Form For Commenting On A Public Review Draft

FORM FOR COMMENTING ON A PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ASHRAE STANDARD, GUIDELINE OR ADDENDUM

PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORM BY April 7, 2008 Commenter/Comment 0121/066 1. Name: Yetsuh Frank Director, Programs & Policy U. S. Green Building Council, NY Chapter

Affiliation: ASHRAE 189.1P Review Committee of the Mayor’s Office of the City of New York and of the New York Chapter of the U. S. Green Building Council. (Members List Attached.)

Address: 1 Bowling Green, Suite 419 City: New York State: NY Zip: 10004

Telephone: 212.514.9386 Fax: 212.514.9381 E-mail: [email protected]

Designation and Title of Second Public Review Draft: BSR/ASHRAE/USGBC/IESNA Standard 189.1P, Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings

NOTE: Use a separate form for each comment, completing each section (including Sections 1 and 2) to facilitate separate processing. ASHRAE encourages original commentary on its standards. All comments must be accompanied by the commenter's signed release, as provided below. However, if commenters submit comments authored by others, those comments must also be accompanied by a signed copyright release from the author of the original comment. The original comment author, representing commenters who have submitted duplicate comments may be asked to engage in dialog supporting their position. All commenters shall receive acknowledgment from ASHRAE of receipt of their comment, and may receive a response in the form of the resolution of the original comment with that comment’s author.

2. Copyright Release:

I hereby grant the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) the non- exclusive royalty rights, including non-exclusive royalty rights in copyright, in my proposals and I understand that I acquire no rights in publication of this standard in which my proposals in this or other similar analogous form is used. I hereby attest that I have the authority and am empowered to grant this copyright release.

Author's Signature: Date 7 April 2008 Rec’d 4/7/08

All electronic submittals must complete the following statement: I Yetsuh Frank, through this electronic signature, hereby grant the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) the non-exclusive royalty rights, including non-exclusive royalty rights in copyright, in my proposals and I understand that I acquire no rights in publication of this standard in which my proposals in this or other similar analogous form is used. I hereby attest that I have the authority and am empowered to grant this copyright release.

3. Clause or Subclause: 5.3.3.1(i)

4. Comment (Proposed Text): Recommend a specific definition of ‘park use’ with regard to ‘building purpose’.

5. Substantiating Statements: Current language is vague. Commenter/Comment 0121/066 Page 2

[ ] Check if additional pages are attached. Number of additional pages:

[ ] Check here if your comment is supportive in nature and does not require substantive changes in the current proposal in order to resolve your comment. If you select this option, your comment will not require a response from the project committee and will not be subject to the commenter response procedures.

NOTE: Use separate form for each comment. Submittals (MS Word preferred) may be attached to email, submitted on diskettes, uploaded to ASHRAE’s ftp site, or submitted in paper form by mail or fax to ASHRAE, Manager of Standards, 1791 Tullie Circle, NE, Atlanta, GA 30329-2305. E-mail: [email protected]. Ftp server address: ftp.ashrae.org, directory: public.review.comment. Fax 678-539-2134.

NOTE: To ensure receiving all notices provided for in the procedures, you are responsible for informing the ASHRAE Standards Section when your contact information changes. Otherwise you may not receive responses to comments, right-to-appeal notices, and any other notices that may be sent to commenters. To update your contact information, send an email to [email protected]. You must indicate which public review draft or drafts you are commenting on in your email. Rev. 01-30-2006 FORM FOR COMMENTING ON A PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ASHRAE STANDARD, GUIDELINE OR ADDENDUM

3. Clause or Subclause: 5.3.3.1(h)

4. Comment (Proposed Text): Recommend a specific definition of ‘agricultural use’ with regard to ‘building purpose’. Commenter/Comment 0121/067 Page 2

5. Substantiating Statements: Current language is vague.

3. Clause or Subclause: 5.3.3.1(g)

4. Comment (Proposed Text): Recommend a specific definition of ‘agricultural use’ with regard to ‘building purpose’.

5. Substantiating Statements: Current language is vague. Commenter/Comment 0121/068 Page 2

3. Clause or Subclause: 5.3.2.2

4. Comment (Proposed Text): Recommend a specific exemption for high density locations where building adjacencies do not permit tree planting or other structures, such as New York City sidewalks. Commenter/Comment 0121/069 Page 2

