundary includes the right project site portion with the main building and the lower left project site portion with the parking spaces for the main building only.)
2) Or do I have to draw the LEED project boundary just equal to my project site boundary w/o considering the dormitory building?
Hoping to get an advise how to proceed...
I think your question boils down to whether you have to include two buildings in your LEED boundary, even though only one is being cerified, just because they have the same construction contract. The answer is that you do not. If I midunderstood the question, let me know!
Hi, we are dealing with new LEED hospitality project. The project will be constructed in two stages (two towers), with common parking under both of them constructed in the first stage. The garage will have one car entry and will serve both towers. Developer decided to certified the I stage of project and he is willing to keep possibility of certifying in future the second stage. We are wondering how to deal and assign in proper way the project boundary for this project for both certifications. Any help will be appreciated.
BH, I would look for a way to apportion the underground parking to each project, i.e. different floors, sections, etc.
Hi all. I have a LEED Certifiable Building (C&S V.3) within a site, that will also have a NON certified building within it. The first is an office building, and the second is a bank (small branch with 4000 sf approximate). The buildings are NOT attached. The offices will be rented and the bank will be sold to another entity. The bank is located in the corner of the lot.
Can I "exclude" the bank area from my LEED Boundary? The issue is that there will be construction going underneath, for all the underground parking spaces for the office building.
Also, the owner is not interested in certifying both... Any thoughts?
Since the project site under the existing Non Certified Building will be used to support the New LEED Certifiable Building and also the underground structure is part of the construction scope, The project boundary should include the gross site in construction scope with Bank marked as Non Certifiable Building on the project. Will the owner retain the Site of the Bank building under his/ her ownership? If that Site with the Bank will not be under same ownership than it can be excluded as per MPR supplemental
We are working on a Core & Shell project and our LEED site boundary includes a large parking lot and landscape areaThe landscape area is the total site area less the building footprint, paved surfaces, water bodies, and patios. along with the building on the plot. We are working with a developer and even though there is no concrete plan for any future development on that parking plot, it could very well be a possibility since it is within their pattern to do so. We were wondering what could be the implications on that building that is built on the parking lot within the current LEED site boundary. Will the developers be able to pursue LEED certification for that new building in future
Heather, if I understand the question correctly, it boils down to whether there is an issue with including an area in your current LEED boundary that could be developed in the future for an undetermined LEED project.
I wouldn't worry about it. Including the parking area isn't going to do you any favors now, so there's not a gerrymandering issue, and in the future, well, things change. I would only watch for any potential double-counting of special site features for your LEED project now that shouldn't also award credit to the project then. For example, if you earned SSc7.1 because of a grass paved parking area now, you couldn't draw that same area into a future project and again use it to earn SSc7.1.
We are looking at a Core and Shell Renovation/Addition. We will pursue 2009 C&S and EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. afterwards. We will be disturbing and repaving a portion of the parking lot to install ground source loops, but will not be touching the rest of the parking lot as it is not in our scope. The parking lot is shared by an adjacent entity. Should the boundary be drawn around only what we are disturbing, or is there be a reason or need to include the remainder of the parking lot? We will repave with a pervious system, and there is minimal landscaping. The project is a train station.
I would only include the remainder of the lot if it supports the normal operations of the project building, and it sounds like it doesn't.
We are workign on this subway station and it has ramps that cgoes across the streets. The ramps are to be built by the project but the space underneath them - since it a street - won't be touched by the project. So we re having a really hard time in definidn the LEED Project Boundary for this project: the property is delimited on the north and south side by walls, on the groundfloor; but the ramps are aerials structures...so what I see as a solution and what makes senses to our project is to consider as the LEED Project Boundary the ground floor for the area delimited by the north and south walls + the perimeter of the ramps, which will be in a different level, since they corss the streets and the streets and sidewalk are not object of this project.
Since the platforms will be in the gorundfloor, within the north/south property walls, and the ramps will be aerial structures crossing the streets I caled it a "tridimensional LPB". I know it sounds a little confusing but I hope I could convey the scenario! So does this apporach make any sense??
any thoughts on the situation above? Long story short, our issue is that the footprint of the 2nd floor goes beyond the footprint of the ground floor. We have for instance a hanging group bathrooms in the 2nd floor, below them is the public sidewalk. And since we are not interferring in the sidewalk it does not make sense to include it in the LPB. So from a site plan perspective, if we draw a LPB that includes the bathrooms we will also be including the sidewalk, you know what I mean?? Not sure how to solve this...
Reminding that this is a public building - a subway station - reason why the property line is not defined very well and there are elements advancing the sidwalk.
We purchased an abandon building which will be renovated for both envelope, Electric, and HVAC. The problem is we will own only have of the building. the another half will be owned by the other firm. Since both renovation will share the same structure but will be separated by wall. (The project can be perfectly divided by half in plan) Each part will have its landcape and walkways. Can we submit only our part of the building and landscape for LEED-NC?
