New LEED Guidance for Campuses and Multiple Buildings

Yes! I am doing this for a couple projects. Where is gets tricky is when new LEED 2009 registrations are cut off, and LEED v4 comes into play. For v4 projects, you will have to create a new v4 master site.

Thank you for that.
And regarding this v4 issue, if we register all buildings now, under the LEED 2009, and just hold the performance period to start in different years. Will that work? Or do we have a limit due date to start our performance period once we register the building?

That should be fine. I am not as familiar with EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems., but each should be able to have it's own performance period within LEED 2009 as long as you get them registered in time. I am guessing projects will have at least a year after v4 is released to register projects under 2009. But . . . who knows.

Thank you Very Much!!
I´ll go through the EB_OM book and forum to find out more about the performance period.
Cheers!!

Any individual EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. building project you register now, or at any time before v3 registration ends, will have until the sunset date for EBOM 2009/v3 (which occurs at least six years after the close of the rating system) to submit for review and take advantage of campus credits earned in the v3 Master Site project. See the Certification Policy Manual for additional detail on Registration policies (http://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-certification-policy-manual). Please note that EBOM initial performance period requirements may dictate additional limitations for when each project must be submitted, but as noted on pg 13 of the AGMBC (http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs10486.pdf), EH is correct that the performance periods for each certifying building project do NOT all have to be the same when using the master site/campus credit approach. Also, you may register the project before you start the performance period.

The obvious question is what documentation rules are being developed that are not specifically identified in the AGMBC documents.

Almost all of the LEED Online Forms ask for documentation that is not specifically required by the rating systems or the reference guides.

Hi Tristan,

Any update from last week's meeting?

Sorry to push this, but if you have any updates please share!

Sorry for the delay, guys—I wasn't able to share much information until now, because LEED Online for Campus projects is here!!!

USGBC has an article about it on their website. Basically, there is a LEED Online platform that is new and different from the existing LEED Online platform. We can also hope it is better, and it should be. I was told by USGBC staff that part of the delay with this project was extensive testing to ensure good functionality. This platform is built for campus or multiple building LEED certifications. I'll post more details in a bit.

The USGBC needs to define what they mean by "separate buildings that are substantially similar."

From the article Tristan posted:

"The first is Group Certification, which allows project teams with separate buildings that are substantially similar to certify as one project that shares a single certification."

Tristan- was there any indication that this new LEED Online for Campus platform could be a first iteration that will eventually become LEED Online v4?

It is continually frustrating that v3 requires outdated versions of Adobe and Safari (Mac users).

Taylor, there are hints of that, but that's all at this point. Logically I would think they would go in this direction unless the new platform turns out to be buggy.

Louise,

Your comments are very well expressed. My team was very sorry to finally retire the well-placed ambitions of a very large shoe manufacturing firm in Vietnam, employing 20,000 workers (yes) in about 1 million square feet of space. They diligently followed all the LEED requirements to gain a Silver LEED certification. After waiting well over 2--I think its closer to 3 years now--for GBCI to come out with the full "under-1-certification" version they finally had to drop the project. The under-1-certification should have been ideal for this project ad others like it. It was extremely frustrating for the owner, who had already registered the project. LEED qualifications increased the building time by about 30%. Though of course the improvements will benefit the workers and the performance as a whole, and the owner is satisfied with the achievements, these would have been achieved anyway; it was the documentation that was the difficult part of this project. Documentation is normally very thin in Vietnam, and the other consultants imposed a very high cost penalty to produce all the additional drawings, specifications, etc, that were required. The owner, planning further large manufacturing installations, is very unlikely to repeat the experiment due to total waste of fees. We are finally trying to salvage what we can by hiving off one of the factory buildings and submitting for single certification. It is unlikely to get silver though. I would be very happy to join any joint petition/letter to the GBCI if one was feasible. 20,000 workers and 1m ft2 of space is a significant project and should not be left out in the cold.

While USGBC certainly does not want to encourage gerrymandering of sites and boundaries, we recognize not all buildings in a campus setting would be eligible for LEED certification due to MPR’s and min FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. requirements. We therefore allow for some flexibility when drawing the LEED campus boundary to include real property for which LEED certification will not be pursued. It is also unnecessary that the sum of all individual LEED project boundaries make up the entire LEED campus boundary area. However, all site features and amenities within the LEED campus boundary will be considered during the review of campus credits. At times, this could lead to a “swiss cheese” effect as shown on page 9 of the Campus Guidance, but we want to be realistic of site and project conditions outside of the LEED process.

This is also in alignment with our MPR Supplemental Guidance v2, page 25 that states physically separate facilities in a campus setting may be excluded from the LEED project boundary when inclusion of the facility in the LEED project boundary would be difficult or unreasonable.

We have worked with the LEED Manufacturing User Group on the subject and will continue to do so should other items of the Campus guidance inadvertently impact their industry.

We were going to use the multi-building campus approach for a recent certified project but could not since the one-certification approach is still not available. We are doing the second building out of 10. For the first, this method is exactly what the reviewers asked us to do for landscape water use and innovative water use: the wastewater treatment plant takes inputs from 10 buildings and uses output for 8 of the building's toilets and all campus landscaping. So we were asked to apportion the input and output to each building to justify each building's landscape areaThe landscape area is the total site area less the building footprint, paved surfaces, water bodies, and patios. and toilets within the context of the whole. Very messy but they were satisfied with the result. Does that make sense? We will be submitting for final submittal for the second building soon. If there is any difference in their assessment the second time around I will post it.

Rosemaria, you can definitley achieve this credit. The fact that it is not available as a Master Credit just means you have to document the credit separately for each building. Use Melissa's approach to apportion a percentage of the total wastewater treated for each building to achieve the credit.
Note, that WEc2 is available as a Group credit. If you want to go the Group route, contact USGBC. Some projects are getting permission to pursue Group Certification.

SD,
Is the parking garage inside your LEED Boundary?
If so, we ahve found the reviewers to expect all energy and water consumption inside the LEED Boundary to be accounted for.

Michael, what specific LEED requirement(s) are you thinking about here? I would suggest reviewing MPR6.

I realize this doesn't answer your question—apologies. But I want to start any conversation like this by orienting it around the right issues and framework.

That's fine, I think starting from the very beggining will help clear things up a lot.

According to MPR 6 each certified building must share its water and consumption data for a period of 5 years after 50% of occupancy. This will not be an issue, the two buildings will be able to provide water and energy consumption separately.

There will be one single supply of water and energy to the entire site.

After this supply there will be a submeterSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy or water use within a building attributable to specific end uses such as tenant spaces, or subsystems such as the heating component of an HVAC system. for water and a submeter for energy for each building, this will allow us to track water/energy consumption separately.

Fyi, I just found the information:

One has to email leedinfo@usgbc.org and request that the project be switched from Master Site (Campus) to Group. If they approve, they will switch it over.

I have not found out if I will lose everthing yet.

Michelle

Typcially, when GBCI switches projects over to a different certification platform, all data within forms and uploaded documentation will be lost. If you have already completed all the documentation for a Master Site with individual buildings, there does not seem to be an advantage to switching the Group Platform. The Group platform is new and quite different from LEED Online v3. So, if your project is currently in LEED Online v3, you will definitely lose everything switching to the new Group Platform.

Soha, you would probably put the LEED boundary for each project around the respective building. See MPR3 for more guidance.

AGMBC isn't something you apply for, it's just guidance to clarify multiple building approaches.

Deborah, I don't know the answer to your question. However, my best guess is that this is the kind of thing that we'll get more detail on when AGMBC Part II comes out. This kind of calculation will have to be baked in to LEED Online.

Bruce, it's not available, and USGBC doesn't have a public timeline for it. I would be very surprised not to see it sometime this year, maybe even by this summer, but that's a guess.

Why do you think this is not one building with a road through it?

It sounds like your project is a good candidate for master site with two individual buildings. See MPR Supplemental Guidance Revision 2 pg 24, "When non-contiguous parcels may be included in the LEED project boundary".
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6473

Note for Louise's comment: Per MPR guidelines, structures connected by circulation only must be treated as separate buildings for LEED certification.

Hi Thomas, It sounds as though you may be looking at an older copy of the AGMBC document. Please refer to the newer version (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10486) and to the accompanying, somewhat revised Appendix A for the D+C rating systems (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10484). There you will see, for example, that both SSc2 - Development Density and SSc4.1 - Public Transportation Access are now available to be attempted as Campus Credits. There are still several prerequisites and credits that are required to be documented and evaluated on an individual building basis, but particular projects may have unique circumstances that merit exceptions. Teams in such circumstances are not required to submit their proposals via CIR, but that is the only way to have them approved in advance of the review. Please note that all prerequisites and credits were carefully considered for campus credit eligibility, so the bar is set rather high for demonstrating the validity of an exception to the existing guidance in Appendix A of the latest AGMBC.

