Site Boundary

I would say yes. But you have to be sure that any site credits that are affected by this change are updated as well. For instance if you hardscape area increased, you have to take this into account for SSc5 credits.

Absolutely. Thank you Larry.
Do you know if there would be any problem if the boundary changes from Precertification to Design or Construction Review?

As long as nothing crazy has happened to your boundary and you're still meeting MPR #3, then my guess is no. Always good to provide a brief explanation of what happened to eliminate any doubt for the reviewer.

Ok. Thank you Larry. I'll will follow your advise.

Satya,

I'd reccomend reposting this question under the credit specific forum for SS credit 2 here.

Hi Jennifer,

I doubt GBCI will allow a complete floor to be excluded from an NC project. I would reccomend contacting GBCI directly about this question.

My only thought is that you could try to start over and call your NC project an addition, in an attempt to wholly exclude that floor. But I'm not sure this would work, and I'm not sure you can start over.

Again, you should contact GBCI.

Scott, my understanding is that the AGMBC is an optional tool, and not something that you are required to apply in a situation like yours.

The issue I would worry about here is double-counting of site features—features that benefited the first LEED project and that will now benefit the second. I am not completely sure that this is an issue, and I can't think of an example, but it's something to watch for.

Scott,
Tristan is right about double counting; SSc4.4, may have an impact depending on the option used; as well as SSc5.2 if the original project had "Dedicated Open Space" within the LEED Boundary. Check also on the stormwater and water efficient lanscaping credits.

Melissa, check the LEED Minimum Program Requirements supplemental guidance. I recall that there is some allowance for disregarding auxiliary buildings like this.

Dana, I picture it as more of a jigsaw than including the whole campus in one LEED project boundary.

I don't think you're required to use the AGMBC, given that this is one project.

Veronika, sorry for the slow reply to your question, but could you please post this under our FTE forum? THanks!

Xavi, I assume the parking lot is used for the building under normal operations? If so, it should be included within your LEED boundary. Parking is considered normal operations relative to the MPR text you quoted.

Thanks Tristan. What if the parking lot we are using for materials stock is for the warehouse. And there is another parking lot for the office building. Can I leave it out of the boundary even thogh it's being used for the LEED project materials stock.

Tristan --

Thanks to you, and others, for the wealth of information on this site!
This is the first LEED project for everyone in my office and so this site
has really been invaluable to our, as yet, less-than-perfectly-coordinated
process. Thanks again.

This is a question in a very similar vein to Xavi's above, however, even
after reading the MRP Supplemental Guidance, I
am still unclear as to where I should draw my LEED Project Boundary

Here's our situation:

We own 2 urban properties separated by a city road.

The first property,
and the one that we will develop as our C and S LEED project, is an existing
one story building (former automotive shop). We are planning on
engaging in adaptive reuseAdapted reuse is the renovation of a space for a purpose different from the original., utilizing the existing brick perimeter
walls and steel structure, for the first floor (6200 sf), and adding a
second floor (5800 sf), to create a 12,000 sf (approximate) mixed
use office building. This property is mostly zero lot line with a small
amount (350 sf) of pervious area that will be landscaped.

The second property on the other side of the city street is a parking
lot that we do not want to include in our Project Boundary --
We hope to do a separate LEED NC project here (Alternative Fueling
Station) at some point in the relatively near future. Until the Fueling
Station project is complete (and potentially beyond that point) we will
use this property as parking for property 1.

A third property, which we do not own, is a parking lot and storage buildings,
and is contiguous to the first property (LEED project building).
We have permission from the property owner (also the owner who
sold us property 1 and property 2) to use the parking lot and
storage buildings to stage material and equipment during construction.
We will also place our construction dumpster/recycling in this parking
lot during construction and we will extend our construction fence
(chainlink) onto this property. After construction, we will not use property
three for any purpose.

OK - so here's my question:

Can we draw the Project Boundary around the Project Building (property
line) only or do we need to draw it around (and therefore include in
all related credit/prerequisite calculations and documentation) property
3 (temporary staging area that we don't own)?

Many thanks.

It sounds like the third property is a 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.", urban lot that is being used for temporary staging of construction activities, and is not a greenfield area that is receiving any site disturbance (as would be addressed by SSc5.1). If there are no permanent improvements to this area that will support the building on site 1, it sounds reasonable to exclude it from the LEED Site Boundary.

If the second property were to be redeveloped to provide permanent parking for the site 1 project, you would need to include it in the LEED boundary for site 1. If the local zoning requires you to provide parking, it seems like you'd have to include that area within your LEED boundary

If you are not required to provide parking, and If the second property were legitimately being used for only temporary parking for site 1, you might be able to argue it should be excluded from the site boundary, because it wouldn't be supporting the building, but then you could not use that area for any of the site credits such as SSc4.3 or SSc5 or SSc6.

GBCI gives project teams some latitude to define the boundary as they see fit, but if the parking is required it seems like you'd need to include it.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply David - It was very helpful.

With regards to property 2 referred to above, I am basing my understanding of Project Boundary exclusion on four pieces of information:

a) MPR Language -- "The LEED project boundary must include all contiguous land that is associated with and supports normal building operations for the LEED project building, including all land that was or will be disturbed for the purpose of undertaking the LEED project".
This parking lot is not "contiguous" to our LEED project building, but rather, it is separated by a city street (public right-of-way).

b) MPR Supplemental Guidance Revision #1 -- "When non-contiguous parcels [MAY] be included within the LEED project boundary: Non-contiguous parcels of land [MAY] be included within the LEED project boundary if the conditions below are met, and at the [PROJECT TEAM'S DISCRETION]...."

