I did the calculations for one project, but the requirements fell just short. I can't say I've succeeded, yet.

You should base the evaluation on the line of sight at 42". Refer to EQc8.1, Figure 1, of the LEED Reference Guide.

Get a copy of the detailed report referred to in the LEED Reference Guide.
http://h-m-g.com/downloads/Daylighting/
day_registration_form.htm

The LEED Reference Guide does not tell you the report you need is the one titled "Windows and Offices: A Study of Office Worker Performance and the Indoor Environment - CEC PIER 2003." This is a free PDF download.

The proper term for the views exemplary performanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements. is "View Factor". Search for "view factor" in the PDF file.

Plants and other fauna and human activity must be within 70 feet of the window.

I would suggest that to to successfully document this you need to use the the Heschong and Mahone Study, Windows and Offices as guidance. As already noted, you need to look at the section that defines how view factors are established. This is based on a the vision cone a person has, i believe its either 11 or 15 degrees. What i would do is provide a building section which also includes the exterior activity or fauna. With the upper floors, i would use the cone of vision angle to show how a person on the upper floor is able to see such items through the window. The furthest distance from the window in which the cone of vision angle allows the occupant to see the exterior items establishes the depth of compliant space.

Have you looked at the other options for exemplary performanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements.? These may be more easily attainable than this option.

Todd,

Thanks for your input. The reference guide states, "at least 70 feet from the exterior glazing" leading me to believe that the vision of items can be 70' or beyond? What are your thoughts on this wording. As for the other options to go after, only #2 and #4 are possible for our building due to other variables.

Thanks,

Sara

As far as the distance item, it is at least, not within as i had noted. Was thinking one thing and typing another. I have not read or seen anything that would put a limit on the distance so whose to say what the limit is. It would also depend on actually what the occupants are looking at. A person could have a view of the mountains and be miles away. This would work for vegetation and object, but i could see where an occupant would not be able to clearly identify and view "human activity.

Have you thought about deferring this credit until the construction phase and when the building is complete, and you can provide actual images from the spaces? A picture is worth a thousand words and would greatly reduce the amount of time and documentation needed to demonstrate compliance.

Todd,

That's in interesting option, to go take pictures once completed. I will certainly run that by my PM.

Thanks Again!

As everyone has been referencing the suggested The Herschong Study from the reference guide, has anyone ever actually submitted a piece of documentation showing this when attempting EP #4- View Factor, not #2 about Quality of View. I assume that from the 42" seated position in the plan view of the various room types. I can simply create a linear point of reference and then extend the angle 50 degrees in either direstion...? A section view would show nothing more then the ability for seated occupants to see out at 42" AFF.

I usually provide sections that represent the typical condition and then any spaces in which i think could be questioned. Such as interior space looking through another space, spaces with fixed partitions and shelvings. or non-typical window conditions. Typically, one or two building sections that are either dimensioned or have the 42" labeled should be sufficient. If a reviewer has a question about a specific sight line, they usually ask.

I always consider an entire open office area as regularly occupied because with today's flexible furnishings it is very possible that the workstation arrangement could change. I've never had a problem with reviewers documenting it this way and it typically helps credit compliance.

OK,
thanks, Allison

Thank you for sharing this, however I believe the Ruling ID# is 10254, not 10245.

Hello Renee, According to the EQ Space Type Matrix which you can find here, http://new.usgbc.org/resources/eq-space-type-matrix, concessions areas are not considered regularly occupied spacesRegularly occupied spaces are areas where one or more individuals normally spend time (more than one hour per person per day on average) seated or standing as they work, study, or perform other focused activities inside a building. for this credit.

No, hotel rooms are considered residential, and therefore the compliant square footage is what must be used in the calculations.

The 75% thing was not created by the IEQ Technical Advisory Committee. I was the vice-chair of that committee, long ago, when the allowance appeared in the NC Reference Guide.

The TAGs were responsible for developing the credit requirements but the 75% is a completely bypassed the consensus development policy for LEED.

The idea behind the 75% is not bad, but it is being strictly enforced based on language not properly thought out long ago by the Reference Guide authors.

Hotel rooms and bedrooms are the types of spaces, in addition to private offices, which SHOULD be get an allowance. Usage-wise they work the same, the ability to locate furniture to take advantage of views.

They are occupied regularly enough, and can certainly benefit from the daylight and views. You have to include them. 

Regular Occupied Space Matrix dated July 2012 has them listed as regularly occupied for both 8.1 and 8.2. There is also more to the definition than just focused activities.

Yes, as long as its meets all the requirements. Your lines of sight can come from multiple directions to cover an area in a room.

Hi Michelle,

In the LEEDuser Checklist above, under "Construction Documents" there is a "hot tip" that says:

"Direct-line-of-sight can pass through two interior glazing surfaces before reaching exterior glazing, but not through solid doors, walls, or partitions taller than 42”. "

That covers the interior glazing question pretty well, I'd say. If you're also asking about exterior doors with glazing--those are fine, just like windows, unless the glass is frosted for privacy.

I have submitted my own spreadhseet which contains the same information as the supplemental views calculator a couple of times without any issues.