You're looking in the right place Ameet - the AGMBC Appendices have that information. However, LEEDOnline hasn't quite caught up with the Master Site model. As a result, you have to keep all prerequisites on your scorecard (and marked complete in your submittal) even though you are not submitting any information, nor will the reviewer expect to see information for non-eligible prerequisites. My clients usually upload a standard PDF that says the credit is not MS-eligible and therefore no documentation has been provided. I'm sure GBCI will develop a better approach eventually but for now its an easy workaround.

Dan

For the prerequisite credits in the Master Site project and the Shared Site credits in the building project that do not apply you should check the "special circumstances" box and explain that your project is a Multiple Bldg project. Include LEED project name and number in your explanation so they can cross reference if needed.

"This project is a Multiple Building Campus project. Please refer to the IEQp1 credit template in the XXXX Building (LEED Project #) project in the XXXX Project Block (LEED Project Block #)."

Thank you Dan and Cassandra!!Great Help!!

Hi Alicia, Yes, you will need to register a Master Site project within the same registration Block to document & achieve the campus credits. Although the Master Site project never receives its own certification, campus credits must be approved through review of the Master Site before they can be applied to any individual project within the same LEED Campus Boundary. This is explained more fully on pages 5-6 of the AGMBC document ( https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10486 ) and in the LEED Online Help content re: AGMBC ( https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/common/LOv3Help/application_guide_for_multiple_building_and_on-campus_building_projects_(agmbc).htm ).

Hi folks, my question is similar to Alicia's, but concernig to the PI Forms.

In case of a multiple building project what'the procedure? We should fill out the PI Forms for each building and the Master Site? Master Site will be tricky, a lot of information doesn't apply...

On the PI forms I filled out the information for each building and then I combined the information on the Master Site.This way the shared site credits that link back to the Master Site forms have information to link to. (I'd like to know if this is not how I should have filled it out.)

Hi Marcio and Cassandra, As noted in the Master Site Documentation Tips of the LEED Online v3 Help content for AGMBC projects (https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/co...), there is only certain information that must be completed on PIf2, PIf3, & PIf4 in the Master Site project. For example, the only data you need to complete in Project Information form 2 (PIf2) are four fields under the heading "Site Characteristics". PIf1 and the other fields on the rest of the PI forms may be left blank. Even if you do not get a 'Y' for compliance in the calculator at the bottom of each form, it can still be submitted, reviewed, and approved, as appropriate.

Note that even though these three LEED Project Information Forms (PIf2, 3, & 4) must be completed, reviewed, and ‘awarded’ at a campus level, each related, individual LEED project within this campus will also need to complete the form and meet the requirements in order to achieve certification. Individual projects cannot simply claim the PIf's from the Master Site in the same way they would campus credits that have been reviewed and awarded in the Master Site project.

I hope that is helpful. Best of luck with your certification, -Eric

Hi Eric,

And how about the estimated cost of contruction in PIForm2? Clients find it hard to separate from building to building because of the exterior areas...They usually have the cost of each the building but the cost of the external areas is all together. Can we inform the total cost only in the Master Site PIForm?

thanks

Hello,
I realized this first post above cut off my questions in the title--"Can a LEED-NC project be added LATER to a master site to be created 'in the' future?
I am about to start work on a new science building on an existing community college campus, targeting LEED silver or Gold.
(1) What I'd like to know is if I just go ahead and Register a new LEED-NC (v.2009) individual project now to establish my Project Registration and get moving on LEED Design Credit documentation, (which is all I've been authorized to do within my current scope of work,) and IF the community college district decides LATER that it wants to establish this as the first building project WITHIN A MASTER SITE, UTILIZING the AGMBC, would this be possible, and if so, are there guidelines to do so?
In other words--
1(a). How can I transfer in my 'already individually registered project' as my first building in my Master Site--
1(b).without incurring another registration fee?
2. Is there a fee for creating the 'block' to Register the "master site?" I seemed to have read conflicting info on this.

NOTE-- One older LEEDuser posting had a link to what seemd like a respnse to my question but it was referencing the 2010 Application guide, prior to Part B being published, and possibly prior to LEEDOnline v3 functionaility to support Block and Master site registration, so I am confused on whether it is still possible to bring an already registered LEED-NC individual project into a master site block. My problem is it may take many months for a decision/approval to Register the whole campus as a Master site using AGMBC ,and approvals for extra services, which will be required for us to figure out the documentation of the campus credits.
(3). Should I hold up the Registration of the individual new building for weeks-months only to find out that they don't (or do?) want to use AGMBC and have me register it under a master site?
(4) Any clarification on whether folks have done this before and if there is published guidance on how to do this?
(5) OR if it is not possible at all?
Thanks for any light you or anyone else can shed on this.

Does anyone have any advice for the comment above?

Hi Cassandra,

Actually, it is possible to submit individual projects prior to submitting the master site, but they would not be able to claim any campus credits. Also, they would not be eligible for the 20% review fee discount. This is probably not the way you want to proceed.

Instead, you could identify desired design credits that are also approved as campus credits in Appendix A of the AGMBC (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10484), and submit those in a design phase review of the master site. Once marked 'Anticipated' they would be eligible to apply to Building A (and, later, to Building B). You could also submit construction credits that are approved to be attempted as campus credits for a construction (or combined) review of the master site. However, just as is the case for construction credits submitted in an individual project, the work represented in those submittals would have to be completed already to count towards achieving the campus credit.

In any case, if the designed or constructed characteristics that served as the basis for the original master site campus credit review(s) are changed by future decisions or construction prior to submitting Building B, you can use the appeal function to have the campus credit re-evaluated. After the master site project's initial review, additional campus credits can also be attempted/added at anytime by using the appeal function. But such an approach might have limited utility for a campus that contains only two buildings that will be seeking certification. See page 13 of the AGMBC (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10486) for additional details regarding campus credit cross-checks and adding credits to the master site.

Thus, it is worth noting that even when a campus credit has been achieved in the Master Site, individual projects within that master site are still permitted to pursue the same credit on an individual building basis (as noted on page 12 of the AGMBC).

Lastly, please note that the deadline to submit within 2 years of project's substantial completion is not the same as the 'Sunset Date', which occurs no sooner than 6 years after the close of registration for each version of the LEED rating systems. Refer to section 12 of the Certification Policy Manual (which you can access through the GBCI website: http://www.gbci.org/main-nav/building-certification/resources.aspx) for further details.

Marcio,
That is how I understand it. That is also how I am moving forward on my project so I hope it is correct. Good Luck!

If the buildings have separate registrations, then you submit each building for certification at different times.

Thanks.

Even if I'm seeking some credits via master site? And yes, they are registered separately.

Yes. If each building is registered as a separate LEED project and you are using the Campus Credit (aka Master Site, or Part 1) approach, it is acceptable to submit the individual building projects at different times. However, please note that the Master Site project must be submitted before (or at the same time) as the first of the individual bldg projects that wish to utilize campus credits achieved in the Master Site project.

What about if the first building goes in for certification years before the other building construction is completed and submit for certification? Is there a time requirement that the master site projects need to be within? thanks!

There is a maximum limit that is determined by the Sunset date for the rating system under which the Master Site has been reviewed. If the subsequent project(s) cannot be completed and submitted for review prior to that sunset date, it would do no good to include them in the Master Site project. Please refer to section 12 of the GBCI LEED Certification Policy Manual (https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/te...) for more on the rating system Sunset policy.

Additionally, if many aspects of the design of the subsequent project(s) are not yet firmly established, it may not be appropriate to include them in the Master Site calculations or LEED Campus Boundary. This is not a specific time limit, but would vary based upon which campus credits are being attempted and how unanticipated changes to the future project(s) might affect those credits. I would note, however, that it is possible to add/revise campus credits (on a credit-by-credit basis) by using the Appeals process, as explained on page 13 of the AGMBC (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10486).

Hi Lauren,
One problem you'll face is the air sealing/ blower-door testing and other on-site verification that has to be done for a significant portion of the homes (Usually it's 1 of every 5 units).

Another challenge might be some of the site credits, since distance to transit & services might vary, and the landscaping (% of turf, type of irrigation system, water use reduction) may vary from house to house.

You could contact the LEED - H provider for that area and see how they would handle this situation. I imagine the fee structure might be similar to a multifamily apartment project where units plans are repeated, but on-site verification gets done for the whole project by randomly sampling units. You might need multiple phases of certification, an initial one for the model homes and later ones for the build-out.

Elke, USGBC is not currently supporting group certification with LEED Online functionality. They have not put out a release date on that, either.

Hi Ameet, Please submit a request to have the TEST project removed via the 'Feedback' link in LEED Online. This link is in the menu at the upper right of most screens in LEED Online after you have logged-in.

Hi Eric
Thank you very much for your reply here and through GBCI website.
Feedback link helped and no more accidental blocks in my profile!!
Regards

What I've seen in the EPA I-Beam forms for Indoor Spaces and HVAC Systems audits refer to ASHRAE Standard 62-1989, which is now over 20 years old. It has been replaced by several newer versions and split out into 62.1 for commercial buildings and 62.2 for residential. 62.1-2010 is the current standard. See:
http://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/ashrae/62_1_2010?product_id=1...
and:
http://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/cgi-bin/detail?product_id=1770826
Your campus facility management office may have these.

