Showing posts with label multiple buildings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label multiple buildings. Show all posts

New Guide Provides Instructions For Setting LEED Project/Campus Boundaries

Shortly after complaining about changes about new policy documentation from the GBCI, it occurred to me that the USGBC also published a much needed updated to their Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects (2010 AGMBC) that does a good job of clarifying how to document 'weird' site conditions. The previous 2005 edition did not have much guidance for how to determine LEED Campus and Project boundaries, an issue the new guide explains in easy to use terms.

If this is your campus boundary, you may want to consider downsizing it a bit

Though both documents provide guidance on how to calculate specific credits when multiple buildings on a similar site are seeking certification, I'm most interested in how to set the Project and Campus boundaries. This process is as much art as it is science, and the new guide goes so far as to say that "guidance on where to draw the LEED Campus Boundary is intentionally non-specific". This is a good thing, because boundary issues for an urban project with multiple buildings on one well-defined site are going to be different than the issues a campus may face when certifying a single building on a site where the school owns thousands of acres.

Key Issues

Project vs. Site Boundary - For 'normal' projects (I'm not sure I've worked on a 'normal' project yet!), you create a single LEED Project Boundary where all credits are calculated based on what happens within that zone. This is normally supposed to be the legal limits of the site, but many times multiple buildings will eventually be built in Multiple building or campus projects will frequently have two boundaries, a Project Boundary and a Campus Boundary.

  • The Campus Boundary is normally the entire area that the owner (normally a large developer or university) owns or has control over, but in some instances it will be a subset of that property (e.g. a 'quad' of a university campus or one phase of a master development). The purpose of the campus boundary is to allow the project team to take credit for shared infrastructure (e.g. stormwater mitigation efforts, dedicated open space, structured parking) that may serve the project but is not part of the scope of the specific project seeking LEED. It may not contain areas outside of the legal control of the organization seeking certification (e.g. off-campus areas can not be included just because there's a park there that would help with an open space credit)
  • The Project Boundary is contained completely within the campus boundary, and is defined as "all land that is associated with and supports normal project operations, including all land that was or will be disturbed for the purpose of undertaking the LEED project." In other words, it's the area you're actually affecting when building the specific project seeking certification. The project team has reasonable discretion in determining this boundary, and past experience has indicated that review teams will accept anything that isn't clearly 'juked' (e.g. including a sliver of a site to connect your project to a park to earn open space).

There's more to it than stated above, and I strongly suggest you and your consultants read the guide and then sit down to determine boundaries as a group to make sure all credit impacts are considered. In past projects I've worked on, stormwater mitigation and light pollution credits had the biggest influence on these boundaries, but parking, open space, and a variety of other credits could come into play as well.

I'm heading to Greenbuild 2010 today... Hope to see you there!

Getting Your S(h)ite Together: Project Boundary Definitions and LEED

I'll let you figure out how to read the title (you may want to cover your children's ears for one of them), but the following post will cover some helpful practical info I've recently learned the hard way. Basically, there are a set of figures and data that must be consistent across various LEED credits. This isn't a big problem, but it's very easy for separate trades (civil, landscaping, architect, electrical) to be working from different sets of drawings with slightly different figures. If everyone finishes their documentation with different numbers, someone is going to end up doing their work over, which is a huge annoyance and waste of every one's time.

LEED Data File

Though the following may seem obvious for those working on simple projects, determining a site boundary gets much more complex once you add multiple buildings or on a nebulous site, i.e. a campus or master-planned development. Your boundary may end up changing over time, and it's really only important that these numbers are nailed down before everyone starts their final documentation, but at the same time I like to keep them updated so I can do back of napkin calculations over the course of the project to make sure we're on the right track and no nasty surprises emerge (e.g. "Oh yeah... we're going to need another 2 acres of open space"). Please note the proper use of both i.e. and e.g. in the above paragraph... I had to look up the usage to make sure I got it right!

