There appears to still be confusion on the differences between the Project Boundary and the Lighting Boundary.
The Project boundary is the same as shown in every other credit. All lighting within the project boundary must show compliance with this credit's requirements.
The Lighting boundary often has a lot of overlap with the project boundary. But they are separate. The Lighting boundary can be moved out at roadways or to the entire campus. The lighting boundary exists for a single purpose. As a line to measure spill light at.
People who should know better are confusing the terms. Both the LEED Reviewer and now GBCI want "ALL" lights within the lighting boundary to show compliance. For a campus project, this is problematic and against official LEED Interpretations.
Created on October 1, 2012
LEED Interpretation
ID# 10236
"If the LEED project boundary is smaller than the property line, projects can use the lighting boundary to meet the light trespass requirements of this credit. Buildings that are part of campuses or shared properties can use the "campus boundary", i.e. the campus property line, to comply with the light trespass requirements of this credit. All LEED projects attempting SSc8 should continue to meet all exterior requirements (LPD, uplight, trespass) based all of the exterior luminaries within the LEED project boundary. The lighting boundary is only for the purposes of the trespass calculation, based on the light emitted by the luminaires within the LEED project boundary. Project teams should take note that the LEED project boundary must be appropriately defined and comply with Minimum Program Requirement (MPR) #3- "Must be a reasonable site boundary"."
GBCI Case 01680820
"The fundamental principle we are enforcing here is that ALL energy use within the LPB (or lighting boundary in this case) must be considered for LEED.
"We recommend that you revise your documentation such as to account for ALL luminaries contained within the lightning boundary established for your project, or to revise the lighting zone accordingly, and to provide proper justification for the same."
Hernando Miranda
OwnerSoltierra LLC
344 thumbs up
May 17, 2017 - 12:45 pm
Bill, let me describe three Phantom Requirements related to Project vs Lighting boundary. These were enforced before LI#10236. The reviewer and GBCI-USGBC insisted they were 100% correct and the credits were denied.
-- The lighting levels exceeded the "requirements" on top of a parapet of a parking structure. The parapet was 100-feet from the property line. The project and lighting boundary lighting level limits were complied with. The claim was the the "requirements" for the difference between max and min levels was exceed on top of the parapet.
-- An 80-year-old high school that renovated a building was denied because the lighting levels at of the project boundary --smaller than the campus boundary-- over illuminated a walkway between the renovated building and existing buildings. The claim was that the walkway did not qualify as an exemption --meaning would be required to not meet IESNA requirements-- because there was no guarantee the school district would not at some point sell the existing buildings.
-- Point-of-entry special lighting was being rejected many years ago. That has now been fixed. What was appalling about one older rejection was the person they told did not understand site lighting was lighting expert Dave Nelson. Dave happened to write both the LEED credit language and the LEED reference guide (v2.0) section for site lighting. The reviewer --who the USGBC refused to name-- insisted Dave misunderstood the requirements he wrote.
So, Phantom Requirements do exist and have existed. The USGBC has improperly denied credits that they would now allow. I have yet to see anything from the USGBC that claims they ever make errors. The GBCI will admit that but they are hamstrung having to follow strict rules invented by the USGBC's LEED Department.
PS. The USGBC has monitored my posting on LEED User and used them against me. I expect the same will happen with my comments above. The review process has been in long need of a massive overhaul. But that will never happen.