This standard is one of several that HVAC engineers and contractors would be familiar with, and you might need to work with someone from the facility staff, a P.E. (Professional Engineer) or E.I.T. (Engineer in Training) to walk through these with you.

The Building Exteriors audit form doesn't list a standard or protocol, so you'd want to refer to the building code that was followed for the construction of the building. Again, the facility management or campus planning office may be able to help with this.

Looks like your similar post over at the EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. EQ 1.1 forum hasn't gotten a response yet, but you might try again there. See Jason Franken's comments on I-Beam from Oct. 2010 that are relevant. Hope this gets you started - post back with other questions.

I am have a similar question with a campus project that has two buildings that want to pursue group certification. LEED Online does not have the ability to register groups yet. I think you have to register each project individually and a master site and clarify within each project the Master Site and Individual buildings that they're linked together for Group Certification. Crossing fingers that Part II functionality is available SOON!

Page 5 of the latest release of the AGMBC document (https://new.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/Docs10486.pdf) defines two approaches/strategies: Campus credits (available through Master Site projects) and Group credits (available through Group project certification). Please note that the Campus Credit approach (also referred to as Part 1, or the master site approach) is substantially different from the Group Credit approach. Although guidance and, more recently, fees for Group project certification have been published, functionality to support registration & certification submittal for Group project certification is not yet available.

Registering a block and/or Master Site or other procedures that are used with the Master Site/campus credit approach in the existing LEED Online v3 system cannot be used to pursue Group project certification. Once Group Certification functionality is released, you will be able to register projects like the ones you both described above as long as they comply with requirements for Group project certification eligibility defined in the AGMBC document cited above.

Eric, any update on when to expect the the functionality of the group certification? Thank you!

Dear Omer

They had indicated previously that there would be a group fee.

Can you post a link to the new Part II information? I just tried to do a search on the USGBC site and came up with nothing. I checked the fees page and unless they still require each building to be separately registered & paid for, there is no indication of any update there. I've been waiting for Part II for over 2 years for one of my projects--10 very similar factory buildings, so its nonsense to certify each individually. Thanks so much!

Hi,

The fees page mentions group certification:
http://www.gbci.org/main-nav/building-certification/fees/multiple-buildi...

Omer, sorry for the confusion, I meant can you provide a link to the advice that Part II is now available? I may be wrong, but the fees still show that you have to register each building separately, so if Part II really has been released, then the fees page is not updated.

BW

Melissa

The AGMBC document is still the October 2011 version. By seeing fees added to the GBCI page, I assumed that there is something going on with group certification.

Can somebody from GBCI clarify this?

As I understand it, Group Certification is available right now, however LOv3 as it stands cannot cater for Group Certification, it is being reprogrammed but the upgrade has not been released. In the mean time, we have to submit all buildings within a Group as separate LEED registration but set up all as one block for ease of submittals and acknowledgement that these registrations are associated with one Group. Later when LOv3 had the upgrade, the USGBC will refund the difference in registration and review fees. Aye, will USGBC /GBCI please confirm the above.

I don't understand the logic of the Group Certification fees. Shouldn't they be discounted like campus projects?

Hi everyone, Although it is correct that the Fees page has been updated to reflect the pricing for Group Certification, unfortunately, the new functionality to support the AGMBC (both the Campus credit and Group certification approaches) has not yet been released. I must apologize for the continued delays, but we do actually expect functionality to be released very soon.

As has been noted above, Group Certification does not include any discounts on the LEED registration or certification fees as compared with submitting each building or space as a separate LEED project. However, it is expected that the new functionality and process will result in costs savings for project teams in terms of consolidating the documentation and administrative processes. I do also expect more details to be released soon regarding the process of moving from individual to group certification, but due to the Group Certification fee structure this would not likely result in any refunds.

Group certification does save the GBCI money. It is unfortunate the USGBC is not sharing the cost savings.

The Group certification process is being used "unofficially" with one of my clients. They have two LEED v2 and one v3 project.

There is a cost savings not only for the campus credits, but also because the GBCI assigns the same review team to review all of the campus projects.

Dear Eric,

At this point I think the most beneficial course of action would be to announce when Group Certification functionality will be available. When you say "very soon", is it a few months or within the timeframe of a year?

Thanks,

Hi Omer, Again, my apologies for the delays in the release of this Group project certification functionality. Please be assured that our staff is working hard to complete the process. While I don't personally know exactly when the new functionality will be released, from conversations with the development team, my sense is that it will be within months (possibly much sooner), not a whole year from now. We thank you most sincerely for your patience.

Thank you Eric for the clarification. It has not gone far enough, there must be accountability by GBCI to commit to a dropdead activation date for Group Certification. There are financial implications for my Clients, 2 projects are being held up pending resolution of this, many projects are on the same boat of uncertainties.

So confirm us this, are you saying that if we want to register a Group Project, each building must be registered separately (athough in same block/master site) and hence pay for multiple registration and review charges according to number of buildings as per MPR?

We understand there are cost savings for all stakeholders in the implementation (same review team, streamlined submittal documentation etc.) but the right thing to do is to facilitate savings also in the GBCI fees, which was the intent of AGMBC.

So the group certification fees are the same as individual certification fees. Now if I have 10 identical buildings on the same mastersite I have to pay 10 x the individual certification fee??!!! This is INSANE!!! Why would I do that, when I can only certify one of the buildings and announce that my building is LEED certified and all the others are built to the same spec.

GBCI must come up with a feasible group certification fee structure that works for everyone ASAP. Otherwise group certification will not mean anything to anyone...

If the FM bldg and Energy centre meet LEED's Minimum Program Requirements, they can pursue LEED certification.

Seems like a 'yes' to me Aaron. If the buildings share the same base, they physical attachment seems unquestionable. Separate mechanical systems shouldn't be a problem from a certification standpoint. Things get a bit more interesting if management is in fact separate, but I don't think you'd be asking the question if you hadn't already figured out a solution to that challenge.

Hope that helps,
Dan

It need not seek its own separate certification, but this does not necessarily mean that it should be completely ignored in the LEED certification application. A building that cannot meet MPR 4 is non-LEED-certifiable, and as noted on pages 25-26 of the LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10131), such buildings may be treated as an extension of the main certifying building they support. Assuming you are pursuing the Campus Credit approach to the AGMBC, each LEED project building's LEED Project Boundary will, in turn, be included within the LEED Campus Boundary of the Master Site project.

If the P40 building doesn't really support any of the buildings directly, and/or is existing and not affected by the project's scope of work, it may simply be excluded from all the individual LEED Project Boundaries. Even so, it would still be optional to include it within the LEED Campus Boundary, as illustrated in the diagram on the lower left of page 9 of the AGMBC (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10486) and explained on the prior page. This is appropriate when the non-certifying building and its immediate site are integral to the site performance of the rest of the projects within the larger LEED Campus Boundary.

Thanks Eric. So you are saying that I should consider P40 in my analysis and calculations for all credits and prerequisites, includig EAp2?

My other question though, is that I have 4 buildings seeking certification on this property, its an industrial plant for automobile pieces. The 4 buildings are: P10 (main entrance control with training rooms and few offices), P60 (engineering building) with few offices and some machines wiht process load), P70 (building for dining) and P80 (actual factory, where all the machines are, with large process load). P40 is a support building for the truck drivers with one office room. That said, I'm not cleared of to wich of these 4 buildings (P10, P60, P70, P80) I should consider that P40 is an extension of?

Thanks!

Hi folks,

Anyone could shed a light in the issue above? We have 4 certifiable buildings within our leed boundary and we are going to certify them independently, using the master site for some credits. However, there's one building in the property (which is the same as the leed boundary) that do not comply with the minimum area MPR (1000sqft), so we would like to know to which of these other 4 certifiable buildings we should associate this one lost guy (P40), now that we figured out that it can't simply be ignored...The problem is that P40 somehow serves to all the other buildings.

Thanks!

I read Eric's response differently Marcio. I think you can indeed ignore P40 for the most part, with the exception being for any credits you intend to pursue on a campus-wide basis. So you'll analyze EAp2 performance for each building individually, but not P40 since it's not going to be certified. But if you want to use a master site approach for SSc7, for example, you'll still have to account for the building footprintBuilding footprint is the area on a project site used by the building structure, defined by the perimeter of the building plan. Parking lots, parking garages, landscapes, and other nonbuilding facilities are not included in the building footprint. and hardscapeHardscape consists of the inanimate elements of the building landscaping. Examples include pavement, roadways, stone walls, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios. of P40 in your calculations for the whole site.

So I think that most of the time you actually will be ignoring P40 - only in specific circumstances will it come into play. . . But it gets confusing awful fast!

