My question concerns what is and is not a building for LEED purposes.
We are currently involved in a LEED NC project on the vast working campus of a regional utility. The building which we wish to certify is about 30,000 SF, with 1500 SF of regularly occupied space. The rest of the building is circulation and support spaces (storage, data, etc.) and 25,000 SF of industrial process, not conditioned. The energy model will only include this building.
Our LEED project boundary, established by the area within the same contract, is several acres, and it contains lots of man-made stuff and structures with no occupied or conditioned space: sludge basins, switch gear yard, pads with tank storage on them, generators, etc. We are approaching all of this as if it were paving or infrastructure: that is, these objects only enter into the LEED project in terms of their materials, as if they were paving or landscape elements.
There is an existing switchear building, within the boundary but not part of the project.
The big conundrum is a 49,000 SF, single story structure, mostly enclosed space, but, excepting the 800 SF electrical room, it is not conditioned. None of it, not even the electrical room, is regularly occupied. It is all industrial process area. There is a concrete slab deck over this industrial process area, with no waterproofing assembly. The electrical room is perched on top of this deck, like a little cabin. No part of this building is being accounted for in the energy model.
It is our intention to NOT consider this a building, but rather a facility area, like all of the other ancillary equipment pads, storage and process areas. Is there a flaw in this logic, such as that an enclosed space of this size must be considered a building, regardless of occupancy?
And if it is not a building, how do we treat that deck? Since the space under it isn’t conditioned, in terms of the Heat Island credits, is it site paving?
I am eager to hear if anyone has ever tried to certify a similar project.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11478 thumbs up
April 21, 2011 - 6:32 pm
Susan, have you reviewed the LEED Minimum Program Requirements supplemental guidance document? There are a couple clauses in there about excluding certain auxiliary buildings from your efforts. I would start by reviewing that—I think it will clarify at least some of your questions.
Susan Di Giulio
Senior Project ManagerZinner Consultants
153 thumbs up
April 21, 2011 - 7:08 pm
They refer to being able to exclude 2 small buildings that would be inelegible for certification for several reasons - ours would be excluded because of MPR #5, no occupants. However, like I said, one of these unoccupied ancillary buildings is is BIG (49,000SF). Also we have 2 new buildings to exclude, and two more exisiting ancillary, unoccupied buildings.
These are the unadressed issues that made me post the question.
J.C. Douglass
Environmental ScientistClark Nexsen
1 thumbs up
July 23, 2012 - 9:24 am
I've been looking at ancillary buildings lately myself out of curiousity. Like Tristan said, the MPRs are supposed to limit LEED certification to the regularly occupied building and associated site. I'm sure you're already in construction now, but the topic is interesting. I would think that including these buildings in your SS credits will depend on how you approach it. As I see it, from a practical standpoint, they are acting as impervious areas, they are not acting as open space, they are certainly impacting the heat island effect of the area, and they are shading the hardscape below. Plus the sheer scale makes excluding them seem odd to me. GBCI would have to work with you to figure out the best way to include them in your SS credits. I would suppose it comes back to your client's preferences, as to how far they want to go to promote sustainable design concepts in an industrial setting and how far they want to go for certification, i.e. whether you would exclude them entirely, or file your SS credits as Alternative Compliance Pathways and try to work the ancillary buildings into the credits. I think that a campus approach to sustainable site design is a great initiatve for an industrial property and could be a good green marketing tool.
Hernando Miranda
OwnerSoltierra LLC
344 thumbs up
July 23, 2012 - 1:25 pm
You need to use your judgement. Although there is the MPR restricting LEED to buildings of less than 1000 SF, there is MPR #3.
Regardless of what the GBCI/USGBC claims, they have turned multiple buildings into an automatic rejection rule, without a clear basis or understanding of how a "real world" project is constructed.
A good example is a new or renovated high school. Typically, full of ancillary buildings, and more importantly, separate buildings used by the same population group as part of their work day: Classroom in Bldg 1, Lab Room in Bldg 2, PhyEd Bldg. Is this three LEED fees, or one? The correct answer is one project, one fee.
Here are some of my observations regarding secondary/ancillary buildings necessary to the function of a primary building. I know the GBCI monitors these forums, and I know they monitor me in particular. (Peter T. mentioned my postings here to me.)
Central Plant Serving Only One Building: Must be included, regardless of size, if it is part of the construction documents and only serves the building being construction.
Central Plant Serving Several Buildings: Should be a separate LEED project. Only the energy use associated with the plant should be included, and not any energy provided to other buildings.
Ancillary Buildings Constructed as Part of CD Package - Under 1,000 SF: Must be included if under 1,000 SF. Otherwise, you violate MPR #3. These type of construction should not impact any of the credits pursued. In other words, the LEED credits claimed would be the same with, or without the ancillary structures.
Ancillary Buildings Constructed as Part of CD Package - Over 1,000 SF: A pure judgement call. I would suggest to the GBCI/USGBC to base their decision to demand separate LEED documentation, and thereby more LEED review fees, on: (a) The ancillary structures are less than 10-20% of the project GSF, and (b) they LEED credits claimed would likely not change by more than 2 points.
MPR #3. MUST USE A REASONABLE SITE BOUNDARY
3.1. 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.
3.5 5. Gerrymandering of a LEED project boundary is prohibited: the boundary may not unreasonably exclude sections of land to create boundaries in unreasonable shapes for the sole purpose of complying with prerequisites or credits.
Hernando Miranda
OwnerSoltierra LLC
344 thumbs up
July 23, 2012 - 1:39 pm
I will also repeat something I posted elsewhere on this forum:
I certified a 10 building project as a single LEED project: Multibuilding Residential with shared Common Buildings.
The project did not receive a single complaint about MPRs from the GBCI reviewers. Why? Because someone at the GBCI understood that the project had paid the maximum certification fee possible by submittal as a single project, and it didn't make sense to split the project into pieces.
Review fees paid likely have a bearing on whether you will get a demand to split the project into pieces. What makes more sense to me is for the GBCI/USGBC to setup a fee structure to allow a project to combine buildings, if they are built as part of a single primary CDs, even if multi-phased for construction. The fee structure would be simple.
1. Review Fee of combined projects assuming they are one LEED Building.
2. Review Fee of one LEED project if considered separately.
3. Review Fee of a second LEED project if considered separately.
4. Add the maximum of 1 or 2 to XX% multiplied by the minimum of 1 or 2.
5. Pay the higher fee of 1 and 4.
The XX% accounts for credits that are minimally impacted by the number of buildings: All of the SS, WE and MR credits. These do not require extended review time. Credits like minimum ventilation, energy use, daylighting and view, yes, they require more review time, and fees.