Question

Interesting question, and I checked the LEED-CI MPR's (min. program requirements, as found in the rating system document here) to review the issue.

In MPR #2, it says "The LEED project scope must include a complete interior space distinct from other spaces within the same building with regards to at least one of the following characteristics: ownership, management, lease, or party wall separation."

If I'm reading it correctly, the space could be owned by the occupant, but be separated by a party wall from other spaces in the same building, and still qualify for LEED-CI and thus for MRc1.1.

I can shed some light on this issue with a project we recently inquired about.

In addition to the MPR, you need to look at the document called "Rating System Selection Guidance," (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6667 ) which at first appears to say that if the occupant of the space is the building owner, then you cannot use CI. Specifically, it says CI is appropriate "... for interior spaces that are undergoing alteration work for at least 60% of the certifying floor area." However, use NC if the following two statements are true: "1) the entity conducting the work leases or owns and controls 90% or more of the building the space is located in, 2) the same entity is conducting new construction or major renovation in 40% or more of the gross floor area of the building."

In our case, our client, the owner of the building, wants to build out 75% of the building for their own use and certify this space using CI. By the rule above, we at first thought this wasn't allowable (as they own more than 90% of the building, and were building out more than 40% of it).

However, it's important to look at the definition of "major renovation" provided at the end of that same document, which says, "includes extensive alteration work in addition to work on the exterior shell of the building and/or primary structural components and/or the core and peripheral MEP and service systems and/or site work."

So in general, typical interior fit-outs (like our project) won't meet this definition of major renovation, therefore it is OK for them to use CI, even if the building owner is also the occupant of the space. If there is work being done on the exterior, base building MEP systems, or exterior site, you'd have to do a calculation to see if it applies to 40% or more of the floor area. If it does, then you would have to use NC.

We submitted two projects under LEED CI. In both cases the building was owned by the occupant and we did only interior renovations. We had no problem. Also in PIF3 you are actually asked to selected between project owner manages or owns space or is speculative. It's my understanding that ownership of the building does not preclude you from using LEED CI. I agree with Julie. It's about the scope of space.

I am currently working on a CI project where the occupant is the building owner, but they created a separate LLC for the ownership of the building; therefore, proof of ownership will indicate the LLC as the owner - a different name than the occupant as listed on LEED registration documents. My thought is that the proper approach to documentation for this credit would be to submit proof of ownership in addition to LLC documentation showing the occupant is the same entity as that who created the LLC. Agreed? Other recommendations, thoughts or suggestions?

Amy, It sounds like that approach would cover all your bases.