Basic Amenities Within the Main Building

We have a similar project located in an old shopping mall that has been redone to house multiple offices, as well as provide basic services in the base building (gym, daycare, restaurants, etc.) We have submitted this for review, but the comments state (and is confirmed in the reference guide) that "in a mixed-use building, a maximum of 1 service within the building may be counted as one of the 10." Does anyone know why that would be or has anyone had success meeting these credit requirements despite this condition?

The intent of the credit is to promote "community connectivity." A shopping mall is a usually a destination rather than a community and so doesn't meet the intent.

I've done a little more research on this, and don't necessarily agree with you on this, Michael. The intent is "to channel development to urban areas with existing infrastructure, protect greenfields, preserve habitat and natural resources." Locating multiple services like this certainly meets that intent. I think the key here is that the the project guide states that "no more than 1 service within the project boundary may be counted as 1 of the 10 basic services.." For CI projects the project boundary typically only extends to the edge of the project scope. All of the services listed are definitely outside the project boundary, and should comply with that requirement. I'm planning to submit a narrative outlining these points, and hope that the reviewer will agree with me.

I just wanted to follow-up on this credit. We prepared a narrative stating how our project met the intent of the credit and how the client decided on this location because of its immediate walkable access to these amenities. They are certainly channeling development to existing infrastructure and preserving greenfields. We also noted the difference in the project boundary and the project building, which is significant since the client space occupies one floor of an old anchor store in this repurposed mall. All of the amenities (daycare, a gym, eating, etc) are open to the public, and don't included anything like the typical retail of an existing mall. The LEED Review team accepted our narrative and have overturned their original ruling, which is excellent.

Hi, Garrett, this is most helpful and I would agree with your understanding of the intent . There is an upcoming project with a very similar situation and I was wondering if there was a LEED interpretation that resulted from the ruling on your case ? I think it should serve as a precedent for similar cases.