5. Substantiating Statements: Current language cannot be realized in many high density locations.

3. Clause or Subclause: 5.3.2.2(a) Commenter/Comment 0121/070 Page 2

4. Comment (Proposed Text): 5.3.2.2 Walls. Above-grade building walls and retaining walls shall be shaded in accordance with this section. The building is allowed to be rotated up to 45 degrees to the nearest cardinal orientation for purposes of calculations and showing compliance. Compliance with this section is allowed to be achieved through the use of shade- providing plants, man-made structures, existing buildings, hillsides, permanent building projections, or a combination of these, using the following criteria:

(a) shade shall be provided on at least 30% of the east and west above-grade walls and retaining walls from grade level to a height of 6 m (20 ft) above-grade or the top of the exterior wall, whichever is less, within 5 years of issuance of the final certificate of occupancy 80% of de facto building occupancy. Shade coverage shall be calculated at 10 am for the east walls and 3 pm for the west walls on the summer solstice.

5. Substantiating Statements: In many municipalities buildings are occupied long before issuance of the final certificate of occupancy.

3. Clause or Subclause: 5.3.1.2

4. Comment (Proposed Text): Recommend a more specific definition of “plantings or habitat enhancement’ and clearer direction on scope of mitigation required. Commenter/Comment 0121/071 Page 2

5. Substantiating Statements: Current language is vague enough that intent may not be realized. The result could be significant degradation of habitat or wetlands with minor mitigation.

3. Clause or Subclause: 5.3.1.2.c Commenter/Comment 0121/072 Page 2

4. Comment (Proposed Text): (c) within 25 m (75 ft) of any wetland unless the site disturbance or development involves plantings or habitat that will result in a net enhancement of the functions and values of the wetland.

5. Substantiating Statements: Wetlands are highly regulated. Subsection (c) should reflect that plantings or enhancements must be approved by State and/or Federal regulators. If the wetland in question are not regulated, the standard should be as redlined above, to avoid the situations where plantings are harmful to wetlands.

3. Clause or Subclause: 5.3.1.2(a)

4. Comment (Proposed Text): Previously undeveloped land having an elevation lower than 1.5m (5 ft) 2 ft above the elevation of the 100 year flood as defined by USFEMA. Commenter/Comment 0121/073 Page 2

5. Substantiating Statements: While we agree with the intent of this section the 5 ft above 100 year flood prohibition may have a massive impact in some areas of the country and should be studied very carefully before the standard is released. Perhaps the committee should study a select number of municipalities to review the impact of this standard.

3. Clause or Subclause: 3.2 definitions

4. Comment (Proposed Text): green roof: a roof of a building or structure that is partially or completely covered with vegetation and a growing medium (typically, soil) installed over a waterproofing membrane. It may include additional layers such as a root barrier, drainage and irrigation systems. Commenter/Comment 0121/074 Page 2

5. Substantiating Statements: The term is used in the standard but not defined.

3. Clause or Subclause: 3.2 wetlands def. Commenter/Comment 0121/075 Page 2

4. Comment (Proposed Text): wetlands: those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface of ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. This definition incorporates all areas that would meet the definition of designated “wetlands” under in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Designation Manual, applicable federal or state guidance whether or not they are officially designated, delineated or mapped, including man- made areas that are designed, constructed or restored to include the ecological functions of natural wetlands. that are inundated or saturated by surface of ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

5. Substantiating Statements: The Corps’ Manual is not used by all states or localities that have their own regulatory regimes. The definition should be flexible enough to incorporate the standards that are applicable to each site. In addition, the definition should be flexible enough to support constructed wetlands used for stormwater management.

3. Clause or Subclause: 3.2 porous pavers def. Commenter/Comment 0121/076 Page 2

4. Comment (Proposed Text): porous pavers (open-grid pavers): concrete or masonry units pavers where at least 40% of the surface area consists of holes or openings that are filled with sand, gravel, other porous material, or vegetation.

5. Substantiating Statements: Products which include materials other than concrete or masonry, including recycled plastic, are available.

