Hello,
We received comments back from our Design review that seem illogical to us; we're looking for some opinions/clarifications here.
We submitted representative (fabricated) typical, hypothetical office/retail floorplans for the tenant spaces in our CS project. The reviewers accepted EQ Cr 8.2, but had comments on other EQ Credits based on the layouts provided with EQ 8.2.
For example, for EQ Pre 1:
"Provide ventilation rate procedure calculations for the combined multiple ventilation system associated with AHU-1 and ERU-1 and AHU-2 and ERU-2 ensuring that the break out of spaces is consistent with Table IEQ-1 in IEQc8.2: Daylight and Views - Views."
Why would these need to be consistent if the layouts provided are just typical, fabricated possibilities for the purposes of the views credit? Our CS HVAC design is limited to the base building systems only, and does not include any possible tenant fit-out work.
Also, for EQ Cr 1:
"The plans provided in IEQc8.2: Daylight and Views - Views indicate that CO2 sensors have not been installed within each densely occupied space (conference rooms, team rooms, etc.). Provide documentation confirming that all spaces with a design occupant density greater than or equal to 25 people per 1000 square feet are monitored by CO2 sensors, or provide tenant sales and/or lease agreement containing binding language specifying that tenants install CO2 sensors in all densely occupied spaces."
I see on the EQ Cr 1 page that "Installation of CO2 sensors in tenant spaces is not required during core and shell construction, and tenants are not required to install CO2 monitors; however, they should be made aware of the capability of the core and shell system to monitor CO2. The core and shell systems must be designed with the capacity for CO2 monitoring."
Our tenant agreement states (and plans concur) "the installed system in the base building is capable of being expanded to provide CO2 monitoring within the tenant spaces."
Can someone confirm how we should respond to this?
With the EQ 8.2 documentation already submitted, there was a narrative that clearly stated the layouts provided for that credit were purely hypothetical, solely for the purposes of EQ 8.2...
We're just not sure what the reviewers are expecting, or if anything related to EQ Cr 8 needs to change (even though it was accepted) based on the comments on the other credits.
Jill Dalglish, PE
Lighting EngineerMKK Consulting Engineers
LEEDuser Expert
440 thumbs up
November 12, 2014 - 7:53 pm
My humble thoughts on this based on my general knowledge of LEED and not on the specific EQ credits are that they want to know that all of the EQ credits are achievable simultaneously via at least one hypothetical layout. In other words, they don't want to give you points for all credits if it means that the tenant would need hypothetical option A for the views credit, but then would need to rearrange everything to hypothetical option B to get the EQ Cr 1 credit. Does that make sense?
It sounds like in EQ Cr 1, they want a stronger legal commitment by the tenants to include the CO2 sensors. From what I read here, it sounds like the tenant agreement only requires them to be aware that the option is available.
For EQ Pre 1, I would do the calculations as they ask. If they don't comply, you either don't qualify for the credit or you'll have to put something in the tenant agreement that says that the tenant agrees to provide X amount of additional ventilation in their build-out.
You may get more support for these credits in their respective areas on LEEDuser.
TODD REED
Energy Program SpecialistPA DMVA
LEEDuser Expert
890 thumbs up
November 13, 2014 - 10:11 am
I'll expand a little further on what Jill started.
If you provide a tenant layout for one EQ credit, then the reviewers will use that layout to justify compliance for all EQ credits. If you were not to provide a tenant layout, then there are other ways that reviewer will determine compliance for EQp1. So your system will need to comply with the proposed layout. It is something that is consistently done with the reviewers in regards to CS project.
EQc1, you must have in the tenant lease agreement that sensors will be installed. It is mandatory that the language in the agreement or lease states that they must be installed. If the language just informs the tenant that they can be installed if desired does not confirm that they will go in the space and therefore, the requirements of the credit may or may not be met.
Look at Appendix 4 at the case studies for a guide as to what is and is not required and how to document the different scenarios.
Hope this helps.
emily reese moody
Sustainability Director, Certifications & ComplianceJacobs
LEEDuser Expert
452 thumbs up
November 13, 2014 - 10:38 am
So, to clarify for me, let me see if I can summarize/restate to make sure I understand...b/c right now I don't entirely understand.
1 - Even though the credit language states "tenants are not required to install CO2 monitors; however, they should be made aware of the capability of the core and shell system to monitor CO2," we do actually have to require them to install the sensors in the lease agreement...right? (I can post this specific part in the EQ Cr 1 forum, too, if that's more appropriate; same for the EQ Pre 1 issue.)
2 - (This is the more confusing one) If our EQ credits are otherwise in compliance as-is, and all plans uploaded for the CS project for all credits are consistent with the CS project scope, as soon as we upload a hypothetical tenant layout as required by EQ 8.2, all other EQ credits must then be centered around a fake layout that we're forced to provide if we want the 8.2 point? That just seems illogical, and more like a trap. Did I misinterpret?
All of our EQ credits would be achievable based on the CS scope and the flexibility of the systems installed. Any potential tenant would have the ability to meet all CI credit requirements if they chose to do so.
If I've interpreted the above correctly, then it seems like we may need to abandon the 8.2 credit b/c of the way it is set up.
TODD REED
Energy Program SpecialistPA DMVA
LEEDuser Expert
890 thumbs up
November 13, 2014 - 12:50 pm
Look at Case C, page 620. I would also say that you should also post this in the appropriate credit forum too.
In regards to the layout, you don't have to have one, but you are still going to have to document how you determined your values. Again, these credits are not my specialty and I usually refer to the engineers in house, so I would definitely post this in the credit appropriate forum.