The "may" and "discretion" language implies to me that the corollary would also be true -- we may also choose NOT to include this non-contiguous land within the LEED project boundary.

c) Also, our local zoning does not require parking for this property - we are considered "Downtown Exempt".

d) It was also encouraging to hear, from you, that GBCI "gives project teams some latitude to define the boundary as they see fit...".

Also, as mentioned in my first post, we are considering developing this parking lot, using LEED NC, as an alternative fueling station (biodiesel, cng, and electric plug-ins), at some point in the future.

So, all this being said, I'd love to get a follow-up response from you on this issue of project boundaries.

Thanks again for your help!

KC,
I'd agree that the lack of a parking requirement and the MPR language on page 23 of the new guidance that says "may be included" and "at the project teams discretion" suggests you some latitude here to draw the boundary as you see appropriate. (Also check the conditions for exclusion at the top of pg 24.) I can't say for sure how a reviewer will interpret the MPRs, but your approach seems reasonable.

Thanks, David - fingers crossed....

Xavi, stormwater treatment infratstructure, etc. is considered as supporting normal operations and in that sense should be included in the LEED boundary for that reason. On the other hand, since that infrastructure is shared with other facilities on the site, the LEED MPR supplemental guidance gives you discretion on apportioning it with other buildings, so you should be able to do that. Just do it consistently across all credits.

James, I would simply put the boat landing within the project boundary. I can't think of any reason why this should be avoided.

Really?
Of course the boat landing is within the boundary. Can the boundary extend into a lake is the question. In the summer, the dock would need to be illuminated such that boaters can safely navigate to it. In the winter the landing is essentially a public road to provide access to the lake for ice fishing, so it should also be illuminated. Hence the reason to ask if the boundary can extend into the body of water to include the dock. Simply doing what you suggest in this matter does not address the issue.

I am not sure why it doesn't address the issue, or why the boundary can't extend into the water?

It sounds like it is basically part of the LEED project, so should be included. I can't think of anything in the LEED MPR's that would exclude it, although it certainly is a little unusual. Have you had any feedback from GBCI or anyone else on this?

James,
See the comment under your SSc8 post for "Waterfont sites"

Deborah, version 2 of that MPR supplemental guidance is out!

Tristan, many thanks! Your updates alone are worth the price of admission.

I would consider the parking to be a separate project and exclude the parking from the site boundary. Given that LEED prohibits you from gerrymandering or otherwise creating strange site boundaries, I think this is reasonable. However, if you are trying to achieve either SSc4.2 or 4.3 you may be forced into campus-wide parking calculations -- I'm not sure. You may want to review the LEED NC Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects.

I would also suggest that you check the SSc4.4 forum for a discussion on a related topic.

I would include the parking as part of the project if it is an integral part of normal building operation. The fact that the parking addition was required says to me that it is.

"1. The LEED project boundary must include all contiguous land that is associated with and supports normal building operations for the LEED project building, including all land that was or will be disturbed for the purpose of undertaking the LEED project
2. The LEED project boundary may 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.." - MPR 3
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6715

I really appreciate your input. I agree CI seems like it will be a better fit for the project. We excluded it originally because of the owner occupancy issue. The entire HVAC system and plumbing fixtures will be replaced for the Corp Office Renovation. Mechanicals are not shared between the Corp Office and the Warehouse.
The building is fairly old and definitely NOT build to LEED-CS. We do qualify for several Site Selection credits though and are not unduly penalized under the NC system even though we are not planning to pursue any of the credits as they pertain to roof or landscaping other than lighting.

Phoebe,

Below are the Minimum Program Requirements from the USGBC. This should help to answer your question. Let us know if you have more specific questions after reading this.

LEED projects must include the new, ground-up design and construction, or major renovation, of at least one building in its entirety.

Specific Allowed Exceptions:
Horizontally attached buildings (including additions).
Horizontally attached buildings may be certified independently provided that the following two conditions are met:
a) they are physically distinct (see definition in Glossary)
b) they have unique addresses or names.

If these conditions are not met, the structure is considered a single building and must be ertified as such.

Physically Distinct: The condition in which a building has both of the following:
a) exterior walls that are party walls or are separate from adjoining buildings by air space
b) lighting, HVAC, plumbing, and other mechanical systems that are separate from the systems of adjoining buildings. LEED project boundary lines that “slice” through party walls must not pass through any mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) service infrastructure. Exceptions include buildings served by a common or shared chiller plant or heating water, or steam supply pipes (i.e., not air ducts), and only if the thermal energy serving the structure to be separated is sub‐metered.

Thanks,
Shannon

Hi, I have the same problem.
This is an existing warehouse attached to the office building to retrofit. There are not party walls, there is just one wall dividing the office and warehouse with window in it so the engineers could verify the process from the office. In fact it is the same roof structure for both of them, since the office space is kind of embedded in the north facade of the warehouse. The warehouse roof just continues as part of the office space. The buildings have separate systems and services.

Phoebe,
In some regions, there may be higher utility or government incentives for achieving NC instead of CI, but beyond those I can't think of any significant advantages in earning one rating vs. the other. You may find the soft costs a bit lower for CI than NC, especially for the EA credits, but you will need to account for furniture.

Xavi,
It sounds like the office may be "serving" the warehouse space since the windows are used to supervise the operations there, so it may not meet the intent of separate buildings that are horizontally attached. It is possible that reviewers would consider it a single building. You would need to submit a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide for clarification of the MPR to know for sure.