I have a CS project within a large area of future grow. There will be three different buildings on site. The only one pursuing LEED certification is this CS. There will be a central chiller plant, sewer treatment plant, fire protection and potable water pumping station to serve all those buildings. This is a serice area oustide of the CS building. The question is, can I set the LEED boundary leaving this service area with the associated roads and walkways outside of the LEED boundary? I'm planing to set the boundary just for the buidling, parking space right next to the building and a green area to restore. Is this aproach of setting the LEED boundary to my convenience OK?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11475 thumbs up
December 6, 2010 - 11:06 pm
It sounds to me like this LEED boundary is appropriate, since you are including the areas supporting and affected by the current project. I would recommend you review the LEED MPRs and updated campus guidance for more background, however, to be sure.
javier bolanos zeledon
243 thumbs up
December 6, 2010 - 11:46 pm
This is really confusing to me Tristan, I'm sorry. I have reviewed a lot of information regarding MPR's and AGMBC, and still with doubts.
This is a new project that was registered under regular CS 2.0, no LEED campus approach was thought at that time, the owner only wanted one building to be certified, the first one. The other three wouldn't be certified but would share the same services.
I want to keep it flexible, in case he wants to certify another building later. What I'm really concern about is that at this time the boundary is set so the services (sewer treatment plant, central plant, storm drain treatment, potable water pumping, etc) are within the boundary. It is not clear to me that if I want to certify the other buildings, then I wouldn't be able because the services are part of an already certified building, regardless that they are servicing these new buildings. So do you think in order to keep it flexible, it will be better to leave these services out of the boundary?
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11475 thumbs up
December 7, 2010 - 12:00 am
I agree, it is complex. What are you reading in the MPRs or AGMBC that makes you unsure what to do?
javier bolanos zeledon
243 thumbs up
December 7, 2010 - 10:59 am
What's your personal opinion regarding the last paragraph,
"I want to keep it flexible, in case he wants to certify another building later. What I'm really concern about is that at this time the boundary is set so the services (sewer treatment plant, central plant, storm drain treatment, potable water pumping, etc) are within the boundary. It is not clear to me that if I want to certify the other buildings, then I wouldn't be able because the services are part of an already certified building, regardless that they are servicing these new buildings. So do you think in order to keep it flexible, it will be better to leave these services out of the boundary?"
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11475 thumbs up
December 7, 2010 - 11:08 am
What you're worried about is not an issue, in my opinion. The usual problem with LEED boundaries is that people leave something out that should be included. That is what the MPRs are guarding against. I would say it's the right move to include all those services now. If they're included in LEED calculations now, you shouldn't be penalized for not including them in the future since they are already certified. But please review the campus guidance to make sure you understand how to approach this comprehensively.