I'm working on a healthcare project where the client is planning on using just the no smoking symbol on the door with no words or 'language' attached.  Just the cigarette crossed out - Is this allowed?  

Hello, 

Can anyone help me clarify if for the bicycle storage calculation for a hospital, we should use the total of FTE (full time equivalents) or if we can use the peak reguar building occupants? I ask this given that there will be three work turns (day, evening and night, each of 8 hours), so the total FTE won't be in the building at the same time.

Thank you in advance for your help! 

The commissioning authority must complete Enhance Cx tasks for the building(s)'s thermal envelope. An ongoing commissioning plan must be developped. 
Which activities should be include in the ongoing commissioning plan?

Hello everyone, 

Can you help me clarify if a 100% greenfield site, with no previously developped areas can traget this credit? The credit requires to "...Restore a portion of the site (including the building footprint) identified as previously disturbed". In the case of a greenfield site, can we calculate the % of the site to restore by using the building's footprint? or would we have to consider the entire project's footprint? (with parking lots and all hardscape areas?). We are already complying with the 1rst requirement which is to "Preserve and protect from all development and construction activity 40% of the greenfield area on the site ".

Thank you in advance for your help

Hi all,

I would like to confirm my understanding of the Canadian alternative compliance path for EAp2/c2. The first requirement in the ACP is to "comply with the mandatory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2010". I have two questions regarding this requirment:

1) Does it pertain only to the reference building or does it pertain to the proposed building as well? I am assuming that it pertains only to the reference and not the proposed, since the whole point of NECB section 8 is to allow some proposed building components to fall below code requirements and for other components that exceed code requirements to "make-up" for their performance.

2) I'm confused as to whether this sentence means that I must comply with the entirety of ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (i.e. all sections), or just the "Mandatory Provisions" sections (i.e. sections 5.4, 6.4, 7.4, 8.4, 9.4). My interpretation is that the reference building should only satisfy NECB 2011 requirements and the "X.4" sections of ASHRAE 90.1-2010 since the purpose of the Canada ACP is to make energy modelling more convenient for Canadian projects. However, a sentence further down says "In cases where ASHRAE and the NECBC reference requirements concerning the same item, the more stringent requirement shall be adhered to". This sentence seems to suggest that I should be comparing NECB and ASHRAE requirements side-by-side, which is why I am confused.

For example, I am working on a project that is located in climate zone 6 (for both NECB and ASHRAE). According to NECB 2011 Table 3.2.3.1., in the reference building, I need 1.2 m of horizontal underslab insulation with a USI value is 0.757 W/m2K, which corresponds to an imperial F-factor of 0.65 Btuh/ft-F. However, ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Table 5.5-6 says that for unheated slab-on-grade floors, the assembly maximum F-factor is F-0.54. This is what I am troubled with - if I only need to comply with the "Mandatory Provisions" sections of ASHRAE (i.e. the "X.4"), then I wouldn't have to comply with Table 5.5-6 and I would model F-0.65 for the reference building. However, if I have to comply with the entirety of ASHRAE, then I do need to follow Table 5.5-6, and consequently I would need to model F-0.54 for the reference building.

Could someone please help by clarifying?

Thank you so much,

James

Hi LeedUser, 
We have a project to build a new school including a football field, 3 sports fields, a public plaza, a school bus drop-off and a parking lot. Project registered under LEED V4.
This school project will be completed in several phases:
1st phase: 2021-2022: installation of the synthetic field
2nd phase: 2022-2025: construction of the new school and parking lot
3rd phase: 2025 demolition of the existing school
4th phase: 2026 construction of 3 sports fields, a public square, a school bus drop-off
The existing school is currently on the site and within the LEED boundary and will be demolished after the new school is built. Currently, the existing school is located on the site of the future sports fields, public square and school bus drop-off.
The existing school has asbestos on many of its interior finishes and exterior cladding. To facilitate the client's project management process and to minimize demolition costs, the client wanted to remove the demolition of the existing school from the LEED requirements, but this is not possible in our understanding. The client now wishes to bulldoze the existing school without selective dismantling and decontamination.
Issues :
The existing school is largely contaminated with asbestos (at least about 50 %). As mentioned in the guide, hazardous materials will be excluded from the calculations. But according to the bulldozer demolition method, all materials are likely to be contaminated and will all go to landfill. There is no legal obligation to decontaminate the site with this type of demolition. Once the school is demolished, it will be difficult to quantify which materials were originally contaminated and which were not.
Choice 1: Can we exclude all such contaminated waste from the school?
. choice 2: can we include the contaminated materials?
. choice 3: Which measure of quantity is accepted in LEED? approximate or precise
Should the portion of the original pre-demolition contaminated material be calculated and subtracted to obtain the actual demolition waste calculation? Do you accept a percentage value or a rough calculation?
If not, if you ask for a precise measurement based on weighing (current choice), won't the client have the option of having the contaminated materials removed according to the complex processes in place to be able to weigh them?
 

Hello,

Someone posted a similar question, but we pushed it a little bit futher and we would like to have your imput:

We’re planning to design several office buildings with open space concepts. Office employees will be allowed to select their desk every time they come in via an app.

To offer a better level of comfort, we were thinking of creating a few different thermal zones within the open space where the temperature would be kept at slightly different values. For example, the space could be divided in four areas that are kept at 21, 22, 23 and 24°C respectively. This information would be shared on the reservation app so that people would be allowed to choose where they would be seated based on their personal preference.

Since this would technically allow all employees the freedom to choose their thermal space when they come to work, we were wondering if this approach would be acceptable to meet the Thermal Comfort requirements of having 50% of individual spaces with controls.

Thank you !

Is there a guideline as to what constitutes an acceptable "covering" in order to obtain an adequately protected long-term bicycle storage from rain and snow?

For example, as both rain and snow will be carried horizontally by the wind, is there an acceptable solution that provides an open air roof structure with overhangs and no walls (ie an un-enclosed space)?

Thanks,

-luc

We are pursing this credit under LEEDv4.1 Option 2: Air Testing, "Path 1: Particulate Matter and Inorganic Gases" and "Path 2: Volatile Organic Compounds".

Upon completion of work and prior to air testing, the building will be cleaned throughout, as per contractual requirements (Masterformat 01 74 00 : Cleaning or Uniformat equivalent).

Are there any product specifications that are habitually recommended to be included in these sections to ensure the use of low-VOC and low-emtting cleaning products to accomplish this tsak and prior to air testing?

- If so, what labels or norms should these clearning products comply to?

- If not, why? Are cleaning products not a potential cource of VOC and chemical emissions? Or do they evaporate quickly enough that they are not an issue?

Any recommendations are appreciated.

Hi everyone!

We have a very interesting situation at hand. Our building is targeting LTc6 - Bicycle Facilities, the project is located in an area that does not have a bicycle network within 180m, but a high-capacity transit hub is within 100m from the building entrance, so someone using a bicycle can walk comfortably back and forth. Technically it meets the intent of the credit without a dedicated bicycle network. How do you think LEED will look at this?