We have just received the Preliminary Design Submittal Review for our project. The reviewers asked us to clarify one of the prerequisite (IEQp1), however we realized that they haven't noticed that we use another equipment, so from our point of view everything is correct.

Can we contact them somehow and clarify it now, before submitting the Preliminary Design Submittal Appeal? I want to make sure that this is the only one reason they denied this prerequisite and that submitting this short explanation will result in achieving this mandatory credit.

I know I repeated it twice already, but this is the prerequisite, so I'm doubly frightened that we may fail the whole certification. Please advise!

The project consist of the construction of a new middle school and the remodelation of the existing elementary school both will shared some areas like the existing parking and the electric substation. Only the new middle school will be pursuing LEED certification. The LEED boundary will include the existing parking area (with only the parking spaces required by code), but we don't know if the exisiting electric substation (this one will be replace with a new one, that will have the power to serve both school, actually serve only the existing school) need to be included inside the LEED boundary or we can leave it out. In addition we are proposing to add a sub-meter for LEED purpose, since it will be only one meter. Any suggestions?

Hi,
In the MPR 2011 revisions there is mention of having a site boundary with either multiple LEED certifiable buildings within the boundary, thus using the AGMBC, or having Non-LEED Certifiable buildings. However, I have not had any luck finding a definition for either of these types of buildings.
In our case - a school, there is minimal work or no work being completed on these buildings (exterior electrical connections only to be brought to code). Can we exclude these from our LEED square footage, even though within the boundary of the complete site? Or do we simply jog the line around them? This is not a campus, but these aux. buildings always tend to pop up on k-12 school sites and bring up these questions.
Thanks!

Our project is located on a University campus with two separate DES buildings. One DES building houses all the chilled water equipment including chillers, pumps, cooling towers, etc. and only provides chilled water. There is a separate DES building which houses all the steam equipment. The DES Guidance indicates that for EAc3 we must commission all upstream equipment if "the DES supplies energy constituting more than 20% of the project building's annual energy cost, as determined using the Proposed Case energy modeling run of either the EAc1 Option 1 or Option 2." Should we be viewing the chilled water plant as one DES and the steam plant as a separate DES? In our case, the CHW plant accounts for 19% of the energy cost of the building and the Steam plant accounts for 9% of the energy cost of the building. Separately, these two plants are less than 20% of the energy cost but combined they would be greater than 20% and thus require commissioning of the DES. Because these are separate systems, should we be required to commissiong both even though separately they do not account for 20% of the cost? Is there a reason to commission the Steam Plant in this situation? The guidance document does not get detailed enough to answer this question nor are there any CIRs addressing this. Any thoughts? Also, even if the steam(or HHW) and CHW equipment are located in the same physical building, should they be viewed as separate plants?

Hi, my name is Nathan Retzlaff and I am interning with James Sherman at UC Santa Cruz where we are in the process of registering UCSC as a master site. Our campus is very big and contains many buildings. Is it ok to use a base building in the registration process for a master site and then use full campus data later? Also, when we are submitting data for the campus credits and prerequisites that ask for information that pertains to one building, should we pick one building to base all of those credits on? Any help and guidance will be much appreciated.

Alexandra, perhaps someone else on the forum can dig this information out of a GBCI policy document somewhere, but a LEED-NC certification is permanent (in contrast with LEED-EBOM). There are no technical provisions for removing it in a case like the one you describe.

Hi,
We are doing a project to develop a manufaturing faciltiy for our company. The company is interested in following the green initiative hence they have decided to go with LEED certification.
Our site is about 14.5 acre land and we will be developing 3/4 of the land during the phase 1. There will be a factory building which will be about 100,000 sf which would be the main building. Then there would be facility building adjacent to factory which is around 30,000 sf and it comprise of the toilets,showers canteen , compressor & chilller rooms. And there would be other buildings like creche, waste storage etc.
My question is can I go with the normal single building 2009 NC certification just for the main building? My compressors , chillers, most of the toilets are not included in this building.
or Do I have to follow AGMBC and register the site as master site and get the certification for the main building?
Thanks You
Please help me.

Hello,
We are currently working on two LEED projects utilizing the Safari platform. Recently, I had trouble with uploads on NC 2009 SSc5.2 (v03). They would upload, but then the credit template would not indicate the correct number of uploads in the correct sections. None of the other credit pages are problematic (for either project). The GBCI technical team suggest it is a compatibility issue and recommended switching to Internet Explorer.

Does this seem accurate, given the fact that it is only this one template which is a problem and we have had previous successful navigation with our existing system and the LEED processes ? Could it also be a problem with the linked upload?

Thank you for any insights.
Best,
Sherri

Our project team erroneously missed a small outside air louver that was within the 25 ft. threshold for designated smoking areas. Unfortunately the project has already submitted an appeal for this prerequisite without addressing this particular louver. It is thus anticipated that the prerequisite will be denied following the appeal review. What are our options at this point? If we can get the Owner to agree to remove the smoking area could we potentially proceed to the construction phase of the LEED application, and if so what is the protocol to follow? Or will the project simply be deemed unable to certify?

We received our design application decision and 1 credit was denied. We noticed this was due to a simple documentation error which can be easily corrected. What is the protocol for having this credit reviewed? Must we submit and pay for design review appeal? What is the cost and timeframe for this?