First public comment draft of LEED v5 BD+C/ID+C: Overall and Appendix

One of the first credits that a project team should work on in V4 is the Site Assessment Credit. It allows project teams to get an understanding of a project site and how it is nested in place so that opportunities and synergies between credits can be explored and optimized. Although there is a new Prerequisite in V5 related to climate resilience, why is the site assessment credit not included in the Integrative Process, Planning and Assessments Category? Dropping this Assessment is a step backwards as I am concerned and I would like to see it maintained and maybe enhanced by using language from the Sites Rating System as part of the mandatory assessments in this category.  

One of the main criticisms of LEED I hear from consultants is that LEED is too much paperwork with not added value to the project. What often happens is the LEED consultant recycles paperwork from past projects. Unfortunately, the LEED v5 draft really pushes for more paperwork with the prerequisites:

• Climate Resilience Assessment
• Social Equity Assessment
• Carbon Assessment
• Resilient Site Design
• Operational Carbon Projection and Decarbonization Plan
• Planning for Zero Waste Organization
• Assess Embodied Carbon

That is a lot of paperwork to push onto a project team.

A lot of the LEED-CI language seems to just reproduce the NC language in ways that don;t make sense for CI. For example the accessibiltiy prereq references exterior entrances and the resilient spaces credit references operable windows. Please clarify the expectation for CI projects to meet credit intent/requirements as it applies within the project scope. 

To Mark's point above about the paperwork burden, I think all of these planning efforts are important but the more they can be met without NEW documents generated just for LEED, the better. E.g. meeting minutes, marked up drawings, previously conducted campus or corporate level assessments. It would also be helpful for those requirements to scale down for CI/CS and small scope projects (e.g. warehouse, renovation with no site scope) so they're not having to write up lengthy justifications for NOT addressing something. 

Absolutely agree with Emily. In many cases, the CI language is not relevant to the scope of those projects. We already see TI projects shy away from LEED because there is no economy of scale - it costs far too much in consultant fees to complete all the documentation. With these additional requirements, I suspect that small percentage of TI projects pursuing LEED will get even smaller, which is the opposite of what we want, since we have so many existing buildings we want to re-use to not contribute more GHGs to this climate crisis.

1. Remove the term and level of “Certified” – which conflicts with the terminology of being certified (certified “Certified”!), and "certifiable". Use only Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Or, at least change "certified" title to a metal color such as bronze. Or eliminate this lowest level altogether. 
2. Every and all 3rd party standard that is cited by LEED should be available in a USGBC-provided database listed by prereq’s and credit name.  And they should be free - no paywall when you go to their website. Provide for free when payment is made for LEED registration.
3. Quarterly updates should be linked directly into the Online credit-specific page, rather than us having to hunt them down just to see if they hypothetically added changes every 3 months.
4. All version-specific Forms should be available in one simple download, rather than having to search out each one. These are used for reference when compiling the credit and with consultants and owners.
5. Eliminate obscure and complex point-gains, such as Exemplary Performance. The credits and points should be clear to any lay-person, not with deep, cryptically hidden layers of ways to get points.
6. Add ‘Project Information – with 0 points to the USGBC-provided generic scorecard – so it reflects and conveys all required documentation-uploads.

What is the status of specialized BD+C rating systems such as Schools and Healthcare? Will there be v5 updates for these rating systems available for public review at a later date? Or, are they being eliminated/rolled into the general New Construction rating system.

These types of buildings have specific design requirements that would not be adequately covered by the new v5 BD+C:NC rating system, and their specific rating systems should not be abandoned. 

The statement on the website for LEED v5, indicates that “v5 will champion solutions to aligning the built environment with critical imperatives including decarbonization, ecosystem conservation and restoration, equity, health, and resilience”.

I find this statement to be inconsistent with allowing the use of artificial turf in the outdoor areas of the built environment. The language in LEED v5 needs to exclude the use of artificial turf as a permissible type of landscape material. Artificial turf (plastic grass) should be considered a form of hard scape, not a replacement for living plants.

There is significant evidence of a “heat island” effect from the use of artificial turf, due to the plastic surface absorbing and reflecting the heat, much like a concrete surface. Planted materials and real grass have the ability to act as natural evaporative cooling sources. The heat island effect means that the associated built environment may need to use more cooling sources.

In addition, planted materials and real grass have the ability to cycle the carbon from the air into the soil for plant use. Photosynthesis is the process by which soil microbial life is able to use the carbon dioxide to make sugars which support healthy root growth, and carbon cycling. Artificial Turf eliminates soil microbial life in the soil by blocking air and water transport normally accomplished by plants.

The use of plastic artificial turf which ends up in the landfill after 8 to 10 years, and leaches harmful chemicals into our water during its “useful” life, is inconsistent with the stated goal of ecosystem conservation.

I agree wholeheartedly with these two!: 

1. Remove the term and level of “Certified” – which conflicts with the terminology of being certified (certified “Certified”!), and "certifiable".

2. Every and all 3rd party standard that is cited by LEED should be available in a USGBC-provided database listed by prereq’s and credit name.  And they should be free - no paywall when you go to their website. Provide for free when payment is made for LEED registration.

- I would further this statement and allow access to shortened versions of these standards for general education and transparency purposes.

We look forward to reviewing drafts of forms, templates and other guidance for the several Assessments to be added to the IP segment of ID+C.  Meanwhile, one major concern for all of the assessments is whether an appropriate approach will be available for modest projects such as smaller commercial tenant fit-outs.  Already, it can be difficult for a small project to support the time and expense of pursuing LEED certification; adding complicated assessments would make LEED certification unworkable for small projects.  The same concern applies to BD+C.  Perhaps an abbreviated or simplified version of each program can be developed for smaller projects.

In many cases, the CI language is not relevant to the scope of those projects.

I whole heartdely support Harry's suggestion of having off-line copies of the forms availble for coordination with project teams and owners/clients. They are one of the key tools we utilize to coordinate data transfer and preparation of plans and buliding layouts to ensure complaince with the LEED program. Having offline copies availble for use in a workshop/meeting setting is a valuable tool for project teams as they work through the design and prepare documentaiton ready for LEED certification review. 

1. All version-specific Forms should be available in one simple download, rather than having to search out each one. These are used for reference when compiling the credit and with consultants and owners.