3. Clause or Subclause: 3.2 permeable pavers def.

4. Comment (Proposed Text): permeable pavers: concrete or masonry units pavers that present a solid surface but allow natural drainage and migration of water into the base below by permitting water to drain through the spaces between the pavers. Commenter/Comment 0121/077 Page 2

5. Substantiating Statements: Products which include materials other than concrete or masonry, including recycled plastic, are available.

3. Clause or Subclause: 3.2 permeable pavement def.

4. Comment (Proposed Text): permeable pavement: pervious concrete or porous asphalt that allows the movement of water and air through the paving material , coupled with a porous, prepared subbase, and primarily used as paving for roads, parking lots and walkways. Permeable paving materials have an open- graded coarse aggregate with interconnected voids. Commenter/Comment 0121/078 Page 2

5. Substantiating Statements: The addition provides a more accurate and complete definition.

3. Clause or Subclause: 3.2 fish and wildlife habitat conservation area def.

4. Comment (Proposed Text): (a) areas with which state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and or sensitive species have a primary association; Commenter/Comment 0121/079 Page 2

5. Substantiating Statements: Reflects a broader more appropriate definition of conservation area.

3. Clause or Subclause:

10.3.9.1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention: No-idling of Construction Vehicles. Commenter/Comment 0121/080 Page 2

4. Comment (Proposed Text): 10.3.9.1.2 Use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel in all construction equipment. 10.3.9.1.3 Use equipment with engines that use the best available retrofit technology, as listed by the U.S. EPA or California Air Resources Board.

5. Substantiating Statements: Idling is only part of the problem, and is almost always necessary to power non-propulsion uses, as recognized by the many exceptions above that effectively swallow the rule. It is better to focus, as many local laws have done (e.g., NYC Local Law 77), on requiring the use of the clean fuel used by road diesel trucks, and also requiring new engines or after-engine retrofits. The proposed sections are conceptual only and need to be refined.

10.3.6 Transportation Management Plan Commenter/Comment 0121/081 Page 2

4. Comment (Proposed Text):

10.3.6.1 Building owner. The building owner shall:

(b) Offer at least three of the following supporting benefits to the owner’s employees, applicable to employers with at least 20 employees:

9. Shuttles from transit stations farther away than 0.5 miles, either employer-provided or through a local TMA or similar service provider,

10. Parking within 0.5 miles of park-and-ride lots or vanpool staging areas,

23. Lunchtime shuttles for destinations further than 0.5 miles away.

5. Substantiating Statements:

Without the additions, the above items will decrease physical activity and unnecessarily increase shuttle (and fuel) use.

10.3.6.1 Building owner

Suggest exemption for those building in which many of these options are in conflict with collective bargaining agreements. Commenter/Comment 0121/082 Page 2

The stipulations of many collective bargaining agreements may be in conflict with provisions required in this clause.

10.3.3 Maintenance and Verification Plan

All components required for the owner to incorporate, utilize and maintain to ensure plan implementation after construction should themselves be subject to commissioning as part of section 10.3.1.1 Commenter/Comment 0121/083 Page 2

This is an important element to ensure proper functioning of the building post occupancy.

10.3.3.4

Clarify who is required to “develop” the IAQ management plan. Commenter/Comment 0121/084 Page 2

Text as proposed in unclear.

Exception to 10.3.3.4(a)

Exception seems to directly contradict requirement of 8.3.3.4. Commenter/Comment 0121/085 Page 2

Standard appears to contradict itself.

10.3.3.3.1 & 2 CBECS Benchmarking and Compliance Path

The standard should establish baseline performance requirements, which should be modeled in design, and confirmed in commissioning. Commenter/Comment 0121/086 Page 2

This section seemingly opens a path for AHJ enforcement action against an operating building/building owner for less-than-exemplary performance as compared to a constantly adjusted target. Post Occupancy measurements that verify discrepancies with model ought not be fodder for AHJ penalty or CxA action at additional cost to owner.