Michael,

If the regularly occupied space being used in the calculation does not go the entire length of the room, then you can start you line of site drawings where that ends. Lets say you have an open office plan with the main path of travel located near the core of the floorplate. Corridors are not considered regularly occupied, so your line of site starts where the occupants will be working. It is pretty typical to provide a sectional drawing and just draw a line at 42 across the entire section.

As of yet, there has been no dictation on the quality of the view that is required. I believe this will change with the next LEED revision. Though a bit deep, your light well will still allow occupants to see rain or snow and will allow them to detect a variance in daylight. My answer is yes, this counts.

According to the regularly occupied space matrix dated July 2012, if the warehouse/storage are can be exempted if inactive, but must be included if active:

I do not have a definition as to what is considered active or inactive, but here is the footnote with it,
Due to the varied nature of this space type, project teams are to use best judgment when applying the space type definitions and the pursuant prerequisite or credit requirements. When in conflict, code requirements that are meant to protect health, safety and welfare of occupants must take priority over the LEED requirements. Credits that are in conflict with these requirements should not be pursued. In order to comply with a prerequisite, alternative standards or guidelines that are not in conflict must be presented and complied with, in lieu of the LEED referenced standard or guideline.

In the LEED Reference Guide, v2009, the IEQ LEED Overview states:

Spaces Not Regularly Occupied

Spaces considered not regularly occupied are those that occupants pass through and those that are not regularly used for at least 1 hour per day:

Types of Spaces: Auditorium, Greenhouse, Locker Room, Receiving Area.

The space type listings were developed for LEED for Schools. The 1 hour per day rule is likely to be applied across the board on LEED projects, at least these days. I have, for several years, verified the 1 hour of use per day with owners for spaces with unclear usage. So far, I have never been questioned by the certification reviewers, but I am prepared to respond if challenged.

Todd, can you please direct me to the web location of the July 2012 Regularly Occupied Space Matrix that you are referring to above, I am having trouble finding it on the USGBC website.

Kevin at this link under Indoor Environmental Quality.

http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=220

Here is a link to the Space Matrix excel file (zip file): http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=10539

Yes, the classrooms are considered regularly occupied. There is no languages that states the number of days. in a year that a space has to be occupied to be considered regularly occupied. There is language that states at least one hour on average per day to be considered, but a classroom is a classroom and should have views.

Yes.

Daniel,

If you don't mind me inquiring, how many stories is/was your building? I have a five story building I am working on and we are trying to achieve IEQc8.2EP #2. I am a bit confused by whether my 5th floor views into teh distance would qualify.

Thanks!

Yes, they would qualify.

t

Do your line of sight calculations without any furniture to show that you have provided the future tenant x% of square feet with access to views. You will either need to provide a tenant lease agreement that state the tenant must fitout to meet the requirements of the credit, or you can provide a copy of tenant guidelines that explains how the space was designed to meet EQc8.2 and the strategies that can be used to meet it within their own fitout.

If you are apply for LEED for a School Project, you should use LEED for Schools. You are in the NC forum.

The answer is yes and yes.

According to the IEQ Space Matrix posted in November of 2011, under Educational Facilities, Gymnasiums may be be excluded from both EQc8.1 and EQc8.2. The kitchen must be included in the calculations.

I do not agree with this and whole heartedly and believe that gymnasiums should be required to be in 8.1 and should be daylit. I can see them be excluded for 8.2.

What is the height of the panels? If greater than 42" you will need to adjust your lines of sight accordingly to the occupants locations.

I have about a bulk of panels at 36" high which I have utilized all of them at the windows. I have a good amount of panels that are 42" but was unsure if they would be allowable in regards to this credit.

42" is the magic height, so it appears that no matter where you put them, the occupants will have full access to the views.

Thanks! I appreciate the help.

We have been able to get by with only submitting one floor if the floors are repetitive. If they are significantly different in layout, though, you'll definitely need to submit them all.

Hi Jean,

All the spaces you list would be considered "regularly occupied" by LEED. That term only excludes spaces that are rarely or only quickly occupied: closets, restrooms, hallways, etc.

Hi Nadav,
I have a related question about regularly occupied spacesRegularly occupied spaces are areas where one or more individuals normally spend time (more than one hour per person per day on average) seated or standing as they work, study, or perform other focused activities inside a building.. The manual states that regularly occupied spaces in NC are those that someone stands or sits to work. Therefore Lounges and kitchens in NC projects that are used to warm up food do not seem to fit this definition. Are they only considered regularly occupied for residential uses?

Thank you in advance for your feedback.

Be sure to read the revised definitions of "occupied spacesOccupied Spaces are defined as enclosed spaces that can accommodate human activities. Occupied spaces are further classified as regularly occupied or non-regularly occupied spaces based on the duration of the occupancy, individual or multi-occupant based on the quantity of occupants, and densely or non-densely occupied spaces based upon the concentration of occupants in the space." and "regularly occupied spacesRegularly occupied spaces are areas where one or more individuals normally spend time (more than one hour per person per day on average) seated or standing as they work, study, or perform other focused activities inside a building." in the 11/1/12 addendum(s). They are still open for wide interpretation in my opinion, but it might be helpful in some cases.

