In table PIF3-1, you will need to separate out your usage types. For each type you have gross and then regularly occupied gross. The values in the regularly occupied gross are the values that are connected to 8.1 and 8.2.

In a building in which you have many usage types, it takes some time to group spaces together and ensure you have the correct regularly occupied. Coordination between the individual doing the calcs for 8.1 and 8.2 and the person creating the table is crucial. Typically, the person doing the calcs define what is and is not regularly occupied, especially if the sim option is being used.

Hope that helps.

According to the Regularly Occupied Space Matrix dated July 2012, Stages and the backstage area may be excluded from both EQc8.1 & 8.2

You should be able to add 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. by hitting the add space button. Ensure the macros are enabled. If this does not work, i create my own spreadsheet with the same information. This way i don;t have mess with all those things that can go wrong in the downloaded calculator.

Hi Dana,

This is sort of a grey area, but we usually exclude the wall widths in this calculation.

You do not need to consider wall thickness or other structural elements, or spaces that are not being included in the calculations. The calculations are based on the total regular occupied area and not the overall sq footage.

If you exclude the wall widths, how do you complete PIf3?? The form asks for the gross area of the building and all the gross areas of separate occupancy types need to add up to the total gross area. Gross area includes all the wall thicknesses. Am I supposed to use net area for this form?? Have you?

Then, when we calculate the floor area that has views, it is definitely net area. It just doesn't correspond.

PLF 3 table PLf 3-1 is linked to the EQc 8.1 and 8.2. This is the square footage of regularly occupied areas that is only used in those credits. The other information i believe goes into PLF 2 which is the gross area, etc.

I see your confusion on this and you are trying to follow the definitions. Here is the example that will better explain how i complete this table.

You have an open office space, i measure the space within the walls, minus any permanent partitions. This is what i place in the gross area. Now within that space there are areas that are considered corridors, or walkways, along with an area that surrounds the copies, maybe some storage space for flat files. I take those areas that i am not considering, subtract them from what i put into gross area, and this is what i use for regularly occupied area.

You can measure the wall thickness if you want for the gross area, what counts is your regularly occupied area ( I believe using net area is not helping your understanding of this). The other tables with gross area and other columns are overall, not individual space. Make it easy on yourself, measure within the walls for gross, minus all the other areas that can be excluded from the calculations for regularly occupied.

Without knowing what type of therapy will be provided, my bet is that they are regularly occupied because it sounds like the therapist will work with the patient for an hour at a time. You'll have to make the case that the type of therapy would be undermined if you introduce views. You may have the ability to argue seating height if the therapist is standing while performing their work. Outside of that, you will need to address patient privacty.

Technically it only has to be provided at 42" and is not determined based on the height of the occupants. So 42" is used for every classroom.

In reality, views should be provided according to the activity and the occupants. So it makes sense to have lower sill heights for the little people in the world.

In my LEED BD+C Reference Guide (2009 Edition, Update 2010), on page 566, under Section 4. Implementation, it states "The line of sight used...is assumed to be 42 inches for the average seated adult, but is lower for students." This seems to conflict with the statement above?

I recently received comments on a service station where I had provided views for a standing height as that is how the room is used. The comment was that it "looked like" people could "sometimes" be seated in there and that I should provide a seated height view (42") as well. I am going to try to argue #1, that no, there are not people seated in there and #2 that there is nothing in the requirement that states that you must provide views for ALL possible view heights and that providing a view for the most common use of the space should be sufficient. I'll let you know how it goes.

I have always assumed that the text expects us to provide views for the dominant use and occupant type of the space, so in my opinion, providing a seated height for the appropriate size and age of the kids in the classroom would be required in lieu of 42".

Jill, I think the reviewer was fishing. If a narrative is provided and it states that the occupants will be standing, then the review should take the project team member's professional word. If no narrative was provided and only the standing height vision line, then i can see how this is questioned. Usually a narrative response is sufficient to clarify the issue. The reviewer has no basis to deny it if you state they will be standing. It would be like a reviewer basically saying that you are lying and don;t know your project. Won;t happen.

It's a judgement call, but I would begin by including them, since this wet area may get a fair bit of use. Residential projects do include the kitchen, but there's obviously more cooking going on there. If you determine the area only gets occasional use mainly for cleanup or serving snacks, you might make a case for excluding them.
Either way, you'll need to justify your choice.

Agree, residential projects require the kitchen to be included and it seems the kitchenette would also need to be included as regularly occupied space where occupants are seated or standing while working in the classroom and can benefit from views.