Jatuwat, this is really a question about MPR2. Please review the guidance on that page and post questions under the forum there.
what is the definition of a non-LEED-certifiable building? does it mean your not going to attempt to certify them or that they dont qualify/meet minimum requirements?
Renee, I would interpret that language as referring to buildings that don't meet MPRs. A good example would be a building less than 1,000 square feet in area.
We are constructing a new Core and Shell building on an existing underground parking . Should the parking be included in the project LEED boundary? Will the parking count towards the project leasable area? thank you
Dina, I don't think we have enough information, such as the relationship in function, ownership, and physical boundaries between the two structures, to determine that. What's your inclination based on reviewing the MPR supplemental guidance above?
So if the non-certifying building has an R-22 refrigerant chiller does that need to be addressed in EA Pr3? It does not say "must include".
That language does seem unnecessarily confusing. So I won't try to parse it, but will say that I have always understood that in a situation like what you describe, the ancilliary building must be included in all relevant documentation. I think that is the intent, and it does seem logical relative to LEED. Anyone else have a different opinion?
Not a reply, but an add-on. We have a big, non-occupied utility structure next to the LEED track building, within the LEED project boundary. Thre is no conditioned space, save a small control room that is only accessed occasionally,
This space was included as it is part of the same construction contract and therefore we will include it in all materials credits. I don;t think it has any other impact. So, do we include this in the gross building area? My instinct is NO, as it would bollix up all the calculations for EA and IEQ credits. Correct?
Susan, that makes sense. I would make sure that the situation is transparent to your LEED reviewers in narratives.
I have a similar situation on a project. One certifiable building and one non-certifiable building because it is less than 1000sf and has no FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories.. However, it does have a small space that is conditioned; it does have an awning which provides shading; it does have a SRI compliant membrane roof, and it was built with recycled content/regional materials.
I interpret the above (including in material credits but not in EA and IEQ credits) as meaning that you can pick and choose which credits to account for the non-certifiable building. You say "the ancillary building must be included in all relevant documentation", but does that mean shown and explained why you haven't included it or does that mean actually always include it as contributing to or hindering compliance.
I can including the building in my LEED boundary but how can I include it in credits like heat island effectHeat island effect refers to the absorption of heat by hardscapes, such as dark, nonreflective pavement and buildings, and its radiation to surrounding areas. Other sources may include vehicle exhaust, air-conditioners, and street equipment. Reduced airflow because of tall buildings and narrow streets exacerbate the effect. and recycled content without also taking it into account in the energy model and the ventilation calcs? Seems like USGBC would look at this situations as an all or nothing (include or don't include) situation, but I'm not sure the specific on how either of those options (e.g. leaving a black hole on the heat island site plan or completing an energy model for what is basically an electrical closet) could play out.
Thank you in advance for your assistance!
Lindsey, the ancillary building should easily be included in SS and MR credits. That leaves some EA and IEQ credits as possibly presenting complications. I'd suggest posting specific questions to those relevant LEEDuser forums.
Do you believe that the MPR #3 supplemental guidance statement, "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" allows me to include the ancillary building in the SS and MR credits but not include it in the EA and IEQ credits?
This building has a roof structure that goes beyond the property line in order to shade the sidewalk next to it. It's a public building, that's why. This is a major renovation of a public building so there is some existing infrasctructure next to it like sidewalks and ramps that goes across the side streets that get affected by the project but won't be touched by it otherwise. Must we include such ramps and sidewalks within the LPB? The sidewalks won't be touched, the only way the project is affecting them is because thy are shaded by the roof structure. And the roof strutcture goes beyond the property line. So basically our problem is that the building constructed footprint does not concide with the new roof structure...My question is: can I consider the property line (does not include the complete roof strutcture, the ramps and the sidewalk) as the LEED Project boundary? We will make sure to include the complete roof structure for the credits, like SSc7.2.
Thanks for any light you can shed!
Marcio, I'd say that you can do this, yes.
Dear all, I find these below in contradiction.
If so, does anybody know which is correct?
Supplemental Guidance to MPR revision 2 (1 Sep 2011) - MPR 3:
"3. LEED projects located on a campus must have project boundaries such that if all the buildings on campus become LEED certified, then 100% of the gross land area on the campus would be included within a LEED boundary."
AGMBC 2009 (31 Oct 2011)
"it is not necessary that the sum of all individual LEED project boundaries make up the entire LEED campus boundary area." (p.8)
My understanding of the AGMBC quote is that when LPBs sum less than the LCB (IF MPR 3 allows it): remaining LCB areas excluded from LPBs don't need to comply with SSp1, for example. Since SSp1 can't be applied at Campus level.
I would appreciate experiences/insights on this matter.
Thank you in advance and greetings :)
Do you know which LEED credits have the most LEED Interpretations and addenda, and which have none? The Missing Manual does. Check here first to see where you need to update yourself, and share the link with your team.
LEEDuser members get it free >
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC. Read more about our team
Copyright 2013 – BuildingGreen, Inc.