We have designed a project that is going for LEED NC certification under v3 2009. The project is about 200,000sqft and consists of six floors total. Floors 3,4,5 are meant to be totally identical except the owner will fit out 3rd floor at a later date – maybe in a few years (at a later date than project certification). 3rd floor accounts for about 15% the size of the entire building. The project construction documents just show 3rd floor as shell space.
I'm confused how my LEED reporting needs to account for this unfinished space. LEED CIR-10102 states that, “For credits and prerequisites with established baselines, such as WEp1 and EAp2 (performance path only), and the other credits dependent upon the calculations in these two prerequisites, the proposed (i.e. design) case must be held equivalent to the baseline for the incomplete spaces.”
Based on the CIR above, it sounds like I need to add some baseline-consumption water fixtures in my WEp1 water efficiency calculator as a placeholder for fixtures that could possibly end up in the incomplete space some day. Is this accurate? But adding a baseline water closet and baseline urinal (that would be available to 100% of occupants) completely penalizes the project and takes it from 35% water efficiency (3 credits) down to 22% (no credits). This seems unfair since the project is doing everything it can to maximize water efficiency – so why be penalized based on a future ‘what-if-worst-case’ scenario? Have I interpreted this correctly? Is there a way around this? E.g. would getting an Owner Letter of Commitment, stating that they commit to adhering to water fixtures equivalent to or better than 4th and 5th floor for future 3rd floor fit-out allow us to keep these baseline fixtures out of the water calc? Could a similar commitment from the owner also be used as it relates to EAp2, which address lighting, HVAC, etc? All building systems were sized under the assumption that the 3rd floor would be a duplicate of 4th and 5th floor.
I am also confused about what numbers to include for FTE in the water efficiency credits and IEQ minimum ventilation calculations. Should these include future occupants of the 3rd floor?
David Eldridge
Energy Efficiency NinjaGrumman/Butkus Associates
67 thumbs up
February 12, 2019 - 3:23 pm
The solution is that if there are requirements in place that the future build-out will include fixtures at a certain water efficiency then it may be possible to claim the third floor as efficient fixtures. Without some method to guarantee the fixtures are high performance though the baseline values will be used.
It is indeed a similar effect for the energy credits you mention.
Will the third floor be owner occupied, or will it be tenant fit out?
Hana Altabbaa
February 13, 2019 - 8:50 am
The third floor will be owner-occupied
David Eldridge
Energy Efficiency NinjaGrumman/Butkus Associates
67 thumbs up
February 13, 2019 - 1:24 pm
Keep digging through the CIRs, there should be some precedent for an owner committing to specific levels of performance for their own build-out.
In the case of tenant spaces, this can be provided by using a "Green Lease" that would enforce sustainable features in the tenant's scope. An owner's commitment letter could also be used in this way, emphasize that the owner already invested in the remainder of the building and that due to their needs they are reserving the third floor for some purpose - this is a good thing (which gets credit in Green Globes) that they are responding to their needs for space phasing.
So to cover yourself I would present the base case to the team, but then also move forward to procure documentation that affirms the future build-out will at a minimum follow the current levels of performance.
Hana Altabbaa
March 13, 2019 - 9:19 am
FYI - I reached out to GBCI about this and they had this to say:
Thank you again for contacting us to get clarification regarding the guidance provided in LEED Interpretation #10102. If your project was registered after that LI date, then the project will be held to the guidance provided within the interpretation". So, if the LI is applicable to the project, then, in order to complete water use calculations, per the LI, "the proposed (i.e. design) case must be held equivalent to the baseline for the incomplete spaces". It will not be sufficient to have calculations that reflect proposed design for the 3rd floor along with an owner commitment letter, although the commitment letter will still be required for the purposes mentioned in the LI.
I know this is not the response that you were hoping to receive, but in order to maintain the integrity of LEED-certifying whole-building projects, buildings with incomplete spaces have consistently been held to this guidance since the LI was published in 2011