Per 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 5907 dated 9/8/2004, finishing kitchens are considered support areas and do not have to be included in calculations for EQ 8.1. I would imagine this would translate to 8.2 as well. Granted this is an older system NC-V2.0/2.1, but it looks like old CIRs are holding up as long as they haven't been overruled in subsequent rulings. This CIR was for an elementary school, not a residence.

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. 5907 is not applicable to schools 2009. With the revisions of the Interps you have to see if they are applicable to your version.

Hi Amanda,

The latter part of your question is correct. If the head height of the vision glazing is 7 feet tall, the area with views that can be included in the EP calculation are 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. within 21 feet of the window.

Hi Carlie, I'm also trying to understand this 3rd pathway.

How can the head height be 7 feet tall if vision glazing is from 30" to 90"?
What exactly is the "head height"?

Thank you.

I also need to know how to calculate the "view factor".

Thanks Carlie!

Hi Ruben,

The head height is measured from the finished floor to the top of the window. In the scenario described above the top of the window (or head height) goes up to 7 feet tall, which falls within the vision glazing area is between 2'-6" and 7'-6"

The "view factor" is defined in the Heschong Mahone Group study, as described on page 571 of the BD+C Reference Guide - also check out the LEEDuser discussion on this subject under LEED-NC 2009 IEQc8.1 dated 10/09/2009 and 7/09/2010.

Hope helpful!

I think Carlie summed it up perfectly above. What you're saying certainly sounds reasonable and if I were you I would probably attempt it. However, it doesn't meet the LEED requirements so be prepared for it to not fly.

Yes, as outlined on page 404 of the 'LEED Green Building Design and Construction Reference Guide, 2009 Edition' both gyms and kitchens/cafeterias are considered Regularly Occupied Core Learning SpacesCore learning spaces are spaces for educational activities where the primary functions are teaching and learning and where good speech communication is critical to a student's academic achievement. These spaces include, but are not limited to, classrooms, enclosed or open plan), instructional pods or activity areas, group instruction rooms, conference rooms, libraries, offices, speech clinics, offices used for educational purposes and music rooms for instruction, practice and performance. (gym) and Regularly Occupied nonlearning spaces that are used by occupants for 1 or more hours per day to perform work-related activities (kitchen/cafeteria).

It appears exceptions would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis only for "spaces with atypical uses or those in which the strategies required for compliance may compromise the function of the space."

I think that they may be considered regularly occupied but may be excluded from the calculations if properly explained. The official rulings are below

Per 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 for NC 2.1
9/8/2004 - Ruling: ...Regarding the gym space, many projects have utilized daylight strategies which can limit glare problems in gyms. For instance, diffuse skylights and diffuse windows are often used to mitigate the negative effects of direct sunlight. However it is possible that some gym activities could be hindered by daylighting. Therefore, to exclude the gym space from the calculations, please provide a narrative describing gym activities and how daylighting will hinder these activities.

and

11/27/2002 - CIR: ...Therefore, we are proposing that certain areas, such as the field house and the competition gym, be excluded from the baseline calculations of 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.. ...
3/4/2003 - Ruling: ...(1) the spaces described are not regularly occupied; and (2) the use of daylight in the space could have detrimental effects on the people using the facilities. As such, these spaces can be excluded from the daylighting calculations. ...

Thanks Bill !

Has anyone had success excluding gymnasiums from daylight and/or views for LEED 2009 for schools? They are included in the list of '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.: Classroom and Core Learning' so I assumed they were more strict about it for the 2009 version. Are the CIRs from previous LEED for Schools still being accepted for EQc8?

Technically v2 CIRs do not apply to v2009 projects. Additionally, the 'LEED Green Building Design and Construction Reference Guide, 2009 Edition' notes the following:

- Page 404 list gymnasiums as Regularly Occupied Core Learning SpacesCore learning spaces are spaces for educational activities where the primary functions are teaching and learning and where good speech communication is critical to a student's academic achievement. These spaces include, but are not limited to, classrooms, enclosed or open plan), instructional pods or activity areas, group instruction rooms, conference rooms, libraries, offices, speech clinics, offices used for educational purposes and music rooms for instruction, practice and performance..
- Page 556 (5th bullet down) "Because some activities in
these spaces may be hindered by daylight, effective shades and lighting controls should be included in the design."

Right, but since CIRs can still be submitted on a case-by-case basis I was just curious to see if anyone has had success with excluding gymnasiums for a 2009 Schools project. Based on the conversations above, it sounded like people might be attempting it for the new version - it would be great to hear GBCI responses people have received

Based on my experience on a school project that was certified LEED Gold under the LEED for Schools 2009 rating system I learned one very important detail. Your schedule of spaces for both Daylighting and Views must be identical. I tried to exclude the gymnasium from Views but wanted to include it in Daylighting because we were toplighting with solar tubes. I ended up letting go of the Views credit when the reviewer denied it for this reason. I think excluding the gym from daylighting might be difficult because you could use either solar tubes or Kalwall to mitigate the glare concern and achieve the desired level of daylighting.

