Our new construction project is a new fitness center on the periphery of a community college campus, which is adjacent to a landscape valley (with no density). We are attempting credits SS credit 2 and SS credit4.1, by defining the “entrance” of this project as center of campus, which represents an overall campus perspective and not the individual project site. It is known that the pedestrian network (students/visitors) uses the campus as a whole, instead of getting dropped off at the entrance of specific buildings. Student and visitor parking and drop off zones are designated and adjacent to campus entrances. Considering all students and visitors will be coming from and entrance point and navigate through the campus, when using the new fitness center. We are going to move the center of the radius for SS credit 2 “Development Density and Community Connectivity” and SS credit 4.1 “Public Transportation Access” to the center of the campus. The client will not support the documentation effort for a campus approach within the “master site”, so I am asking for the validity of the above mentioned approach.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Ellen Mitchell
331 thumbs up
June 2, 2014 - 4:24 pm
I'm not sure I entirely understand your situation, but I think in general you are going to have a hard time getting the reviewers to accept a scenario where you are not using the LEED project building as the center of the radius. If you had a multiple building scenario, LEED will let you draw radii around multiple entrances and use the aggregate area as your boundary but it does not sound like that is the case here. It is also important to note that the community connectivity option is not available for the master site if you are using the campus approach.
emily reese moody
Sustainability Director, Certifications & ComplianceJacobs
LEEDuser Expert
454 thumbs up
October 6, 2016 - 1:16 pm
Hi Ellen,
I think I might have a scenario similar to what you're describing above. We have three individually registered buildings seeking their own certifications. They are near each other, but for a myriad of reasons, the Campus approach where the projects would share all campus credits and submit with a Master Site wasn't appropriate for our projects. The three buildings are located within a secure campus that is not officially military (military contractor), but does have a high level of security required to access it. There are several other existing and planned facilities for the campus; all buildings within share parking and other site features. There are only 3 access gates that everyone must filter through.
My question is: Is this an acceptable scenario like the one you describe, where we would be able to have one graphic showing all three buildings' radii as well as identify the aggregate radius area, and use that aggregate center point as the center of our 0.5 mile radius for the residential area and services? We would use the same documentation for all three projects.
emily reese moody
Sustainability Director, Certifications & ComplianceJacobs
LEEDuser Expert
454 thumbs up
August 29, 2017 - 4:56 pm
Any updated thoughts on my above question? These projects are at submission time now and could really use these points...thought I'd check just in case.
Allison Smith
Sustainable Design LeaderHKS, Inc.
42 thumbs up
August 29, 2017 - 6:40 pm
Ellen was referring to the a Group certification but that's not what you describe. See LEED Campus Guidance for additional guidance on Group certifications. LEED also allows for you to use multiple main entrances to document the credit (see Implementation section in the credit guidebook).
Since you are describing individually certified buildings, you cannot combine the boundaries for all the projects into a group, instead you must document each project individually (but can use multiple main entrances if appropriate).