The LEED project in question is currently under debate regarding sidewalk upgrade. Originally, the plan was to upgrade the sidewalk, but then that plan was trashed. Now it seems the sidewalk component was back up for discussion due to 8 inch piping work scope from the plumbing engineers that requires upgrading the sidewalk above the pipe. If the scope of the pipe is limiting sidewalk upgrade to just a few square feet, can I still include the whole sidewalk area adjacent to the LEED project building as the "Total project paving area" according to LEED Online, provided that I input the small square footage of sidewalk to be renovated against the "Total project paving area"? I'm already in good standing with the roof component of this credit requirement.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
emily reese moody
Sustainability Director, Certifications & ComplianceJacobs
LEEDuser Expert
476 thumbs up
July 26, 2018 - 8:06 pm
Hi Edgar,
It sounds like you're trying to figure out what your LEED boundary should/should not include.
On most of my projects, we use the limits of construction/disturbance as a guide for what should be included. Occasionally, it makes more sense to base it on the property limits or some other metric that can be logically explained if questioned by the reviewers.
Whatever you decide for your boundary must be logical and justifiable, and most importantly, consistently used on all credits. Based on what you've shared above, it's hard to tell if including the sidewalk as a whole if you're only affecting one small area of it would be justified. If I'm interpreting your question incorrectly, let me know. For the moment, I recommend only including the SF that will be affected.
It should also probably be noted that, in general, it is more advantageous for projects to have more vegetated space than hardscape as part of the site to address heat island issues, as well as to maximize potential credit achievement.
Edgar Arevalo
Associate19 thumbs up
July 27, 2018 - 10:07 am
Yes, that's pretty much what I'm getting at is the challenge of accounting for the whole sidewalk area adjacent to the project building as the "total project paving area" even though the "weighted sum of non-roof measures" is going to be small.
And I agree, I too condense the project boundary within the limits of construction/disturbance. The thing is originally, we had a scope to improve more of the adjacent sidewalk but that was later dismissed and then brought back to life. That made me change the boundary from just the building to back to the building plus adjacent sidewalk. This is a zero lot line project, the project building takes up the whole lot with no space for vegetation, that's why it wasn't a problem to adjust the project boundary to include the adjacent sidewalk area.