-
May be the only legal option
Interior smoking is not allowed in many building types, and for those projects, this prerequisite should be easy and not add costs. It may even be the only legal option. To comply, you may need to establish a nonsmoking policy in and around the building (including entrances and balconies), and install appropriate signage.
If smoking is allowed, stringent measures needed
Multifamily residences and hotels may feel compelled to allow smoking in some or all units, and some projects, like airports, have designated smoking rooms. In these cases, stringent measures will be needed to stop movement of smoke from smoking to nonsmoking areas. These measures include air barriers between units, negative air pressure in smoking areas, separate exhaust systems, and blower-door testing...
Step-by-step credit help
Got the gist of the LEED credit but not sure how to actually achieve it? LEEDuser gives step-by-step help. Members get:
- Checklists covering all the key action steps you'll need to earn the credit.
- Hot tips to give you shortcuts and avoid pitfalls.
- Cost tips to assess what a credit will actually cost, and how to make it affordable.
- Ideas for going beyond LEED with best practices.
- All checklists organized by project phase.
- On-the-fly suggestions on useful items from the Documentation Toolkit, Resources, and Credit Language.
-
Credit language straight from USGBC
Need to check up on the exact LEED credit language from the LEED Rating System on the fly? LEEDuser includes the verbatim language. Members get:
- Easy access to the official LEED credit language with just a couple of clicks.
- On the jobsite without your bulky LEED Reference Guide? Check up on the credit language details here.
- Credit language content is used by permission of the U.S. Green Building Council.
Your credit-by-credit reference library
Why waste time chasing down referenced standards and supporting resources when LEEDuser links you directly to the ones you need? LEEDuser has gathered all the best tools out there and organized them by credit for easy reference. Members get links to:
- Organizations that can give information or help on a credit.
- Standards or studies that are key reference points for credits and prerequisites.
- Articles that help explain important topics.
- Key documents or references for credit inputs.
- Software tools you can use to run calculations or simulations.
Documentation Toolkit
In the end, LEED is all about documentation. LEEDuser’s Documentation Toolkit saves you time and helps you avoid mistakes with:
- Calculators to help assess credit compliance.
- Tracking spreadsheets for materials purchases.
- Spreadsheets and forms to give to subs and other team members.
- Guidance documents on arcane LEED issues.
- Sample templates to help guide your narratives and LEED Online submissions.
- Examples of actual submissions from certified LEED projects.
20 Comments
Prerequisite Denied
This issue seemed to be in question on a few other posts so I thought I would weigh in on a recent experience. I currently have a CI project that is located atop a highrise building in Atlanta - we are one of hundreds of tenants. The building is certified Silver under the LEED EB v.2 rating system and has numerous other CI spaces in it. The entire building is non smoking and has the 25' policy, but no exterior signage exists because it was not required in v.2 of the EB rating system. When responding to the first round of review comments, we stated that we were attempting Case 1 Option 2 and explained that there were no operable windows or doors to the exterior and the air handling unit serving our floor drew in air from the roof, which was not susceptible to ETSEnvironmental tobacco smoke (ETS), or secondhand smoke, consists of airborne particles emitted from the burning end of cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, and is exhaled by smokers. These particles contain about 4,000 compounds, up to 50 of which are known to cause cancer.. In addition, we provided a letter from the building managment confirming the no smoking policy. We recieved our review back with 65 points awarded but this prerequisite denied because we could not confirm that a signage system communicating the exterior smoking policy was in place.
Is it reasonable to expect a tenant to be accountable for a public space in a shared building that is outside of their scope and control? Either I am missing something (which is always a possibility) or this is one of the more egregious examples of lack of common sense on the part of the reviewer that I have seen.
Ellen,
Not that I disagree with you, but could you ask the building management to add signs at the enterances? Clearly the reviewer is adhering to the letter of the law here. Did you look for any CIRs to support this compliance path? I assume you're going to appeal this ruling?
Hi Emily,
Unfortunately exterior signage is not an option. The building management feels like they have taken the necessary steps to fullfil their LEED requirements - who can blame them? They also have other CI Certified projects in their building, so they are having a hard time understanding why we are different.
We are looking into our options. The most frustrating aspect is that the requirements for Option 2 seem to change. In the denial response, we were given the option of providing a building management letter stating the smoking policy. When we asked why that wasn't mentioned in the first round of review comments, the response back said nothing about a letter, but told us we must provide No Smoking signage inside our office space. This seems to make even less sense as the entire building is non-smoking under both building management and City of Atlanta ordinance. So I guess now my question is....is it reasonable to think any employee or visitor would be tempted to light up inside an office? What exactly is the point of these signs?
