Hello All,
We are currently working on a project that has a specific situation in the site regarding its LEED boundary that I would like to double check. (LEED New Construction v2009)
The Project consists of a campus with several buildings; the campus is not pursuing certification only TWO separate buildings. (terrain with steep slope)
The two Buildings perusing LEED certification are; an Office building & a Lab building, and there’s a third parking lot building which gives service to the other two buildings and is below grade under the mentioned Lab building. Additionally, there is exterior ground level parking area also for employees shared by both LEED buildings.
Our position for the LEED boundary is as follows;
The LEED Boundary in a Plan view will encompass the full site (same owner). Meaning both LEED buildings, all hardscape and landscape that give service to both buildings, support typical operations and were altered as part of the project. Both LEED Buildings share the same LEED Boundary even though they are pursuing individual certification.
The LEED boundary on a Section view; The main parking building, as mentioned above is below grade, below the Lab building, however it gives service to BOTH LEED buildings as main parking for employees. Hence, the LEED Boundary in Section view include the entire site length (including LEED buildings, hardscape, landscape, etc) and ALSO include the below grade parking structure.
Although this below grade parking is not a regularly occupied space (meaning certain credit requirements will not apply) it still gives service to both LEED buildings so it is considered as part of the LEED scope. Most credits will be pursued individually by each building.
However some credits will apply in this shared parking building.
Does this position on LEED Boundary seem correct?
Example Questions;
For example parking credits or materials credits like MRc5 which requires 20% of regional materials based on cost, can we document this underground parking structure to comply with MRc5 for the Office Building and then for the Lab building double counting it? Or should we separate the materials budget of levels serving each building to document this?
In relation to Commissioning scope, do we Commission applicable MEP systems within this parking building and then include SAME results in both the Cx Summary Report required for each building? Or should we separate scope according to levels of parking serving each LEED building? (EAp1, EAc3)
Regarding the Energy Model, separate the energy consumption from parking levels serving each building and include it in each building’s Energy Simulation?
Basically all these questions are the same, regarding the LEED scope of each building in relation to this shared parking structure.
Thank you for any help in advance
Summer Minchew
Managing PartnerEcoimpact Consulting
LEEDuser Expert
164 thumbs up
February 7, 2018 - 2:54 pm
Adrian - It sounds like you should consider a Group approach. This approach does not mean that you are certifying the campus, this approach is for projects that are on a shared site under the control of a single entity. Check out the LEED Campus Guidance (page 10 for Group) https://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-campus-guidance. I think will help clarify the Group approach and how it might be relevant to your LEED boundary and site questions.
Adrian Arenas
Architect, Sustainability Consultant, LEED AP BD + CAECOM
10 thumbs up
February 23, 2018 - 6:20 pm
Thanks Summer,
I’ve studied the group approach and I’m still a little unsure as to which approach would be the best for this project. It sounds to me like this group approach would be very helpful especially for very “similar” buildings within a same campus. However, in this case the Lab vs Office buildings have very different nature and differ in many key aspects such as Façade materials, interior materials, views, MEP systems, building operations, etc. And if I would group both buildings under one certification it may be harder to achieve credit thresholds as a whole. Also I received changes from the client indicating the parking lot will actually NOT BE SHARED!
So I’m considering if the best option would actually be a Master Site approach. Then both buildings are certified individually under one LEED Campus Boundary, taking advantage of the Master Site credits achieved.
Or
Certify each building individually without certifying the Campus, which would mean both buildings, will have a separate LEED Boundary and will deal with all credits and prereqs separately. Does this sound correct?
Any thoughts will help
Thanks!