10.3.3.2.1 Water Consumption Baseline

Utilize “occupancy patterns” to “correct and calibrate” the water use model as occupancy shifts, rather than requiring CXA involvement to analyze excessive post-occupancy variance from the model. Commenter/Comment 0121/087 Page 2

The section establishes a baseline not unlike water efficiency requirements in LEED, but 10.3.3.2.2 and .3 require actual implementation and monitoring and verification, and even CXA involvement to analyze excessive post-occupancy variance from the model. This appears overly restrictive, as water consumption will mirror occupancy requirements, not design parameters. Usage will not be formulaic, but actual, and water conservation measures designed into the project ought not be revisited for potential revision and post construction redesign as part of this effort to breed tenets of LEED-based initial design into code and reference standard.

10.3.3.1 Site Sustainability Commenter/Comment 0121/088 Page 2

10.3.3.1 Site Sustainability. Where trees and vegetation are used to comply with the shade requirements of 5.3.2.1, verify that this shade is obtained within 5 years after trees and vegetation are planted at project site. Where trees, vegetation and plantings on greens roofs are used to comply with the stormwater management requirements of [5.4 and 5.5], verify that plants are viable and alive by the first year after planting.

This is a typical requirement for green roofs. In NYC, we give three seasons for plants to establish themselves over at least 80% of the surface area, in what is a challenging area for growth. We also specify the use of hardy plants.

10.3.2.3 Activities prior to Building Occupancy Commenter/Comment 0121/089 Page 2

Add new (c) as follows, and change existing (c) to (d):

(c) Complete lighting commissioning and calibration of lighting controls prior to occupancy.

The calibration of lighting controls prior to occupancy is essential for user acceptance. Lighting controls are easily overridden so every effort should be made to finish the commissioning early. HVAC systems may take longer to balance, and are less prone to sabotage.

10.3.2.1: Commenter/Comment 0121/090 Page 2

10.3.2.1 Scope. For buildings 500 m2 (5,000 50,000 ft2) or less gross floor area, acceptance testing shall be performed in accordance with this section using generally accepted engineering standards and handbooks acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

It is noted that there are two standards listed, one for buildings in excess of 5000 SF, and the other for below that threshold. It is suggested that the required commissioning requirements, particularly as described in sections 10.3.3 Measurement and Verification plan are far too restrictive for the owner/operator of buildings under 50,000 SF, and particularly residential buildings of that size. It is suggested that at small sizes, the requirement is unrealistically complicated from a systems sophistications point of view, management expense and operator expertise level.

Retention of a CxA during design of buildings under 50,000. SF seems unrealistic. The section mimics closely LEED enhanced commissioning requirements, and it is suggested that the for buildings under 50,000 SF the requirements for compliance fall to the design team to develop jointly with ownership the OPR during project programming, and that the design team perform the CxA role described in 10.3.1.2.d, e and f, and perhaps g.

10.3.1.5 Systems

(e) Stormwater and irrigation. Commenter/Comment 0121/091 Page 2

Stormwater should be included in those systems which require commissioning.

10.3.1.1 4. Comment (Proposed Text):

10.3.1.1 Scope. For buildings that exceed 500 m2 (5,000 50,000 ft2) of gross floor area, commissioning shall be performed in accordance with this section using generally accepted engineering standards and handbooks acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. Commenter/Comment 0121/092 Page 2

It is noted that there are two standards listed, one for buildings in excess of 5000 SF, and the other for below that threshold. It is suggested that the required commissioning requirements, particularly as described in sections 10.3.3 Measurement and Verification plan are far too restrictive for the owner/operator of buildings under 50,000 SF, and particularly residential buildings of that size. It is suggested that at small sizes, the requirement is unrealistically complicated from a systems sophistications point of view, management expense and operator expertise level.

Retention of a CxA during design of buildings under 50,000. SF seems unrealistic. The section mimics closely LEED enhanced commissioning requirements, and it is suggested that the for buildings under 50,000 SF the requirements for compliance fall to the design team to develop jointly with ownership the OPR during project programming, and that the design team perform the CxA role described in 10.3.1.2.d, e and f, and perhaps g.

3. Clause or Subclause: Forward

4. Comment (Proposed Text): The NYC Review Committee recommends a third public review draft be released. Commenter/Comment 0121/093 Page 2

5. Substantiating Statements: Given the extent of the issues encountered in a review of the standard by the Review Committee of the Mayor’s Office of the City of New York and of the New York Chapter of the U. S. Green Building Council we feel strongly that a third draft is warranted.