Maybe the more important question is where are either of these options found? I have scoured all the interpretations and discussions, and can find nothing on either one.
Needless to say, we are quite frustrated.
Hi Emily,
That's frustrating on many levels but particularly because the issue at hand seems nit picky rather than something that will have a substantive impact on the operations of the building. But, I think that there are some good actions that you can take.
Based on your description, it seems like the review team is getting caught up in the requirement included on the credit form to "provide evidence of signage communicating the exterior
smoking policy". Of course, signage isn't the only way to effectively communicate the smoking policy to the occupants in your tenant space or in the rest of the building. But there are likely some other mechanisms in place to actively communicate the policy to all building occupants and specifically the occupants in your tenant space. I would focus on developing a narrative that stresses the point that the smoking policy is actively communicated to occupants in ways other than signage and provide detail about those mechanisms. In that way, signage is unnecessary because your building is able to get to the result that matters, which is that people are not smoking in the building or within 25ft of it. To bolster this argument, I would describe the procedures that building management has in place to make sure that people aren't smoking within 25ft of the door. For example, security or other building personnel direct anyone who is smoking by the door to move further away.
I've seen this type of approach work with EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. projects and in my mind it's silly to have signage as the only communication tool available to project teams.
It might make sense to try and communicate your line of thought to the review team through the messages tab on LEED Online before submitting the appeal, especially if you feel that a new issue was raised that was not included in the Preliminary Review.
Hi Ben,
We have already begun communication with GBCI and are in the process of trying to come to a resolution. I agree with you and argued that the problem lies in the form. It seems to me that the signage requirement for Option 1 is completely reasonable and is intended mainly for projects in which the tenant occupies the whole building or at least controls some street level areas. Option 2 seems to be more applicable to cases like ours in which there is no public exterior space, but unfortunately the form doesn't break out the requirements per option and so the signage upload requirement appears regardless. We did upload a building management letter confirming the non smoking policy as well as a detailed narrative explaining how no ETSEnvironmental tobacco smoke (ETS), or secondhand smoke, consists of airborne particles emitted from the burning end of cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, and is exhaled by smokers. These particles contain about 4,000 compounds, up to 50 of which are known to cause cancer. can get into the tenant space through windows, entries or air handling units. That should have been plenty, but the reviewer only sees that we didn't fulfill the signage requirement and denies the credit without analyzing the situation.
I will certainly post an update once we get things straightened out. Hopefully this signage aspect won't be a deal-breaker for future CI projects.
Update: the final ruling is as follows (I'm paraphrasing):
In order for our project to demonstrate compliance under Option 2, signage must be installed at all exterior CI project entrances which communicates the exterior smoking policy to all occupants and visitors. Projects without direct access to the exterior can provide a copy of the LEED CI or base building smoking policy in lieu of signage. However, as our project has a terrace space (which is completely non-smoking and inaccessible to the public), the policy was not an option for us. We had to provide signage at the terrace entry.
This still seems a little nit picky, but GBCI did waive our appeal fee due to the inconsistency of the rulings, so I consider that a successful compromise.
No smoking rooms in tenant space
There is a building where somking is allowed and there are some rooms designated for somoking but they are all outside the tenant space so they are not in the project scope of work. In that case, do the smoking rooms have to comply with the requirements of this prerequisite? Do the tenant have to force the building owner to make the blower test?
I meant the differential air pressureThe difference in air pressure between two spaces, potentially leading, in the case of a pressure difference, to the migration of contaminants from one space to another. When using a designated smoking room ror environmental tobacco smoke control, you may need to test the differential air pressure in the smoking room with respect to each adjacent area and in each adjacent vertical chase with the doors to the smoking room closed. The testing will be conducted with each space configured for worst case conditions of transport of air from the smoking rooms to adjacent spaces with the smoking rooms' doors closed to the adjacent spaces. The test can be conducted by a mechanical engineer. The test should involve 15 minutes of measurement, with a minimum of one measurement every 10 seconds. With the doors to the smoking room closed, operate exhaust sufficient to create a negative pressure with respect to the adjacent spaces of at least an average of 5 Pa (0.02 inches of water gauge) and with a minimum of 1 Pa (0.004 inches of water gauge). test (not blower test). Is this pressure test required in that case or is it enough to submit mechanical system drawings showing that smoking rooms are isoleted from other areas and that they have separate exhaust system?