Dan

Essentially, in a situation like this it is your call. If you can make a case that the P40 building most directly supports one of the buildings, you may include it with that building. The clearest indication of that it should be associated with a particular building would typically be if it is on a shared energy (&/or water) meter with that building and/or bundled with a distinct construction contract with one particular building on the 'campus'. On the other hand, if it would be more appropriate to subdivide its energy usage, materials costs, etc across more than one (or even all) the buildings on the site, that is also acceptable. If you do elect to distribute it amongst multiple buildings, it would probably make the most sense to prorate things like energy usage and materials costs based upon the relative gross floor areas of the supported buildings, but alternative rationales and prorating approaches would likely also be accepted as long as they are clearly explained.

Please note that unless it is integrally tied to the operations of one or more of the other buildings (most particularly, if it is on a shared energy/water usage meter with one or more of the buildings), it would probably also be acceptable to simply exclude this building from any and all of the certifying LEED project buildings' applications, as I mentioned in my prior comment. Then, the team would still have the option of including it within the LEED Campus Boundary of the Master Site project (in accordance with the instructions of the AGMBC) for the evaluation of eligible 'Campus Credits'. I hope that helps.

Not all of the buildings within a Master Site need to be certified, it is up to you which buildings you want to certify. Non-LEED buildings come into play if they affect a Master Site credit. For example, if you are pursuing a Master Credit for SSc4.2, you need to account for the total FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. of the Master Site, including P40. Or, if pursuing SSc5.1 or 5.2, you would have to inlcude the non-LEED building footprints in the calcs. You should figure out which credits you want to pursue with the Master Site. That will help inform how and to what level you will need to document/design the Non-LEED buildings for the Master Site review.

The cleanest way, paperwork-wise, is based on the construction documentation package a building like P40 is included in. Include the entire building, energy and materials.

Splitting energy use and materials across multiple projects takes significant effort with no real benefit.

Splitting a small building up doesn't, or shouldn't, change unless something is wrong, the LEED credits claimed by the buildings sharing the small building.

Including a small building entirely as part of one other building also doesn't, or shouldn't, change unless something is wrong, the LEED credits claimed by the single building claiming the small building.

If the small building is not part of the construction scope-of-work documents then it works best to not include it.

Thank you all!

First of all I would like to clarify and reinforce a few things:
- That this is all the same owner, all buildings are within the same property line and they compose a manufacturing plan of the same company. They have multiple buildings because each building has a specific function: administration (P50), engineering (P60), manufacturing (P80), dining (P70), etc.
- P40 alone does not meet the minimum area requirement of MPR 4, 1000sqft.
- All buildings are under the same construction contract and will be built simultaneously, in the same phase
- So far, P40 is within the LEED campus boundary but not within any LEED project boundary

So here's what I understood of what you folks said:

- I can make the option of only consider P40 for the credits I'm pursuig via master site;
- For credits/prerequisite such as EAp2 and WEp1 I can simply exclude P40 from my energy and water consumption considerations;

Is this correct?

The Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects (AGMBC) document and its supplements seem to have matured into a guide for buildings in a campus and compound arrangement where the buildings are each unique or replicated. These buildings could function autonomously, but they are held together by a single ownership or management. For example, a university is comprised of individual schools, each capable of participating in the education process. If one was missing, a course of study might be lost, but the university could still produce educated students.

We tried, in the beginning, to apply the AGBMC to large facilities with ancillary buildings that, together, comprise a single function. For example, if you are producing baked goods, one could not eliminate the steps that occur in the dough-making or the baking “building”. The large commercial bakery, although appears as if it might be a campus, is really a single structure, made up of parts, which has a single purpose.

The LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. #10203 dated 7/1/2012, although it is directed to EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems., may shed some light on whether or not the project should follow the campus, multiple building or one building determination. The test for a single building registration is:
Requirement 1: Included buildings are part of a single identity.
Requirement 2: The entire project is analyzed as a whole (editorial note: this appears to follow the test items for Groups, except for the last one).
Requirement 3: The project represents a single, common site with a reasonable LEED project boundary (MPR3).
Requirement 4: The submittal documentation must include all square footage of buildings and land inside the LEED project boundary. (editorial note: all structures with water and energy consumption must be included).
Requirement 5: The number of buildings is not limited, but must total less than 1 million square feet. (editorial note: this is hard to comply with when the base building is greater than 1 million square feet).
Requirement 6: Buildings larger than 25,000 SF must be listed separately.

These six requirements have a striking similarity to the Minimum Project Requirements (MPR). Where they contrast, perhaps the corollary is true: i.e. MPR4 corollary for Requirement 6: Listed buildings should be at least 1000 SF, but if they are larger than 25,000 SF they should be listed separately. If they are listed separately, they should have a LEED Project Boundary with a building to project boundary area that is at least 2% (and a FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. of at least 1).

If you want a single certification for the entire project, you would follow the Group Project guidelines in the AGMBC, which is slightly different than the Master Site with Campus Credits path.

A Group Project is useful for a cluster of very similar buildings, all built at the same time with one contract. You would need to include those football pitches in the Group Project LEED Project Boundary if you want to use them for credits such as SSc5.

Check the AGMBC page 10 to see if your project could register as single Group project, or whether you need to do a Campus certification with a master site and separate certifications for each building.

If you pursue a Campus/ master site path, you would have multiple LEED certifications - probably one for each building - and one Master Site campus LEED boundary that would include all the athletic fields, parking, other buildings and open space that are part of the campus.

Post back here if that still doesn't make sense....

Hi David,
Thank you so much for your reply. To be honest I am confused due to unavailability of Group registration online tool.

I quote from USGBC website ''Until functionality is available in LEED Online to certify group projects, please note that all buildings must be registered individually''

Therefore it seems that we have no choice other than registering the individual building registration / master site path.

Any advice that would help me to upgrade the current project registration (Block- master site - each individual building path) to group registration in near future?

As the client wish to have single certification for the entire development.

am I in wrong direction to think that group registration also requires to create( block-mastersite-group) approach?
Thank you!

I'm not sure if the two buildings are the only ones on your site Kathleen, but if so, I don't think the Master Site approach is worthwhile. In my experience the Master Site really only makes sense when you have large numbers of buildings on a campus, and even then only for a very limited number of credits. I suspect you may be better off either splitting your site geographically for LEED purposes or submitting 'campus-wide' data where appropriate.

Hope that helps,

Dan

I haven't heard any firm date. I think this is getting pushed back because USGBC is launching a new website this month.

Kathleen,

AGMBC is not required. You can register both buildings separely if you like. See the comment string below titled "When to Use the AGMBC and is it required?" for a bit more detail.

Hello Anthea, You can have both NC and CS projects within a single Block registration. Additionally, you can document Campus Credits within a single Master Site project that will then be applicable to individual projects utilizing either of these Design + Construction (D+C) rating systems, as long as the most stringent of the requirements for a particular credit under either of these rating systems is being met (if they vary). Please see page 6 of the latest AGMBC for more info (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10486).

However, once the approach is available in LEED Online, buildings included within a single LEED project utilizing the 'Group Certification' approach will all have to individually qualify for the same particular rating system. Also, please note that Operations + Maintenance (O+M) projects may not utilize Campus Credits from a D+C Master Site project or vice-versa.

I should also mention that although it is required in order to utilize the Campus Credit approach to the AGMBC, the Block registration feature in LEED Online v3 can actually be used for purposes, as well. See also the LEED Online v3 Help for more information on the Block registration tool: https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/co....

Jutta, for the reasons you give, it sounds to me like a separate certification for this building makes the most sense, and using your first option in terms of usage of the facility.

Hello -

Any news on this front? We are also eagerly awaiting the release of Part II.

Hi Joshua,
Since this is a Hotel project, I would recommend that you review LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. (LI) #10203 (https://www.usgbc.org/leedinterpretations/LISearch.aspx?liaccessid=10203) to determine whether some or all of the buildings in your project meet ALL the criteria listed there and would, therefore, be eligible to be treated as a 'single building', essentially, for LEED certification purposes.

Typically, for projects/buildings not meeting all the criteria set forth in that LI, each separate building on a shared site or campus would still need a separate registration, and then would have the option of using the Master Site/Campus Credit approach (aka 'Part 1') of the AGMBC (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10486), if they wished to do so. Pricing for this approach can be found here: http://www.gbci.org/main-nav/building-certification/fees/multiple-buildi... .

Once Group Certification (aka 'Part 2') pricing and functionality is released it will be possible to register more than one building in a single LEED project, but that has been, unfortunately, delayed bit longer and the new release date has not been determined. Please see the AGMBC webpage for more details and updates: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2326 .

It's good to see that the USGBC/GBCI took advice given on this forum and clarified what a single building with "ancillary" structures is. Schools are the most common occurrence where splitting into different projects was an issue.

LI 10203 is postmarked 07/01/2012. Is the LI applicable to any project, regardless of registration date? There are still LEED NC v2.2 and Schools v2007 projects registered long ago this LI should be applicable to.