The Reasonable Project Boundary's Impact

Some of you may be lucky enough to work on a clearly defined site with easy to understand boundaries. I have yet to be so lucky. Even the single buildings I'm working on seem to always be in a campus or master planned setting. As a result, there is no clear boundary and LEED allows you to determine a 'reasonable' one. More on that later... This is probably the most important item to define early on, as it will affect SSc2 (development density), SSc5.1 (protect habitat), SSc5.2 (open space), SSc6.1 and 6.2 (stormwater quantity and quality), SSc7.1 (heat island, non-roof), SSc8 (light pollution), and WEc1.1 and 1.2 (water efficient landscaping) calculations. Once the building is sited, it quickly becomes difficult to make changes. What makes it even more critical to determine is the fact that typically these credits are typically divided among four design team members: the architect, civil engineer, electrical engineer, and landscape architect. Even in the ideal world of total integrated design, at some point these folks are each going to be putting the finishing touches on the LEED documentation at their desk all alone. It's critical that if one party makes changes that the others are made aware and can adjust accordingly!

When Do I Need a Reasonable Project Boundary?

Again, if you have a single building on a "normal" site none of the following should apply to you. When the calculations call for volume and rate of stormwater leaving the site or allowable footcandles a 15 feet from the site boundary you're stuck with what you have. When your building is in the middle of a master planned development where your 'site' drains to retention facilities a block or two over and you're stuck with site lighting standards that run along the edge of your 'property' things get much more complex. Even though the stormwater is leaving the area around my building, it's not a drain (HA!) on the local infrastructure, and that lighting doesn't trespass on anyone, it's just to light a sidewalk that connects my building to one next door... Why should my project's rating be punished for good design that just happens to span large distances?

It's for issues such as these that the USGBC drafted the slightly helpful LEED-NC Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects(AGMBC), which provides (not enough) guidance on how you can mitigate these issues. Essentially, you're allowed expand your site boundary to include large-scale measures such as those mentioned above. I've written about a few other multiple buildings issues here

How Do I Determine a Reasonable Project Boundary?

This is where things get confusing. Though it's briefly mentioned in the AGMBC, it wasn't clear to me how this really works until I received some clarification from a VERY HELPFUL certification coordinator at the USGBC. This is in reference to a project where we have multiple buildings being certified within a larger masterplan:

Given that there are several buildings within one development you may choose to take the multi-building/campus approach when applying for particular credits, especially related to site issues. In that case you would have a larger campus/development site boundary and then separate buildings within that boundary. By following the AGMBC, it allows for these different boundaries (campus boundary vs. project boundary within campus) that may apply for different credits. The campus boundary must be consistent for all credits for which the campus boundary applies and project boundary must be consistent for all credits for which that boundary applies. It is up to the project team how to determine these boundaries for your particular projects whether by drainage plain, or some other means. However things such as open space and walkways may not be counted for more than one LEED building unless taking an aggregate approach.

As you can see, what we're really talking about here is TWO boundaries... one for the campus and one for the project. Before I tell you what we're doing in this regard, it's very important that I tell you that they have not yet been approved as correct by the USGBC review team at this point. I will be sure to update this post when that happens.

Upside Down Man Site

This picture is meaningless, but it looks like an upside-down man and I figured... What the hell? There's too much text in this post anyway.

We decided that instead of using the entire development as our campus boundary, the area that feeds into a set of retention ponds would mark our campus, as that completely contains the all of the buildings that are seeking certification. As such, the stormwater documentation for all buildings will be identical. On one edge we extended the boundary to include some of the lighting we are installing along road that our buildings front. If we used the stormwater boundary one or two lights (out of many) would 'trespass' onto the adjacent site, but since it's still all internal to the larger development I don't feel guilty. On the whole, it's still a responsible development. The only reason we didn't set the whole development as the campus boundary is because it would be difficult to pull complete stormwater data for everything. Our engineers were doing calculations on the area we've included already.