This is an extension of the gym/views issue. I understand that the gym is listed as a reg. occupied space. I also understand that the schedules for IEQc8.1 and 8.2 should match, unless there is a special circumstance that is acceptable by the reviewers. My question: has anyone successfully justifed why you would not include the gym for Views? I would think that the issue of basketballs + low glass would not be a good combination, but wondered if anyone has been able to get the omission approved?

John, did you try to justify exculding the gym from views based on the use of the space? We are trying to exclude the gym from views and include it in daylighting for the same reason - use of solatubes.

There was a 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 regarding this issue in LEED V2.2, on 3/22/2007:

"Since the gymnasium and auditorium would be hindered by the inclusion of vision glazing between the heights of 2'6" and 7'6", the project may exclude these areas from the EQc8.2 calculations. Please clearly delineate the areas of the project being excluded from the calculations and provide a narrative describing the rationale and assumptions made for each excluded area in the certification documentation for this credit."

This was based on the use of the gym for indoor soccer.

I was under the assumption that you could exclude it from views and include in on daylighting. Do the lists really have to match? What did the reviewer say?

Sonrisa, were you successful in having the gym excluded for the Views calc (but keeping it in for the Daylighting clac)? We have a similar situation, and wondered how you (or anyone else with similar scenario) faired with attempting this situation in LEED v3/2009.

I don't know if this issue has been resolved, but I want to let you know that we just got comments back for a project where we are using the Gym for the Daylight credit but excluding it from Views, arguing safety and privacy reasons. We argued that low windows may be impacted and broken by balls and that owner would not like general public to have visual access to kid's gym classes.

This is LEED for schools 2009; they accepted our arguments and anticipate awards of credits (both daylight and views). I hope this information is useful...

Thanks for sharing, Eri. We love feedback from user experience!

Yes, glazing in doors is fine as long as it provides the required line of sight.

What we have done to determine the access to views is to start your line on the outside edge of the window and take it to the opposite inside edge of the window. And then just extend those lines until they hit a wall. So in most cases, your angle is much greater than 45% from the center point.

John,
You might refer to page 568 that explains "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. at appropriate eye height".

You may allow using higher eye height level if you can provide narrative that your typical eye height for your room is higher than 42" (typical seated eye height). For example, you can use higher number for car showroom if you can explain that majority occupants will do their activities by standing up. For school application example, it may apply to dance classroom.

As I remember, there was a 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 regarding this one.

John,
The glazing doesn't have to be contiguous. And it can be anywhere in the hight range (2.5" to 7.5"). The idea is that an occupant, sitting down, can see outside in some fashion or another without obstruction. But they want you to be able to orient yourself to the outside, so looking up to the sky through a skylight or above 7.5" doesn't give the same visual cues (the way looking out the window at an airplane can be disorienting).

That said, I've worked on a LEED prison project, and we were advocating for views for the inmates, and it was never clear how much area would be required to see out of. Would a tiny slit (which is all they were providing) be sufficient? We thought not and didn't submit for the credit, but I wonder if anyone knows of a lower limit here.

Thanks,
Josh

I'm currently working on a prison and finding some unique challenges with LEED credits because of the nature of a detention type project (esp. 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....). When are they coming out with LEED-J (for Jails)? ;)

In terms of views. I think as long as they have a direct line of sight to/through vision glazing, it counts, no matter how small of a sliver... Our windows are 8" wide, but horizontal and above 7'6. If I could get the architect to turn them vertically and lower the window, we might get this one (and the inmates will be able to see outside, instead of just looking up at the sky). The question is: under the circumstances, does that meet the credit intent? I think so, but I'm not the reviewer...

I am also working on a jail and we are not pursuing this credit because very few rooms are on the perimeter. However, I have a question related to what you were saying, Josh, "The glazing doesn't have to be contiguous. And it can be anywhere in the hight range (2.5" to 7.5"). "

Have you had success with acheiving views that were not a horizontal line of sight from the seated or standing working position, but within the 2'-6" to 7'-6" range? I have always thought it strange that you can include glazing from 2'-6" to 7'-6" in the plan review and even draw a line of sight to any window 2'-6" to 7'-6" in height, but only a view at 42" (or other working height) would count. Why include the range at all if only glazing at 42" or the working height counts in the end?