Eric or other LEED Users,
For a new construction elementary school following the single certification process, how are the energy efficiency credits handled? As a "single" building including the total square footage and total energy consumption? Is there any additional guidance that GBCI/USGBC provides to outline the submittal process since the certification is on a campus basis rather than building by building? Thanks for your help.

Eric,
Great question. Now I am curious too; I wonder if there is any guidance in the AGMBC 2011 document--is there? If not it would be great to have some guidance on how to calculate EAp2 /EAc1 where a single elementary school consists of 2-4 small (2,000 -8,000 sq.ft.) single story 'buildings' all closely connected by a 10 foot wide covered walkway, with one electric meter and one gas meter. Thanks for any clear guidance. Please do let me know when we get answers to our questions.

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.

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.

As noted in the LEED Online v3 Help content for AGMBC projects (https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/common/LOv3Help/application_guide_for_multiple_building_and_on-campus_building_projects_(agmbc).htm?searchTxt=project name change&criteria=any#PI forms), the only data you need to complete in Project Information form 2 (PIf2) are four fields under the heading "Site Characteristics". The total gross square footageSum of the floor areas of the spaces within the building including basements, mezzanine and intermediate-floored tiers, and penthouses with headroom height of 7.5 ft or greater. It is measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the centerline of walls separating buildings, but excluding covered walkways, open roofed-over areas, porches and similar spaces, pipe trenches, exterior terraces or steps, chimneys, roof overhangs, and similar features. is not required. I hope that is helpful. Best of luck with your certification, -Eric

Hi Henry, As noted on page 4 of the latest version of the DES document (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7671) for D+C rating systems:

"LEED v2009 projects are not formally required to use this guidance at this time, but using it is highly recommended to help ensure a smooth LEED certification review."

In the past it was acceptable to submit a primary building and support buildings as a single project. I use the term ancillary to distinguish to describe such structures, and do not call them buildings.

I am about to submit a Platinum NCv2.2 project with the following structures secondary to the primary building, as a non-campus project.

Cover Storage: Attached to building along one edge, otherwise open to the environment. This is being treated as an exterior shading canopy.

Ice Room: A less than 1000 sq.ft. structure, completely enclosed, use to store ice generated by ice machines. This is a non-occupied ancillary/storage building.

Truck Vehicle Wash: A less than 1000 s.ft. structure that is not regularly occupied, and is not conditioned. Only vehicles go through the wash.

Security Office: A less than 1000 sq.ft. 2-person building. This is an ancillary structure that is regularly occupied. This building is sure to cause the reviewers grief but it cannot be a LEED building per the v2009 MPRs, which I am certain will be applied by the reviewers even though this is a v2.2 project.

The security office was constructed as part of the same project work as the primary building. It is under the single contractor's scope of work and it entirely inside the LEED boundary. Per v2009 MPRs it an area inside your boundary and within your scope-of-work cannot be arbitrarily removed.

The only thing that makes sense is to include the small security office as an ancillary structure. There is nothing else that can be done. It cannot be removed without violating MPRs. It cannot be LEED because it is too small. It is the general contractor's scope-of-work. It must be included somehow.

What is also important to note is that including the ancillary structures, including the security office, makes no difference on the LEED points achieved. None. Nada. Zero. The main building is by far the determining factor in the LEED points documented and the claims made.

I should note that the owner has three LEED Platinum projects in the works, all which are using campus credits for parking, bikes, green vehicles, and stormwater management. Unfortunately, because two of the three are v2.2 and is v3 we cannot use the LEED 2009 AGMBC beacuse there is no option to do so. We must submit the same credit documentation three times and get three set of review comments. Very messy, and ugly when one reviewer disagrees with another, which has happened to me on other campus multi-building projects.

Hi, when calculating the building footprintBuilding footprint is the area on a project site used by the building structure, defined by the perimeter of the building plan. Parking lots, parking garages, landscapes, and other nonbuilding facilities are not included in the building footprint., did you include the ancillary buldings as well, or did you calculated their footprint as hardscapeHardscape consists of the inanimate elements of the building landscaping. Examples include pavement, roadways, stone walls, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios.?

Canopies should be non-roof unless they are carports. They are non-enclosed, non-conditioned elements.

Storage buildings are ancillary structures and could not be certified on their own. The MPRs would not be met.

It seems you have a single LEED project, not multiple buildings.

Thank-you Hernando! So, does this mean that, in regards to the site portion of the project, we need to carve the LEED portion of the site up so it does not have any of the ancillary bldgs/roofed canopies on the LEED site?

No, I would include them and provide an explanation.

In the past this wasn't necessary. These days the reviewers are being told to follow some review rules that don't necessarily allow for good judgement to take place.

The reason not to carve parts of the work out are:

- You have to split apart documentation with other credits, such as regional materials. This is a headache you don't want.

- You will get challenged for not having a reasonably contiguous LEED boundary.

One thing to understand is that these ancillary structures are of no real importance to the project being certified. The structures are necessary to the project function but whether they are included or carved out the impact on LEED is none, or should be none. Points are not added or lost.

A more complex example of a multi-building project type that gets certified as a single project is a multi-building urban K-12 school. The entire school is the "building." Simply because there are separate buildings; classrooms, library, administration, etc.; isn't enough to require separate LEED submittals.

I can tell you from experience, that older existing schools that were renovating some buildings would never pursue LEED if they were required to pay fees to certify each building separately. One of my clients was nearly forced to do this. What upset them most was that a similar renovated downtown school in a single large building would be allowed to certify as a single project but because they had separate small buildings they would have to pay a certification penalty.

The USGBC's LEED Department, the review rules developer, needs to add consideration for ancillary buildings, projects like schools, and also split floor renovations (e.g. 2nd and 5th floor only renovation) falling under LEED CI.

Thank-you for the detailed response - I understand - yay!

No - it appears that information is not available. We had a comment trail going on that in April (shortly after the "deadline"). GBCI commented at the time that they were working on it - but were careful not to provide any real indication of timing.

Hi Omer,

I believe you can. One of our projects has a very similar situation: LEED Campus approach with 2 NC and 1 CS project. When we submitted the CS project for Precertification, the advice given to us by USGBC is not to refer to any Master Site as the Precertification will only look at that particular individual LEED CS project. This should work because each project under LEED Campus approach are supposed to be able to be assessed as individual buildings. Eventually, we did submit for Precertification without referring to the Master Site and was awarded Platinum Precertification.

When you submit the Design and Construction submission in the future, you would then be required to refer to the Master Site.

It would be good to register the Master Site, though.. So you can inform USGBC on the intention of using the LEED Campus approach for the Design and Construction submission.

Logic tells you, that yes, as long as the support buildings are incidental to the main building. Incidental meaning required as support to the main building project being certified.

What the USGBC and GBCI need to add to the AGMBC is a core functions allowance. What should be done with a certification is obvious to me, but I know it is not obvious to those developing the AGMBC rules.

For example, a project I got challenged on regarding multiple buildings was an old urban existing school. Although urban, this was not a school in a downtown with all functions located in a single building; the school layout featured many different buildings.

For the project, only the library and a site-disconnected auditorium were rebuilt. The LEED site was not contiguous, but it was reasonable and entirely contained withing the property line of the school.

The LEED reviewer claimed the project required two separate LEED submittals, but the buildings were small and the everything was built under one set of documents and using identical subcontractors; impossible and arbitrary to split into two parts.

The project ended up being one LEED project, but not without intervening help from the GBCI.

It is unfortunate that the "what is a LEED building" rules are preventing logic from being applied for certification. It is typical to use separate buildings for a school that all serve the same occupants. Libraries, auditoriums and classrooms are all required for a school to meet it functional requirements.

If an entire school were built new, and included 20 separate buildings, is that one LEED project, or is that 20 LEED projects?

If an existing school renovates or replaces two core function buildings is the one LEED project, or 2 LEED projects? Why should separation distance be a criteria in a case like this?

The correct answer to the questions above is: This is one LEED project based on core functions provided by the project where the same set of occupants on a regular basis use the same set of core functions.

Hi Nathan, In general, the information entered for the Master Site project should address all anticipated buildings and the entire LEED campus boundary, not just the typical, "base", or initial building to be built on the site. For more guidance on how to complete the registration data for the Master Site project, including the pertinent sections of the Project Information forms, please refer to this section of the LEED Online v3 Help content (https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/common/LOv3Help/application_guide_for_multiple_building_and_on-campus_building_projects_(agmbc).htm?searchTxt=AGMBC&criteria=any#Master Documentation Tips).

Appendix A (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10484) of the latest version of the AGMBC document (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10486) includes information for each eligible campus credit/prerequisite on how and where to enter site-wide data &/or aggregated data from multiple buildings for the Master Site project's documentation. The AGMBC FAQ (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=9224) provides guidance on this topic, as well--see particularly the top of the fourth page of the pdf. It is worth noting that if you do not yet have enough information about the future buildings on the shared site/campus, the effectiveness of a Master Site is limited, as changes to the Master Site based upon the impact of future buildings will have to be re-reviewed at project team's expense (see top of pg 13 of the AGMBC document).

