MPR 3.

Xavi, I assume the parking lot is used for the building under normal operations? If so, it should be included within your LEED boundary. Parking is considered normal operations relative to the MPR text you quoted.

Tristan -- Thanks to you, and others, for the wealth of information on this site! This is the first LEED project for everyone in my office and so this site has really been invaluable to our, as yet, less-than-perfectly-coordinated process. Thanks again. This is a question in a very similar vein to Xavi's above, however, even after reading the MRP Supplemental Guidance, I am still unclear as to where I should draw my LEED Project Boundary Here's our situation: We own 2 urban properties separated by a city road. The first property, and the one that we will develop as our C and S LEED project, is an existing one story building (former automotive shop). We are planning on engaging in adaptive reuse, utilizing the existing brick perimeter walls and steel structure, for the first floor (6200 sf), and adding a second floor (5800 sf), to create a 12,000 sf (approximate) mixed use office building. This property is mostly zero lot line with a small amount (350 sf) of pervious area that will be landscaped. The second property on the other side of the city street is a parking lot that we do not want to include in our Project Boundary -- We hope to do a separate LEED NC project here (Alternative Fueling Station) at some point in the relatively near future. Until the Fueling Station project is complete (and potentially beyond that point) we will use this property as parking for property 1. A third property, which we do not own, is a parking lot and storage buildings, and is contiguous to the first property (LEED project building). We have permission from the property owner (also the owner who sold us property 1 and property 2) to use the parking lot and storage buildings to stage material and equipment during construction. We will also place our construction dumpster/recycling in this parking lot during construction and we will extend our construction fence (chainlink) onto this property. After construction, we will not use property three for any purpose. OK - so here's my question: Can we draw the Project Boundary around the Project Building (property line) only or do we need to draw it around (and therefore include in all related credit/prerequisite calculations and documentation) property 3 (temporary staging area that we don't own)? Many thanks.

It sounds like the third property is a previously developed, urban lot that is being used for temporary staging of construction activities, and is not a greenfield area that is receiving any site disturbance (as would be addressed by SSc5.1). If there are no permanent improvements to this area that will support the building on site 1, it sounds reasonable to exclude it from the LEED Site Boundary. If the second property were to be redeveloped to provide permanent parking for the site 1 project, you would need to include it in the LEED boundary for site 1. If the local zoning requires you to provide parking, it seems like you'd have to include that area within your LEED boundary If you are not required to provide parking, and If the second property were legitimately being used for only temporary parking for site 1, you might be able to argue it should be excluded from the site boundary, because it wouldn't be supporting the building, but then you could not use that area for any of the site credits such as SSc4.3 or SSc5 or SSc6. GBCI gives project teams some latitude to define the boundary as they see fit, but if the parking is required it seems like you'd need to include it.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply David - It was very helpful. With regards to property 2 referred to above, I am basing my understanding of Project Boundary exclusion on four pieces of information: a) MPR Language -- "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". This parking lot is not "contiguous" to our LEED project building, but rather, it is separated by a city street (public right-of-way). b) MPR Supplemental Guidance Revision #1 -- "When non-contiguous parcels [MAY] be included within the LEED project boundary: Non-contiguous parcels of land [MAY] be included within the LEED project boundary if the conditions below are met, and at the [PROJECT TEAM'S DISCRETION]...." The "may" and "discretion" language implies to me that the corollary would also be true -- we may also choose NOT to include this non-contiguous land within the LEED project boundary. c) Also, our local zoning does not require parking for this property - we are considered "Downtown Exempt". d) It was also encouraging to hear, from you, that GBCI "gives project teams some latitude to define the boundary as they see fit...". Also, as mentioned in my first post, we are considering developing this parking lot, using LEED NC, as an alternative fueling station (biodiesel, cng, and electric plug-ins), at some point in the future. So, all this being said, I'd love to get a follow-up response from you on this issue of project boundaries. Thanks again for your help!

KC, I'd agree that the lack of a parking requirement and the MPR language on page 23 of the new guidance that says "may be included" and "at the project teams discretion" suggests you some latitude here to draw the boundary as you see appropriate. (Also check the conditions for exclusion at the top of pg 24.) I can't say for sure how a reviewer will interpret the MPRs, but your approach seems reasonable.

Thanks, David - fingers crossed....