Quality Views Review Comment

I'm confused by this as well, because while the table may be large and heavy enough to be considered non-movable, a typical table would not be an obstruction at head height for a seated occupant. Is it possible the reviewer interpreted it as a different type of furniture that would be higher? Did you upload a section or elevation drawing showing the sight line over the table? If the height was clear in your uploads I'd ask GBCI for clarification on why a piece of furniture that is too low to block views would be affected by the definition of nonmovable. 

How did you solve it? I have the same problem and it is illogical since a table does not obstruct the line of sight. In previous projects already certified in v4 I did not have that problem.

I think you probably need to show that the table is factored into your anaylsis, and you've confirmed that it doesn't block sight lines.  You could provide the height of the table, and both a plan view and a section view showing the sight lines through the exterior window.  But I think just providing the height of the table should be adequate, assuming you're talking about View Types 1, 2, or 3.  If you're talking about View Type 4, then you would need to ensure that the table was shown in the image that the architect provided to demonstrate the view.  The table will likely comprise a portion of the view for an occupant in that space, so if pursuing View Type 4, make sure the table is shown.

We recieved a similar comment recently, I am wondering how the original question was resolved. Our sections show small desks w/ legs-very movable, NOT workstations w/ partitions, it is a completely open office besides the small desks. We have dimensioned the heights of the tables at 30" and the view height of 42" We are baffled. The windows are floor to ceiling, the furniture as minimal as can be - and everything is labeled. We have followed the step-by-step guidance and examples. Do we have to show furniture cut sheets or somehow prove that special trades or facilities people are not needed?

Reviewers comment:

1. It is not clear from the documentation that all views meet view type 3 (unobstructed views located within the distance three times the head height of the vision glazing). No permanent interior obstructions are allowed, regardless of their height. Some furniture, such as workstations and large conference tables, which cannot be moved without the assistance of facilities or special trades, is considered a permanent interior obstruction. It is unclear that all views are unobstructed. Refer to the Step-by- Step Guidance and Examples sections of the LEED Reference Guide for details on how to document this credit.

Hi Kristen,

I've had similar comments on credits before. Sometimes, they do just want confirmation in writing that what you have complies with all the requirements. I think in your case, a response basically stating what you've pointed out above should suffice. In some cases (when appropriate), I have the client/owner chime in and provide an affidavit on letterhead or similar.