Thanks for your advice Eric, however, when I was about to enter in the number of buildings in the master site for prerequisite 2 it said that I can only enter in one building at a time. Is this true? Do I have to enter in information for each of the 419 buildings at UC Santa Cruz to be registered for campus credits?

Hi James, Can you clarify which "prerequisite 2" you are referring to? Are you talking about MPR 2, EAp2, Project Informatino Form 2, or something else? Thanks.

Project Informaton form 2. When I try to enter in the total number of buildings for our campus (over 350 buildings) it says that we can only put in one. Does this mean that all of the information should apply to a base building of our choosing or do we still enter information for the total campus?

James,

Unfortunately, the LEED Online program is not yet prepared to handle some Master Site criteria such as the question you've asked about "number of buildings" on PI Form 2. If you enter any number greater than "1" you will receive an error (or at least we did on our recent EB:O&M Master Site project). For the Master Site PI Form 2, you should enter "1" for number of buildings, and include a narrative explaining the actual number of buildings anticipated on your LEED campus. The actual Master Site credits should apply to all buildings within your site (in your case it sounds like more than 350 potential buildings). For credits that will not be shared by the ENTIRE campus/Master Site, you may still pursue these within the individual project review for each building.

*ALSO ~ When submitting the Master Site, if you project is pursuing less than 40 total points within the Master Site submittal, you will likely receive an error (again, LEED Online is not yet prepared for this new process) and need to contact USGBC directly to submit the Master Site for review.

Hope this helps!

Dhanujie, as a first step I think you need to establish your LEED project boundary. There is generally not a requirement that you need to certify multiple buildings at once and thus use the AGMBC. As a starting place I would review the LEED Minimum Program Requirements supplemental guidance document and review the requirements for setting a reasonable project boundary, especially relative to facilities that provide necessary services to the project building.

Hello Dhanujie, We are very glad to hear that you intend to seek LEED certification for this project. Per pgs 25-26 of the LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10131), until Group Certification functionality is released, each separately-certifiable building should be assigned its own LEED project boundary and there may be only one such building per LEED project boundary. It is left to the Owner's/project team's discretion as to whether each or every such building on the site should pursue LEED certification. Use of the AGMBC is not mandatory, but may be required to capture credit for site-wide characteristics and/or multiple-building performance. As noted on page 26 of the MPR Supplemental Guidance, Non-LEED-certifiable structures that support the main LEED building can be included in that building's LEED Project Boundary, and then accounted-for consistently throughout the application.

Although, technically, a structure must meet all 7 MPRs in order to be eligible to attempt LEED certification, effectively, MPR 4 sets the 'floor' for being considered a "LEED-certifiable" building. If an entire building contains at least 1,000 sf of 'gross floor areaGross floor area (based on ASHRAE definition) is the sum of the floor areas of the spaces within the building, including basements, mezzanine and intermediate‐floored tiers, and penthouses wi th headroom height of 7.5 ft (2.2 meters) or greater. Measurements m ust be taken from the exterior 39 faces of exterior walls OR from the centerline of walls separating buildings, OR (for LEED CI certifying spaces) from the centerline of walls separating spaces. Excludes non‐en closed (or non‐enclosable) roofed‐over areas such as exterior covered walkways, porches, terraces or steps, roof overhangs, and similar features. Excludes air shafts, pipe trenches, and chimneys. Excludes floor area dedicated to the parking and circulation of motor vehicles. ( Note that while excluded features may not be part of the gross floor area, and therefore technically not a part of the LEED project building, they may still be required to be a part of the overall LEED project and subject to MPRs, prerequisites, and credits.)' (as the term is defined in the Glossary of the LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance), it is eligible to seek separate certification and should be excluded from any other single-building LEED project boundary.

Please also note that in the rare instances where a building seeking LEED BD+C certification does not contain any of the water-consuming fixtures addressed by the requirements of WEp1, this fact should be explained in the Special Circumstances Narrative section of the Form and it is, effectively, exempted from that Prerequisite.

"Use of the AGMBC is not mandatory, but may be required"

Eric, how can something be 'not mandatory, but may be required'? Isn't this effectively the same thing? Are projects on campus required to use the AGMBC or not?

Hi Susan, My apologies that I wasn't clearer about this, but if you'll refer to the rest of the sentence from the excerpt you quoted you'll see that use of the AGMBC would only be required "...to capture credit for site-wide characteristics and/or multiple-building performance." In other words, just because a single LEED project building is being built on a shared site or campus, the project is not automatically required to utilize the AGMBC. If you were only basing calculations on the site area included within the LEED project boundary for a single building, and if you were not trying to capture any of the eligible 'campus credits' for that project based upon aggregated data from multiple buildings on the same site, the use of the AGMBC would not be mandatory. Thanks for asking me to clarify that. I hope this explanation makes more sense.

Hi, I went through LEED MPR document.
In there under the MPR #2 there is part called as entirety which mentions about "The sum of the constructed components that make up a building which is physically distinct from another building."
Can I consider both of my main buildings as a one since due to entirety?
Below is the plan of my site showing the site boundry , proposed project boundry and main buildings.
http://s12.postimage.org/ton3fn4n1/Basic_Project_boundry.jpg
Would this comply with the LEED Project & its boundary?
(There is a passage way connecting two buildings)

Dhanujie,

I had a similar conversation going on this same thread--if you scroll down, you can see it under the listing for a hotel project. I am in final review of a LEED EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. project for an office building. Adjacent and within the project boundary is a kitchen, storage and canteen which provided facilities strictly for the office occupancy. The canteen building didn't have any toilets or full-time occupants so it wasn't "stand-alone" in the strict terms of the MPRs, so this may be different to your case, but the site plan and logic is quite similar. If strictly adhering to certain aspects of the MPR detailed advice, it looked as if I needed to drop the canteen from the certification. However, in the overall picture it never seemed logical to me to do so, so I stuck with it. In my application, in the project information submittals (P1-P4), I listed each justification for including the canteen, to ensure absolute clarity. The review team apparently has accepted the narrative. My overall experience is that there are continued ambiguities in the MPRs concerning this type of situation, which require further clarification, especially as this is a very common format for the increasing number of both tropical and industrial projects in the LEED portfolio. If your building can stand alone then I would strongly suggest getting an actual decision from GBCI--once you have started down the road of certifying your project, you don't want to be beset with doubts.

Thanks Melissa.
That explained a lot . Hope this question will be a case study for LEED project boundary decisions.

It sounds like the shower users would be a form of transients. Counting them that way may however "incorrectly" skew your need for bike racks at the one building.
I would probably make a document that explains the occupancy numbers for all the buildings, identifying FTEs at each building, transients at each buildng, and an additional category of "visitors" from the other buildings for shower facilities.
Consider including a narrative in that document for each of the LEED credits impacted by the FTEs and how they're addressed. I would think this would let the LEED Reviewer "understand" how you are indeed being (appropriately) consistent across all the credits and all the buildings.

Thank you very much Michelle! This is a good way to approach the issue.

we have a similar issue with one of our projects (an industrial project), with a 'shower house' with ONE FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories.. We want to include the shower house in the certification and are trying to find the best way to do this:

the 'shower house' is the central ablution facility for the entire site and will be used by around 350 people/day. our sense is that we should certify the 'shower house' as a separate building, since other than playing a support function to the industrial spaces on the site it cannot be naturally slotted into any group of buildings. My first question is therefore whether this would be an accurate assumption to make?

Following on from the string of conversation on the topic above, we are considering two options how to account for FTE usage of the 'shower house':

1. since we know who will use the 'shower house' from across the project (LEED projects only), we can calculate these FTEs as visitors (from the other LEED projects on the site) and transients (in this case drivers) in the calculations for WEp1

2. another option - but this may be a bit way out - could be to treat the shower house water use as process waterProcess water is used for industrial processes and building systems such as cooling towers, boilers, and chillers. It can also refer to water used in operational processes, such as dishwashing, clothes washing, and ice making. - given that the employees will shower as a result of the process on the site?

we would imagine though that option 1 would be our best bet?

many thanks!

Hi Mei, when creating a master site, you'll have to document the location of each project pursuing individual certification. Here are the submittal requirements:
• a general narrative of the overall campus project  
• a schematic site plan showing the location of the LEED campus boundary and the location of each project pursuing LEED certification
• a list of the campus credits being attempted
• a list of the individually registered projects to which the campus credits will apply

In addition, the following information is required in the Project Information (PI) forms within the Master Site registration:
• Total site area within the LEED campus boundary.
• Combined footprint of all buildings with the LEED campus boundary (including buildings not pursuing LEED Certification).
• Area outside the combined building footprints, within the LEED campus boundary, that is comprised of hardscapeHardscape consists of the inanimate elements of the building landscaping. Examples include pavement, roadways, stone walls, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios.. (if applicable)
• Total number of parking spaces provided for building users. (if applicable)

Thanks Samantha. Based on your commets, it seems that we won't be able to use the Master Site approach for campus planning stage. Is there any system that can streamline the LEED certification on an overall campus basis? Does anyone know would LEED for Neighborhood Development work in our case?

