NC v2.2 EQc8.2: Daylight and Views—Views for 90% of Spaces

Is this a renovation or all new construction? The space would have to be included in the calculations and i don;t see how you would not want to include daylight into a yoga studio or some type of connection to the exterior. The occupants have the option to pull blinds if needed.

To argue that privacy is needed yet the space has windows and is located adjacent to a very public space would not work since the space may change usage at some time in the buildings life, especially if this new construction.

The issue is not if a space requires daylight, it is whether or not daylight is detrimental to the activity of the space. Cannot see how daylight would be detrimental to this space.

It's a renovation, the windows along the street were pre-existing. My question isn't whether daylight would help or hinder the activities in the space, but whether the space fits the new definition of "regularly occupied" or not. There are three rooms in the studio. There is one person who sits at a reception desk all day long, so I plan to include the reception area/room. But the actual yoga studio and Pilates studio only have classes about 3-5 times a day for an hour each, and then otherwise sit empty. Are these two spaces "regularly occupied"? It doesn't seem to me that they are.

Yes they would be, clearly based on the number of times they are used per day and the amount of time that they are used for. Very similar occupancy schedule that a conference room could have in a office, which is considered regularly occupied.

What is your reasoning why they wouldn't be?

Also, what new definition of regularly occupied are you referencing?

The new definition is in the most recent LEED Addenda release, Nov 2011. I quoted it in my initial posting (can also find good discussion on LEEDUser). It describes "regularly occupied" as 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."

To me, "seated, standing, working, studying, focused activities" imply areas where people are reading, working, studying, looking at something on work surfaces that are improved by daylight (which would include conf rooms). Yoga and Pilates don't seem to quite fit that definition.

Also, how do you interpret "more than one hour per person per day"? If someone is in class for only one hour per day, this does not seem to meet this new definition, which seem to ascribe time parameters to how often the space is used by one person in their day.

That is the 2009 addenda, and this thread is for 2.2 projects. But that definition was posted to try and help clarify the never ending question as to what is and is not regularly occupied.

You are reading way to hard into the definition of this. Secondly based on how you are trying to interpret this, gymnasiums would be excluded as 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., but gymnasium, with sports activities such as yoga, are considered regularly occupied.

The Reference Guide cannot include everything probable type or use of a space, there fore there is always some confusion when it comes to this definition.

I don;t think you have an argument that they are not regularly occupied. You may try an argue that they should be excluded from the views calculations, but with these spaces having windows i don;t think that would work.

I agree with Todd's guidance/feedback here. The studio space should be considered regularly occupied and class attendees can benefit from having access to both daylight and views.

Great - thanks for the feedback - I will treat it as regularly occupied space. (PS - the project IS LEED 2009, didn't notice this was a v2.2 conversation thread.)

Yes they can. Most exam rooms can be excluded for that the reason.

Donna- there was a pre-LEED 2009 CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide that allowed us to exclude the gym from the Views calculation only, because there is major concern about low glazing being susceptible to breakage in a space where you have likely projectiles. Other CIRs indicated that gyms could not, however, be excluded from EQ 8.1 calculations for daylight because you can use top lighting strategies or more durable translucent materials to provide daylighting.
These CIRs I am referring to are, of course, not officially precedent-setting for LEED 2009 projects. However, I have been able to write a narrative explaining why I am excluding the gym from the views credit in 2009 projects and still be awarded the credit.

Thank you Allison, your explanation makes all the sense why gym is excluded from views but it should be included when calculating daylight. In fact, we do have substantial top lighting strategies in our gym (high clerestories).

Elizabeth, I think you will find more extensive discussion of this topic on the 2009 forum for this credit. I think the answer to this question is always destined to be "maybe." There is precedent for exclusion of mission-critical spaces, but it's not a shoo-in and you need to make a good case for it.

Thanks Tristan. I'll look under the 2009 forum. Thanks for your summary.

While your approach seems reasonable since you are documenting identical buildings, note that the USGBC "LEED-NC Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects" (AGMBC- http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1097 ) actually requires that each building must independently meet the requirements of EQc8.1 & 8.2.

Thanks for the quick response! Each building independently meets the requirements. I will mention that in the narrative.

The LEED-NC v2.2 Reference Guide states on page 386 that there is not prescribed threshold for determining 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. relative to EQc8.2 and that projects will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Depending on the project's building type (I have seen dorm rooms try to achieve, however the design team was likely required by by code to provide windows in all residential rooms) so it is unlikely that exemplary performance could be demonstrated without achieving access to views for 100% of all 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. and perhaps for a number of non-regularly occupied spaces where views could be considered beneficial.

I would also suggest taking a look at the Exemplary Performance requirements outlined for IEQc8.2 in the LEED Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction, 2009 Edition.

Only 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. are to be included in the calculations, defined as "areas where workers are seated or standing as they work inside a building."
Non-regularly occupied spaces (excluded from the calculations) include corridors, hallways, lobbies, break rooms, storage rooms, restrooms, stairwells, etc.
If the reception area includes an employee/receptionist then this area should be included in the calculaitons.

Typically a solid door, even open, cannot contribute to views (i.e. an office door that could be closed) unless it has glass/sidelight.

However, if you are able to demonstrate via a narrative and/or signed letter from the owner that the roll up doors will defnitely always be open during business hours (i.e. because the space is naturally ventilated) when employees are present then you might be able to include in your calculations.

If the roll up doors are the only means to views then it still may be tough to achieve compliance (unless you can demonstrate that the facility excluded windows due to security reasons). To ensure that you reach your certification level goal I would target the pursuit of other credit points.