If they are used only for momentary activities, I would say they are not regularly occupied spaces. However, residential spaces in NC seem to hold different status than they do in commercial spaces.

I would suggest that you use the regularly occupied matrix that was posted a few months ago. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=220
Under Indoor Environmental Quality under Space type classification.

Jill and Todd thank you both for your quick reply. The information provided by both of you is very helpful and luckly aligned with what I had previously determined. Jill the definition you refer to is clearly peppered throughout the addenda. However the matrix you directed me to Todd I can not find a reference to this in the addenda. It is listed under the resouces as your link directed me there. But I would have thought that in order to be consistant they would have also referenced it in the addenda. It might be there and I did not see it. Regardless thank you both.

Here is what i am working on for a response as to exactly why i believe the 42" line should not be the make or break dimension.

The requirement to establish what some define as the direct line of site at 42” is contradictory to the credit language and to the referenced study by Hechong and Mahone in establishing exemplary performanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements.. It seems that many in the LEED world only think that credit compliance is only determined from this 42” horizontal line. It is even unclear as how GBCI even states in 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. 1646 that the view requirement must be met from a seated height of 42”. Again, this is contradictory to the language in the Reference Guide. I make the following case that views in the library for the_____________ are valid based upon the following.

The definition of, or meaning of direct line of site does include anything about having to be parallel, it clearly states that it is uninterrupted path between the eye and the object. The calculations section of the credit language states that a direct line of site must established to the perimeter glazing, nothing about 42”. In the implementation section of the credit, it states that 42” is assumed, and can be adjusted for students or non-typical functions. That statement alone nullifies the 42” requirement.

Figure one in the Reference Guide shows a cone, it is assumed that the bottom line is 42” and the top line runs to 90” on the perimeter. The dashed line is the line of site, again, it is not parallel. It is very vague as to why 42” is so regarded when the credit language references vision glazing between 30 and 90 inches. Based on having vision glazing between 30 and 90 inches clearly implies that I can have a view to the exterior anywhere between 30 and 90 inches. Nothing references that a project team must establish a determined height that is parallel to the floor. If that were the case then project teams would be allowed to have parallel line from the occupants to exterior anywhere between 30 and 90 inches. Again if 42” is a standard why is 30 and 90 inches used in the language?

The credit language states in determining the horizontal viewThe approach used to confirm that the direct line of sight to perimeter vision glazing remains available from a seated position. It uses section drawings that include the installed furniture to make the determination., draw a line at 42”( typical seated height). This whole section references the example of an office space. In the same section it states that the line is used to determine if there are any obstructions at 42” IT DOES NOT STATE that this line is the direct line of site to be used to determine if the occupant has a view, you just can not have any obstructions that high. The next line in the same section states that you are draw 1 or more representative lines of site to the perimeter glazing, refer to figure 1. This line, the line of site is the dashed line. Dashed lines in this situation throughout the industry is the indication of someone vision line. This is not parallel nor is at 42”. It does fall in between what is assume to be 30 and 90”. I want to reiterate, that the 42” line is to determine obstructions, not the line of site.

The final piece to considere as to why 42” is not the standard to determine if there is a view to the perimeter comes from the Heschong and Mahone study, “Windows and the Office”. This document is used to establish exemplary performance requirements. Page 47 establishes the parameters. First off it talks about the cone of vision that is 90 degrees, the cone of vision is shown on page 49 and it is both horizontal and vertical. Refer to page 48 which categorizes the 5 classes of views. Class three is used to establish exemplary performance, but the study also states that class one and 2 are views, they are just not the most desired. Now refer to page 50 and figure 25. It references that the minimum and maximum degrees that one should use to classify a view is 11 and 40. So no less then 11 and no more than 40. Please refer to the section uploaded labeled view compliance. It shows that an occupant sitting at a table will have a vision cone of ______ and ____________.

The point that i'm trying to establish is that we have a cone of vision, both horizontal and vertical so as long as we have certain percentage within that cone, it is acceptable.

This is a work in progress that i'm working on.

I would apply common sense. If the position is a standing one, the height of the vision line should be for standing. If sitting then sitting. The cone idea is good but too complex (expensive) to apply to a LEED credit. Think about the intent of the credit. Do you fullfill the intent? The wording of the credit will never be perfect.

No for neither one of them.

Sharlene, You state that the occupants should still be able to see outside. First i would confirm that they can before considering this product.
I would say based upon the intent of this credit that an obscurred view is not acceptable. I would refer you to read the Heschong and Mahone study referenced in the Reference Guide to get a better understanding about the intent of the credit. Using the standards in the study as basis as to what an acceptable view is, i would say anything less than clear glass would not be acceptable.

I looked at V2.2 and 2009 LEED Interpretations and there is nothing related to this. However, the rulings in two interpretations state there needs to be a quality of view to meet the intent. So based on that statement, is it really a quality view.

If you were to attempt this, i highly suggest you take pictures of what the view would look like with this product.