Our project preliminary review points toward gerrymandering the LEED project boundary. It is a golf course clubhouse with geothermal pond on an existing putting green and paths.

I'm working on behalf of a GC on a complicated historic renovation and new construction project that's being done in several phases with separate contracts between Owner and GC.

I'm working on behalf of a GC on a complicated historic renovation and new construction project that's being done in several phases with separate contracts between Owner and GC.

My LEED project will be using a garage that will be designed to serve multiple buildings.

According to the language provided for the credit: "Acceptable entryway systems include permanently installed grates, grilles, slotted systems that allow for cleaning underneath, rollout mats, and

My LEED project will be using a garage that will be designed to serve four buildings.

G3.1.2.10 says ER is needed when design cfm >5000 and more than 70% OA. I wonder does this mean the proposed or baseline design cfm? Our proposed design uses chilled-beam w/100% OA in the DOAS.

Our LEED boundary has a power line easement running through it. The city's zoning doesn't allow development in this area.

A client has asked for my advice in appealing the denial of PR2. I've taken a quick look at the review comments but will be digging deeper into it in the next couple of days.

First off I have a slight confusion about whether library stacks should be considered non regularly occupied area or a regularly occupied area with movable furniture.