I am working on a project that consists of 4 buildings. 2 of them are targeting certification and 2 of them are not (due to the fact that they would not meet MPRs). The two buildings targeting certification are currently registered separately on LEED Online. (NC 2009). The majority of design side credits have already been documented. The established LEED project boundary for these two projects is a bit arbitrary as in reality they share site amenities such as storm water collection, parking, etc. Is there any advantage to going back and attempting to use the AGMBC for certification? It seems to me that if a review team looked at the site plan, it would be clear that the LEED Project Boundary doesn't make sense.
As part two of the question...is there any requirement to use the AGMBC in this type of situation? I've e-mailed and called GBCI with no clarity of answer. Please help!!!
Emily CatacchioSustainability Specialist
Wight and Company
610 thumbs up
July 13, 2012 - 7:06 pm
Nicole,As far as I understand there is no requirement to use AGMBC, it's optional and can make documentation of shared credits (such as site) easier. If you've already completed the design documentation I can't see a benefit of going back and changing it.However, it sounds like you're in danger of being called out for gerrymandering your LEED boundary. So I'd suggest you re-evaluate that to make sure it makes sense. If you can't do anything to make it logical then perhaps you will need to use AGMBC.
Eric AndersonTechnical Customer Service Specialist
170 thumbs up
August 21, 2012 - 11:27 am
Hi Nicole, Emily is correct that the use of the AGMBC is not mandatory, but it is important to note that the AGMBC allows projects to claim credit for certain campus-wide credit strategies that would otherwise not be permitted, and to document those strategies only once, rather than separately for each individual building. The Campus Credit/Master Site (aka 'Part 1') approach also offers some discounts on certification fees (http://www.gbci.org/main-nav/building-certification/fees/multiple-buildi...), but for projects with a small number of buildings those discounts may be outweighed by the additional cost of registration and review for the separate Master Site project, which is required to document the Campus Credits.
Although on a shared property/campus, the assignment of LEED Project site Boundaries (LPB's) is necessarily somewhat arbitrary, it is important to do your best to include all land that could reasonably be considered to directly support the regular operations of a particular building and all land disturbed for the construction of that particular building (at a minimum) in that building's LPB. Once those criteria are satisfied, the subdivision of the rest of the land on a shared property should be based upon whatever seems most logical to the project team/owner with the understanding that if all the buildings on a shared site were assigned a portion of the property, 100% of the land should be assigned to one or another of the LPB's (except to the extent that MPR 7 indicates otherwise). This is all explained more fully in the LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10131).
Lastly, please note that accounting for certain shared features in a campus context (for certain credits) can be done without the use of the AGMBC, as noted in the AGMBC FAQ document (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=9224)--see Table beginning on 6th page of that PDF under the FAQ heading, "Can I document a campus credit in an individual project without using a Master Site registration?" But, that approach requires the documentation to be submitted & reviewed separately for each building project utilizing the shared infrastructure/features.
I hope the above explanations are helpful.