Our project boundaries were determined by the amount of open space needed to satisfy requirements for each building. I can hear many of you thinking about what a sham this is... that we're just setting boundaries in a point-mongering mentality. Though in a literal sense you're technically correct, it's important to note that the vast majority of the area surrounding our buildings is vegetated open space, a feat that was accomplished through the use of multi-story structured parking (at great expense to the owner) in an area that is generally characterized by large swaths of surface parking. Again, we have met the intent of the credit, and I feel that on the whole we're well within our rights to claim the space.

To get to this point took a lot of back and forth between civil engineers, electrical engineers, and the project architect. We had to set a boundary, examine it from all sides, and reset the rest to that which is the best fit. Where on a 'normal' project I would suggest that materials selection and procurement is going to be your most frustrating task, on multiple buildings projects it's clearly these site issues that get to be a hassle. We've known all along that we're doing the right thing, it's just a matter of putting it in an acceptable framework to meet the credit requirements.

Working on other projects has made me realize that how you determine these boundaries will be driven by different factors for different situations. PLEASE share your experiences with the world by leaving a comment!

Certifying Multiple Buildings Together? Part 2

While Part 1 of this soon to be made-for-tv mini-series (I've got even money on actor Martin Donovan playing USGBC founding chairman Rick Fedrizzi) focused on money, today we're going to look at how your decision to certify buildings together or separately may affect your the time it takes you to complete the documentation. Unfortunately, that is going to require a little more learning about the three systems the AGMBC uses to organize multiple buildings projects.

Multiple Buildings Application Guide 101

I've been working on two large LEED projects that each contain multiple buildings. On one we decided to certify each building independently, on the other we're working on certifying a group of buildings under a single certification. In theory, the guide should be able to save us money (on certifications) and time (which is money). In practice I haven't noticed too many benefits to the recommendations in the guide. I'm going to point out where I've seen it help and parts I throw out the door.

View the "LEED-NC Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects(AGMBC)".

When discussing paperwork it's important to remember that the application guide is only a guide, and you can at your discretion flip between the requirements of the guide and those of a regular LEED-NC project. Page 6 of the AGMBC clearly states that "Credit requirement alternatives in this Application Guide may be used instead of the regular LEED-NC requirements, but are not mandatory as they may not apply in all situations."

The Systems

Certifying a Single Building in a Campus or Master Planned Development

This essentially allows you to include master plan elements that may be off-site in your documentation. On one of our projects, our stormwater is handled in a retention pond within the development, even though it's not technically on our "site". We've also accounted for shared parking garages and light trespass issues by including the larger site. The guidance here is almost universally helpful, as you can pretty much throw out any problems you previously had regarding shared amenities.

Certifying Multiple Buildings in One Phase of a Project

This path causes some problems. The goal here is to allow for shared site amenities as above, but there's also guidance about where you can average savings across buildings. The main problem here is that for many points each building must meet the requirements individually or ALL do not earn the point. I've tried this once and haven't been impressed with the results. Remember, you can always gain the bonuses of the first system for shared amenities and certify each building individually.

One development that we tried this on we lost the (EQc8.1) daylight credit due to one building while the rest had ample lighting. Another place you can have problems is (EQc4) Low-Emitting Materials credits. Here's a list of credits where one building missing the credit will void the entire project. Given the long list, I'm sure at least one will trip you up:

  • SSc1, Site Selection
  • SSc2, Development Density & Community Connectivity
  • SSc5.1, Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat (Greenfield sites only)
  • EAp1, Fundamental Commissioning
  • EAp2, Minimum Energy Performance
  • EAp3, Fundamental Refrigerant Management
  • EAc3, Enhanced Commissioning
  • EAc4, Enhanced Refrigerant Management
  • EAc5, Measurement and Verification
  • EQp1, Minimum IAQ Performance
  • EQp2, Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
  • EQc1, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Monitoring
  • EQc2, Increased Ventilation
  • EQc3, Construction IAQ Management Plan
  • EQc4, Low-Emitting Materials
  • EQc5, Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control
  • EQc6: Controllability of Systems
  • EQc7, Thermal Comfort
  • EQc8, Daylight and Views

Conversely, the averaging of some credits can allow single buildings that may not achieve a credit to comply within the group. This is mostly where you would expect (energy and water use, shared site amenities like bike racks and showers, parking requirements, MR3-7 credits, etc.) so I won't waste your time with a full list. There is guidance on how to weight each calculation across buildings as well. The biggest savings will likely come from not needing showers (for bikers) in all buildings.