Unfortunately, we do not have a revised date for the release of the group functionality in LEED Online.

It is advisable to wait for the functionality for group certification to be ready in LEED Online. If you have already registered a project that you would like to turn into a group project you can do that once the LEED Online functionality for group certification is available. However, because the group certification fees are not finalized, you may have to pay the difference in price when the project is moved from an individual to a group project. The fees will be billed based on the certification fees in place at the time of submittal.

Please also note that the group of buildings must achieve the same credits for the entire group and so all buildings must attempt the same credits. Some of the prerequisites and credits with calculated performance such as the energy credits must be achieved by each building. This is outlined in more detail in the guidance and appendices.

If you have any specific questions, we're happy to help. Please use the Contact Us form at http://www.gbci.org/contactus.

There is a link describing how to link registered projects to a registered master site.

https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/co...

I'm still trying to figure out how to apply master site credits to multiple versions of rating systems.

In one case I have two v2 projects and a v2009 project. Per the new AGMBC v2 projects cannot use LEED v3 (v2009) campus credit documentation. Even if the requirements are identical, as they are with bikes, and parking.

In another case I have 10 v2, 1 v2009 and 10-12 v2012 projects. The shared documentation is limited to a single credit, on-site renewable energy. It doesn't matter which version of LEED a project is using. Renewable energy is drawn from in terms of an amount of energy. In this case the renewables are entirely solar (photovoltaic).

It would everyone's life easier if for certain credits, where it doesn't make a difference, or the more stringent requirements are followed of the rating systems used, to allow projects under LEED 2, 2009 and 2012 to use the campus credits. Restricting the allowance to v2009 projects only makes the certification process much more difficult.

Hello Hernando, Thank you for that thoughtful suggestion. The idea of allowing the use of Campus Credits across versions of the LEED rating systems (e.g. for projects in both v2 and 2009 rating systems on a shared campus) has certainly been discussed at USGBC and GBCI. However, the complexity of tracking which credits do have identical requirements from one version to another verses those that do not, combined with the fact that LEED Online v2 and v3 are very different software platforms, make implementation of this idea impractical at present. We will continue to explore the feasibility of your suggestion and we thank you for your feedback.

Eric, some of these credits are very simple to crossover, mainly the site credits, on-site renewable energy, and green power. Others are much more difficult and should be individual project based, not campus based, such as recycled content and construction waste.

My experience when submitting identical campus documentation for multiple projects is that the second reviewer will reject the campus credit if they disagreed with the first reviewer. Not good.

There is nothing beneficial with submitting identical and approved documentation with LEED certification reviewers disagreeing with each other. The AGMBC is supposed to prevent this. To solve that some credits need to be considered as long-term investments by an owner and by LEED.

Let me propose the solution to the GBCI. First, make this easy. Only apply this to certain credits, and not every credit. If you try to solve this for all credits you won't be able to do it. It only works for some credits.

Allow LEED Online v3 to be used document the certain campus credits. v3 projects gets linked to this as is currently allowed. The v2 projects do not get linked. It is up to the v2 project to provide a pointer to the v3 master credit they want considered that way. Also, leave it up to the v2 project to state how the requirements for both v2 and v3 have been met.

Restrict the use of v3 documentation for v2 projects to certain credit, the obvious ones: Site Selection, Development Density, Bicycles, Low-Emitting VehiclesLow-emitting vehicles are classified as zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by the California Air Resources Board., Parking Capacity, Stormwater Management, Water Efficient Landscaping, On-Site Renewable Energy, and Green Power.

If a new construction project changes any of the features approved in the campus credits then require that the campus credit documentation be updated. An update of course would require a review fee.

I think the bigger issue with the campuses is that in this thread we are really talking about organizations who have been dedicated to the LEED process for several years and who are being discouraged for the previous efforts. I understand that the GBCI is charged with maintaining the rigor of LEED but Hernando is right, most of the credits that carry over for campuses have not substantially changed. What about the university who in committing to build a building in LEED v2.1, set in motion policy changes for their campus that they have been following (ie bike racks, stormwater, parking) only to disover that in their LEED v3 project that that was all for naught when it comes to the new building? As I've said in previous posts, I can copy and paste very well and the sell of easier documentation falls on deaf ears. My fear is that the policies of the GBCI in LEED v3 are alienating the established base. Companies, who by the way, hire me to establish sustainable design strategies (emphasis on sustainable design and not on a particular program).

Image my campus concern. I have a large school district client with multiple campuses. 20-30 LEED buildings are planned, 8 already built, 3 under construction and the rest not in design yet.

The projects are all being paid for by a public bond, so it will take many, many years to design and build them all.

We already have LEED for schools v2 and 2009 projects. We will have LEED 2012 projects, and also the LEED version after 2012.

The owner is installing renewable energy systems on many but not all of the campuses. We have an approved LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. that allows school districts, within certain constraints, to allocate the renewables to any project within the school district. So, a renewable system at a high school with good land resources can be assigned to a middle school that has no room for renewables.

I know how to manage the renewables between the projects. What I don't know is how the GBCI certification reviewers will react. We will likely get challenged on every project to prove the renewables are not double counted. I am certain I will also get review comments telling me to use the campus v3 documentation path even though I cannot. v2 projects cannot be linked to v3.

Hopefully, there won't need to be 20-30 detailed explanations. There are so many projects that it is likely the same reviewer will review more than one of the projects. Maybe they will remember, maybe not.

This where I think that the Block program could be of huge benefit if implemented properly. The block program could be the backbone of campuses such that the owner can update and monitor their 'block' inputs. The project teams (and let's assume that there are multiple A/E teams) can hook their project to the block and get up to date master credit information. They could also reserve capacity in the block credits for their project so it is there when they go to review. The GBCI reviewers can see where and to which project the capacity is going to.

For example, on a campus there are 1,000 bike parking slots and let's assume that it is centrally located to all buildings such that all buildings can stake a claim on these slots. Existing building A claimed 150 slots in their LEED v2.1 project. Building B is claiming 150 slots under their v2.2 project which is in progress. My project is Building C and has staked a claim for 500 slots leaving an excess capacity on campus of 200 slots. Shortly after we were released to do Building C, a competitor was granted the contract for Building D. They go to the LEED Block and want to claim 300 slots but find that only 200 are available. They then have the choice to add 100 slots or alter their credit strategy as the Owner sees fit. At all times, all the project teams know where they stand with the slots and so does the Owner and the GBCI. The Owner can assign a facilities person to monitor the block and as they do master planning, can use this information to integrate sustainable design into their plans in a deep and meaningful way.

(LEED project admin wakes from dream.)

Hi Anoop, 

The Minimum Program Requirements: are pretty clear that is has to be a "whole building", so you need to proceed carefully here. You might be able to get this accepted as a stand-alone project, but  I would definitely recommend getting a formal ruling from GBCI on it. Some key issues to consider are whether or not this tower is independent from the rest of the complex in its mechanical systems, and how well you can define any site area as being specific to the tower.

I'd love to hear if others have recent experience with this kind of situation.

I had one odd project that was an urban redevelopment. The existing site was two large parking lots used by a regional transportation hub. A major street split the lots.

The owner was allowed to build on top of the parking lot as long as they: (1) constructed a two-story parking structure, (2) gave the first level of the structure to the transportation hub for public usePublic or public use applies to all buildings, structures, or uses that are not defined as private or private use..

On top of the parking was a podium the owner built seven 4 and 3 story apartments.

Common sense tells you that the project should not be LEED NC because of the 3 story apartments. But, the 3 story apartments were less than 40% of the total building square footage. That means, even though this was before the 60/40 rules, that the project was 100% LEED NC.

We were initially challenged by the reviewers about the public first level of parking, and the 3 story buildings. We were able to exclude the parking by proving it was owned by the transportation hub.

I have seen comments that 3 story residential buildings cannot be certified under LEED NC but that is not true as long as you model the buildings as 4 story buildings using a dummy floor.

Hi Hernando, Situations such as the one you describe above can be rather complicated, and teams are encouraged to contact GBCI (http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact.aspx) prior to registering if rating system eligibility is questionable. Please note that LEED 2009 does not allow multi-family residential buildings that have three or less habitable stories to be registered under LEED-NC or LEED-CS. While this option was allowed on a case-by-case basis for some multi-family residential projects registered prior to the release of the LEED for Homes rating system, it is not currently allowed for any 3-story multi-family residential projects. Consequently, there is not an allowance for 3-story or less residential buildings to use dummy floors to make the energy modeling compliant with ASHRAE 90.1.

The LEED 2009 Minimum Program Requirements (www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6715), state that LEED projects must include the new, ground-up design and construction, or major renovation, of at least one commercial, institutional, or HIGH-RISE residential building in its entirety. This issue is also clarified in the The LEED 2009 Rating system selection guidance (www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6667).