10.1 Scope

Recommend adding a section on stormwater management. Commenter/Comment 0121/094 Page 2

This chapter should reflect the importance of proper maintenance to stormwater systems. For example, permeable pavement may need to be vacuum cleaned twice a year; sand infiltration filters may need to be cleaned by removal of the first inch of sand once or twice a year. Vegetation, obviously, must be growing. And the standard should address the protection of existing soils and vegetation.

Author's Signature: Date 7 April 2008

3. Clause or Subclause: 5.3.3.1 Commenter/Comment 0121/095 Page 2

4. Comment (Proposed Text): Exceptions to 5.3.3.1:

(a) Illuminance generated from a single luminaire placed at the intersection of a private vehicular driveway and public roadway accessing the site, is allowed to use the centerline of the public roadway as a boundary condition in Table5.3.3.1.

(b) Alternatively, in Lighting Zones 2, 3, and 4 (a) For site boundaries that abut public roadways, light trespass requirements in Table 5.3.3.1 are allowed to be relative to the curb line shared by the public right-of-way and the site centerline of the public roadway instead of the site boundary. Streetlights required by governmental authorities are not to be included in the compliance calculations or field measurements.

(b) For site boundaries that abut public sidewalks, plazas, transportation, pathways, bikeways, drives, parking lots, the light trespass requirements in Table 5.3.3.1 are allowed to be relative to a line to 5’ beyond the relevant section of the site boundary.

5. Substantiating Statements: In setting where the property line is at or near the face of the building you could not have any lighting at the building entry that meets IESNA standards, or code required exit discharge lighting, and meet the limits, even if measuring at the curb. The exterior lighting for the project could be very low illuminance and zero uplight, but you would be in violation of the standard. The proposed changes takes the exception in the draft for intersections of driveway and public roads, and extends it to all cases where the site boundary abuts a public road, or other public areas that will not be negatively affected by small amounts of spill light.

This provision is adapted from the LEED Light Pollution credit. In many LEED projects this credit cannot be achieved due to the rigid light trespass limits, even though the lighting is very low polluting. This is especially true in dense urban environments. Whereas the LEED program and credits are optional, Std.189.1 is proposed as a model code, where not meeting any mandatory requirement even by the smallest amount would result in a code violation. Many very high- performance buildings in urban settings would not be able to be built under this code if this requirement is not revised to allow some reasonable cushion on the trespass requirements.

[ ] Check if additional pages are attached. Number of additional pages: [ ] Check here if your comment is supportive in nature and does not require substantive changes in the current proposal in order to resolve your comment. If you select this option, your comment will not require a response from the project committee and will not be subject to the commenter response procedures.

NOTE: To ensure receiving all notices provided for in the procedures, you are responsible for informing the ASHRAE Standards Section when your contact information changes. Otherwise you may not receive responses to comments, right-to-appeal notices, and any other notices that may be sent to commenters. To update your contact information, send an email to [email protected]. You must indicate which public review draft or drafts you are commenting on in your email. FORM FOR COMMENTING ON A PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ASHRAE STANDARD, GUIDELINE OR ADDENDUM

3. Clause or Subclause: 5.3.2.3 Commenter/Comment 0121/096 Page 2

4. Comment (Proposed Text): This section applies to the building and covered parking roof surfaces. A minimum of 75% of the entire roof surface not used for roof penetrations or equipment, renewable energy power systems (e.g. photovoltaics or solar thermal collectors), harvesting systems for rainwater to be re- used on-site, or green roofing systems shall be covered with products that comply with one or more of the following:

5. Substantiating Statements: Current language would have the perverse effect of requiring vegetate roof areas beneath rooftop mechanical equipment.

Technically rainwater is a re-use.

The “on site” language would preclude applications that might capture stormwater for re-use, for example irrigation or in-building re-use, in conjunction with a system that is combined with a neighboring building.

NOTE: To ensure receiving all notices provided for in the procedures, you are responsible for informing the ASHRAE Standards Section when your contact information changes. Otherwise you may not receive responses to comments, right-to-appeal notices, and any other notices that may be sent to commenters. To update your contact information, send an email to [email protected]. You must indicate which public review draft or drafts you are commenting on in your email. Rev. 01-30-2006