Certifying Similar Buildings to a Set of Sustainable Standards

Think design "prototypes"... architect kryptonite! This makes a lot of sense if you're a Wachovia or Starbucks and want to build a bunch of cookie-cutter buildings. You're allowed to designate a set of "prototype" credits that will be applied equally to all buildings. The first building's credits will be carefully scrutinized, but then you don't have fill out all the paperwork for subsequent buildings on the prototype credits. Sounds great, but then you find out they will audit a few of these credits each time, so you still need to collect all those materials invoices!

I haven't worked on a project like this yet, but if the buildings are really similar, you can likely save a good deal of time. If the floor plan is the same you can avoid daylight and views calcs, which are some of the most time-consuming. The more design freedom you have the less sense this makes.

What to do?

Ultimately, any time you're working in one of the three systems you're going to need the application guide. My limited experience with certifying multiple buildings together has left me recommending certifying them independently, but sometimes the certification cost savings can't be ignored. Either way, you need be clear about how the "reasonable project boundary" is going to be setup with civil engineers, landscapers, the architect, and whoever's designing the site lighting.

It seems silly, but be aware 1 certification = 1 plaque, regardless of how many buildings are involved. USGBC won't fork up another one, even if you try to buy them off. If the client is interested in marketing a LEED facility, this might be an issue!

As always, please leave your experiences with certifying multiple buildings in the comments section. I'm sure someone will point out a few mistakes by the end of the week, so check back later for corrections!

Certifying Multiple LEED Buildings Together? Part 1

I've been working on two large LEED projects that each contain multiple buildings. On one we decided to certify each building independently, on the other we're working on certifying a group of buildings under a single certification. In theory, the MPAG should be able to save us money (on certifications) and time (which is money), but in practice all it's done for us is help us to lose points.

Part 2 Now Avalable!

View the "LEED-NC Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects (AGMBC)".

The Money

The best argument for certifying buildings as a group is for saving on certifacation fees, but this doesn't work in every scenario. While there is the potential for reducing certification fees, it will only happen if you (A) have multiple buildings under 50,000 sf or (B) multiple buildings over 50,000 sf that total more than 500,000 sf.

The reason for this is the way certification fees are charged, which is a flat rate/sf. There are minimum charges for buildings 25,000 sf or less (hence situation A) and a maximum charge for buildings 500,000 sf or over (hence situation B). Take a look at the rate sheet and we'll run through some examples...

Many Small Buildings Example

Let's say I have five 15,000 sf buildings. If I'm certifying them independently, I'll be paying 5 registration fees ($450 each) and five fees for buildings less than 50,000 sf ($1,750 each) for a total of $11,000. If I combine the certifications, I effectively have a single building of 75,000 sf, yielding a total registration and certification charge of $3,075, or a savings of about $8,000. Not bad, especially on a smaller scale project.

Many Mid-Size Buildings Example

What if we had 5 buildings of 75,000 sf each? Registering separately at $3,075 a piece, we have a total charge of $15,375. Registering the projects together we effectively have a single building of 375,000 sf. Since this is within the 50,000 - 500,000 sf range, we're really only saving the flat registration fee, and our total cost of certification becomes $13,575, or a savings of $1,800. Doesn't hurt, but in the context of a 375,000 sf of floor space this really isn't much.

Many Really Big Buildings

This is where you really can make some savings. Now lets say we have five 375,000 sf buildings. Registering separately at $13,575 each, we have a total cost of $67,875. Since there is a maximum charge of $22,500 for buildings over 500,000sf, we're effectively saving certification fees on 1.375 million sf of space, or $44,925!

Now that you took the time to read through all of that, take a look at the much easier to read chart!

LEED Multiple Buildings Registration Fees