Thank you very much. Your message was really useful, but now everything will become more complicated! And if the contractor will sign with the hand and I´ll scan this credit and upload it? Can be this strategy allowed? (...too italian? :) )

Hi Pietro,

It's good you're getting this figured out now so you can avoid pended credits throughout your application in the preliminary review over this minor, but important issue. In the Team Administration tab in LEED-Online v3, you'll see that each member of the team is assigned a project role. In your example, a team member assigned to the role of "Contractor" in LEED-Online would need to actually initial and save the Credit Form using their login. A gray-shaded statement to the left of the Required Signatory box will indicate which team member's login was used to initial the Form, and this person's name must match the initials in the Required Signatory box. This indicates that a qualified individual (the required signatory) verifies that all information provided on the Form is accurate. I hope this helps.

You might check with GBCI, but the credit language in this case seems general enough that you could get away with the one bike rack in this situation. (Given the credit language "a main building entrance.")

Are the office blocks connected internally? If not, this might be harder to justify. It's also very much worth considering what is best for the project—if offering an additional bike rack will be a good incentive for bicycle commuters.

Our LEEDuser page on this credit has more general guidance.

Sorry, not sure why I got all the weird scripts before my message, I copied /pasted the comment.. Please read starting from "Appendix 4".
Thanks,
Maya

Dan, from what you say above, is it not possible then to get the LEED Online templates without first completing the PR's? Does anyone have screen captures (unofficial of course)?

Thanks,

John

Holley,
Do you mean borrowing a credit that exists in one rating system to use as a CIR in another? If so, that's still a good general rule of thumb. But otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

Josh

It would be best to come up with a consensus on the matter. If you don’t you are setting yourself up for further questions by the reviewer…it is best to avoid that! If for some reason, you can’t come up with an agreed upon breakdown of multi-occupant spaces you should at least write a narrative explaining the difference. Good luck!

It does appear as though the only option for SSc4.3 in the AGMBC is for alternative fueling stations. Although I don't know definitively why this is, I assume it is so that the appropriate number of preferred parking spaces get allocated to each building, which is exactly what you are indicating is difficult for your project. A few thoughts...if you know how many spaces are required for your site and that is a specific number, can't you pull out how many spaces are required for each building based on occupancy, SF, building type or whatever other variables determine the required number of parking spaces for your site? I understand that this may be a more long-winded way to get to your desired end result, but I assume your number of parking spaces is based on some requirement that can be attributed to each building. Also, it seems that this is required based on no option for an aggregate submittal being offered in the AGMBC. If you are locating some parking spaces in preferred locations for each building, how are you determining how many go to each building? I'm sure there is some opportunity for alternative compliance here as you are meeting the intent of the credit, but you may have to confirm your approach with the USGBC/GBCI or be ready to make revisions to your approach and do some additional work through the design review process.

I think you're wise to seek a good look at the credit templates before making that decision, particularly if your project is an EBv2.0 project, as there is important information found in LEED Online interface that isn't necessarily as prominent elsewhere. That being said, if your project is currently an EBOM (2008) project, I think you are much less likely to find unwelcome surprises in the templates; the content didn't change dramatically from EBOM to EBOM'09. And, in conclusion, keep poking the USBC/GBCI about this - making that information easily available to projects is important, and they need to be reminded that folks are waiting for it.