CS-2009 IEQc8.2: Daylight and Views—Views

This Credit Interpretation Request is in reference to a 90,000 square foot office building, research laboratory and data center, which utilizes extensive internal vision glazing and open office design to visually connect most occupants to landscaped exteriors. Offices with internal vision glazing are typically occupied by individuals that occasionally require the privacy of a closed-door office, i.e. those with direct reports and those having access to confidential information. In order to maximize their views when not in need of privacy, reverse wound spring hinges will hold the office doors in the open position as a default. The doors can, of course, be shut manually when the occupant desires privacy. This is a similar situation to the CIR of 10/23/2006 where sliding wall panels were used in residential sleeping rooms. USGBC ruled that the Views calculations could be performed with the panels in the open position. We would like to calculate the views for each of these offices equipped with reverse wound hinges in the open position. For each office using doors equipped with reverse wound spring hinges, which default the doors to the open position, is it acceptable to calculate EQ c8.2 Views with doors in the open position?

The LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction, 2009 Edition and LEED Reference Guide for Green Interior Design and Construction, 2009 Edition indicate the following instructions for determining the direct line of sight in section view. "Using representative building sections, draw a line at 42 inches (typical seated eye height) across the section to establish eye height and any obstruction to the perimeter glazing, Draw one or more representative sight lines from a point at eye height in the regularly occupied space to the perimeter vision glazing."Is the direct line of sight drawn from the area to the perimeter vision glazing in section view required to be a horizontal line at 42 inches above the finished floor? Can the direct line of sight slope from 42 inches at the seated area to any location within the vision glazing?

Our office building client is considering raising their desk partitions to help with acoustics. Our team believes that acoustic quality is an important component of Indoor Environmental Quality, even though it is not directly addressed by LEED. Therefore we are trying to carefully balance this concern with LEED credit requirements. Raising the furniture partitions just 6-inches to 66-inches total will help significantly, according to a study performed by a professional acoustics consultant. The client is proposing to make the portion of the panel above 60-inches clear, so as not to intrude on the daylighting and views. Will this still allow the furniture panels to be excluded from the calculations for daylighting and views? A previous CIR cites TRANSLUCENT panels, and suggests that these would not be acceptable. Our client is considering clear panels.

We would like to submit a CIR to request a streamlined approach for the daylight documentation. We have the particular condition of an identical cluster of office buildings. In spite of having the same foot print, each building will be uniquely impacted by orientation variation and specific surrounding context condition. The intent is to fully document one building showing that the amount of light increases as you move up through the floor plates. Then to proceed to document the worst case scenario of each building (ground floor) or the level that is least exposed to solar access. If the worst case scenario passes, then we infer based on our test case that the upper floors of the building will pass as well. This will help us streamline not only the documentation process for so many buildings but also the review process. Is this an acceptable documentation method for this credit?