Note that the 3-story multi-family residential buildings would not be eligible for group certification in a LEED-NC group certification project, since the Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-campus Building Projects (AGMBC), page 10, states that: “each building or space in the group project must independently qualify for the chosen LEED rating system."

The mixed story building is LEED-NC v2.2 Gold certified.

The basic reason the project was allowed to be certified as a whole were simple.

Per the 60/40 rules a mixed LEED project must follow a specific rating system. So if the project is 60% or more LEED-NC the entire project must be LEED-NC. LEED-Homes 3-story buildings would be "adjusted" to the same energy bar as a 4-story building. That way they can become LEED-NC buildings.

Based on the review comments we received, it appeared adding a dummy floor was a method that had already been used by other projects. Our energy analyst used a different method of equivalence than the reviewer wanted. After making the model to satisfy the reviewer the energy savings claim increased for the project.

The second reason the project was allowed to certify as a whole was related to money. The owner paid the maximum fee possible for certification (> 500k SF). The amount paid was greater than the certification fees that would have been paid if the project was split into pieces. The cost of review and documentation would have been unnecessarily complex and expensive. No one would have benefited.

The entire project was constructed as a single set of construction documents and specifications.

Any project in a similar situation would be allowed to certify 3-story projects as 4-story projects. The 60/40 rules don't let you certify a LEED-NC project and arbitrarily remove elements entirely contained within the scope-of-work LEED boundary.

Jutta,

The first question I understand and it sounds like you've got a good handle on it. I agree with your understanding.

The second however, I'm a bit confused on. I will say that once you determine a campus boundary you can certify buildings on that campus later and still leverage credits you've already completed because you designated the campus. As in, you would not need to re-do some of the sites credits. I'm not sure that answers your question. If not, could you provide some more detail?

many thanks for the response, Emily. i do agree with the understanding of being able to leverage campus wide credits at a later stage, which would come into effect should the plant be extended at a future stage, which is a possibility.

since we would like to certify the current project in its entirety and pursue certification for all buildings and the campus from the onset (as one construction project), what we are concerned about is that we may end up with needing to certify a larger number of separate buildings (>1,000sf each), such as smallish store here, a holding building there etc., simply because they are not connected, although serving collectively the single purpose of - say - product processing. can we therefore register 1. campus, 2. office 3. processing 4. warehousing (which would be the logical grouping)? or do we need to register each individual building within the logical grouping? hope i am making sense?

many thanks!

On the 1st question: "turn the EXISTING registration (is that even possible) in a group project that will receive one single certification?".

Hi--just to comment on the first question, as far as I am aware the single certification option is still pending. No release date (except 1st Q of 2012) has been announced. We've been waiting almost 18 months to start the process for a factory with 10 buildings; it makes no sense for us to certify each building. It sounds like your project is similar in that regard. Hopefully our wait is nearly over!

Thanks Melissa!

We would wait, but the thing is that our whole study was done based on LEED 2009, we are afraid to wait for the new capibility of LEED Online and then be obligated to register under LEED 2012, which will be more stringent and for sure undermine certification for this particilar project.

How are you dealing with this, is your project registered yet?

We're in exactly the same boat. We started this project in 2009, the project has now been built, but we have been in a holding pattern for over a year, with data that we hope is going to be relevant. We'll have to re-register because we registered initially as one project (we immediately realized this was not possible). We just have to hope that we get a suitable window of opportunity between this release and the requirement to move to the new 2012 version. An awful lot of work went into it!

Hello Marcio,

Thanks for your comments. Please be assured that you will have an opportunity to register under the 2009 version(s) of the LEED Rating Systems using the Group Certification approach of the AGMBC BEFORE the use of the 2012 versions of the LEED rating systems becomes mandatory. You may refer to the LEED 2012 development timeline on the USGBC website (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2360) for more information, but, in summary, LEED 2012 will not be available, much less mandatory, until later in the year. Group Certification functionality is still being targeted for release in this first quarter of 2012.

Nevertheless, to play it safe you may still register these projects now and then roll them into a single Group Certification project as described in the AGMBC FAQ document (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=9224), which states:

If I registered individual LEED 2009 projects before the release of the group certification functionality (formerly Part 2) in the AGMBC, can I use those registrations to register a project for group certification?
Project teams can combine individual project registrations into a group project registration. The fees paid for the individual registrations can be applied to the cost of the group registration. If teams have paid more registration fees than are necessary to cover the cost of the group registration, the additional fees can be applied to additional registrations.).

Thanks Eric!

I've read this FAQ answer, but it wasn't quite clarifying to me...
Our project is already registered as a block (5 individual buildings + Master site). We benefited from the 20% off fee for multiple bldgs. projects and all http://www.gbci.org/main-nav/building-certification/fees/multiple-buildi.... But the Group Registration will have a different fee structure that we don't know how is gonna work yet, right? So I'm pretty sure the 2 registration final fees - as individual block projects and as a group - will diverge. The answer you posted says "the additional fees can be applied to additional registrations". But what if I don't want to add any other building to the block? Is a reimbursment possible? Or can I apply this fee to a completely different project, a single LEED NC (not multiple buildings) for instance?

Finally, I'm meeting my client in a couple days and he will ask me: should we proceed with payment and leave it as individual projects within the block because we will be able to change to Group later on and have any extrapaid money back OR shall we just wait for LEED Online to be ready for Group Certification?

Second, how about the diverging tables in the AGMBC, which one should I use - 1.4 Table 1A (AGMBC, Part I, p.14) or Table 1 (AGMBC, Part II, p.3).

Thank you!

The exact Group Certification fee structure has not yet been finalized, nor have all the policies for crediting registration fees that exceed those necessary for Group Certification. While I can certainly understand that you are anxious to know how you might be able to apply these credits, unfortunately, I cannot yet tell you exactly how that will work at this time.

As to the issue of which Table to use, as indicated on the AGMBC page of the USGBC website (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2326), projects registered prior to 10/31/11 may elect to use the older (Part 1) version of the table, but all projects are actually encouraged, as well as permitted, to use the newer version (which is located here for D+C rating systems: https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10484).

Thank you very much Eric!

This really helps a lot!! Now I can explain my cliente exactly where we are.

Melissa, hope that was helpful to you as well!

Yes, thanks!

Kitty, I'm not sure I follow your question, and what you are describing seems overly complicated. Can you try rephrasing it?

Hello Kitty, I believe I understand what you are asking. It sounds as though you are asking about using the same LEED Campus Boundary for a multiple building site that involves some new buildings that will be pursuing certification using LEED-NC and existing buildings that will be using LEED-EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems.. Since you use the term "LEED Campus Boundary", I assume that you are referring to projects using the Master Site Campus Credit approach from the AGMBC, not the Group Certification approach.

As indicated in the AGMBC FAQ (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=9224), teams with LEED-NC and LEED-EBOM projects on the same campus would need to register separate Master Site projects for the purposes of campus credit review. However, it is acceptable to use the same "LEED Campus Boundary" for both a D+C and an O&M Master Site project, as long as each individual building has its own, non-overlapping "LEED Project Boundary" within that larger LEED Campus Boundary.

Eric,
I think the GBCI is missing a bigger point here on complicated campus projects. We work in healthcare; mainly Hospitals. These buildings are generally 'clumps' and not individual entities separated by some form of landscaping which is think is more typical in all the AGMBC writings. The new HC/NC project will be attached and part of an older structure which will be renovated to some degree. One project or two? The owner will usually tell you that they are multiple projects because he won't have funding or approval for any of the renovations. So where is the boundary really? Then what about the older mechanical units we can't touch? What about the spaces on the large main levels of the Hospital where the line has become so blurred between structures that the architectural space is classified in one building but half of it is actually fed mechanically by a second building which isn't being worked on at all?

From what I can tell, there is little advantage for my projects with these Block/Master Site groupings. The credits that I'm allowed to document once are frankly the easiest ones to document and I copy/paste really well.

Hi Susan, I couldn't agree with you more that the types of projects you have described pose serious challenges in terms of applying the LEED rating systems, mostly in terms of defining an 'entire building' or 'complete interior space' that is compliant with MPR 2 and a LEED project boundary that is compliant with MPR 3. We are working to find more universal guidance for such situations, but this is, by nature, not a one-size-fits-all kind of issue. It is also worth noting that many such projects have been able to successfully define an acceptable project scope and certify their projects under either the LEED Interior Design + Construction (ID+C) rating systems (e.g. CI) or the Building Design + Construction (BD+C) rating systems (e.g. LEED-NC, HC, etc). Usually, if the project scope & data for the 'Addition', per se, can be separated from the renovation work going on the rest of the building, the guidance for "attached buildings" on pages 14-17 of the MPR Supplemental Guidance (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10131) can be used to seek separate certification for the addition under the appropriate BD+C rating system. In some cases, the interior renovations may then also qualify, per the criteria on pages 19-20 of the same document, for their own separate LEED-CI certification, if desired. Teams can either contact GBCI (http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact.aspx) or submit a Formal Inquiry (https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/co...) for guidance on particularly complex situations that are not addressed adequately by existing published guidance.