Will there be any effort, perhaps in the next version, to specify requirements in the Reference Guide, so that team members are not surprised by the "phantom" requirements that appear in the LEED Online Forms, or in review comments, and seem to be complete add-ons to what is stated in the Reference Guide? The "phantom" requirements are sometimes reasonable, sometimes seemingly completely superfluous, but always cause additional angst to team members who don't always have LEED documentation at the top of their to-do list. Phantom requirements that don't appear until review time also cause unnecessary delays when documentation has to be resubmitted.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Harvard University Green Building Services
41 thumbs up
May 2, 2012 - 8:51 am
Example: Need for detailed calculations for projected volume of recycling waste requirements for MRp1. It's worth noting that we have never once seen an instance where the projected volume of waste exceeded our capacity, so we've never actually changed our layout due to these calculations.
Robert Andrews
Partner - Managing Director Boston OfficeAHA Consulting Engineers, Inc.
20 thumbs up
May 2, 2012 - 11:07 am
I had this review comment on a core/shell project, asking for the recycling volume. How do we predict what the recycling volume will be if we don't know what the tenants are yet?
Harvard University Green Building Services
41 thumbs up
May 2, 2012 - 2:18 pm
Follow up on the same issue... I think this would not be any problem if, along with new requirement for the calculation, the USGBC or GBCI submitted some default rates for common occupancy types (e.g. lbs/sf or lbs/occupant for offices, lbs/room for hotels, lbs/sf for retail, etc.)
It's likely that these rates are very generic, so why require users to develop and justify some custom rate for every project?