Public Property and the 25ft Rule
Our project is in a very urban environment, and the front door opens to a public city sidewalk and then public road (no landscape, parking lot, etc). No smoking is permitted within the building. Is the client required by USGBC to ban smoking within 25ft of the entrance - or is public property exempt from the 25ft rule? I'm not sure that it is possible to prohibit the public from smoking in their cars as they drive by the space or hustle by on the sidewalk on their walk home from work!
Melissa, I think you'll find this discussion on the EBOM IEQp2 forum useful.
USGBC/ GBCI Alt Path for Environmental Tobacco Smoke
I am currently working on a project that intends to pursue LEED certification. We have run the checklist, and 58 points have fallen into place. Unfortunately, the landlord of the building currently does not prohibit smoking within 25' of entry ways and air intakes. We have pressured them to implement a policy that does that, and they have not been agreeable. The project is in California, which has laws in place to prohibit smoking inside buildings, but there are no requirements for keeping smokers 25' away from entries. It seems to me the USGBC/ GBCI allows alternate compliance paths on some prerequisites, but I have not been able to find any information on this on any forums or CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide postings for this particular prerequisite. in fact, this is the first site I have encountered that does not meet the 25' LEED requirements. Is there any way to alternately satisfy the intent of this prerequisite if we have no control over the landlord and the lease is already signed? I would hate to have to abandon the goal of LEED due to one prerequisite that is controlled by the landlord and not the tenant. Please advise.
Lucy, have you looked at Option 2, Case 1? (See more information in the tabs above.)
I have currently the exact same problem as Lucy, project is located inside an office building in Mexico City, smoking is prohibited on the inside, but there isn't any regulation on the outside that prohibits smoking within 25' from entrances, and tenants have no power over the entire building policy. I have looked at option 2, case 1, but I don't finish to get it, could an alternative be to prove that no ETSEnvironmental tobacco smoke (ETS), or secondhand smoke, consists of airborne particles emitted from the burning end of cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, and is exhaled by smokers. These particles contain about 4,000 compounds, up to 50 of which are known to cause cancer. can migrate from terraces (where smoking is allowed) to inside the building through natural ventilation?
I doubt that smoke does not migrate inside from terraces, and it would be very difficult to prove that it does. In any case, I don't think that LEED would be flexible on that requirement.
Lucy, I would like to know what happened in the end with your project. Our prerequisite compliance is currently pending and we are having trouble on documenting for the final review. Which path did you follow?
Smoking in courtyards
My understanding is that within Option 1 (smoking ban inside the property), the definition of a smoking area within an external courtyard is still allowed, providing this 25 ft (8 m) distance is upheld. The mention of avoiding smoking in all "common areas used by occupants" comes later in Case 2 and presumably means internal spaces only not shared external recreational areas like courtyards.
For an urban devlopment directly off the pavement, a smoking area for employees within the landscaped courtyard is desired. This is a relatively narrow courtyard shared by all the buildings on the block. If the 8 m distance from the openings in only our LEED-Project building is to be upheld, then the smoking zone comes pretty much against the fassade of the neighbouring buildings windows.
Would this fulfill the prerequisite? The principle is similar to designating an area on the pavement 8 m away from the projects main entrance or windows, which could in some cases then be infront of a neighbouring building entrance or window. Seems a little counterintuitive to try and push the smoke so far away from one building that far more will pass into another building's open windows...
Thanks in advance for any of your thoughts / experience!
It seems like your approach would meet the letter of the LEED requirements, but not the spirit.
Plus, how will the neighbors feel about being the recipient of all this tobacco smoke? Will they ask the smokers to move, and if they move, will they be forced back within 8 m of the LEED building's openings? Seems like it may comply, but problematic.
no smoking requirements for CA projects
Hello, I was wondering if anyone had information on what documentation was required for a multi-tenant office building in CA? Since smoking is prohibited in the work place in CA, are "no smoking" signs still required to be placed on the outside of the building to comply with this prerequisite?
The requirement is to ban smoking inside the building and 25 feet away from entrances and air intakes. If the law only states that smoking in not permitted in the building, they still need either exterior signs prohibiting smoking 25 feet from the building or place designated smoking areas, such as ashtrays 25 feet away.
Historically, all we've needed to provide is a brief letter from the owner (or management) on their letterhead stating that the property is either 100% non-smoking, or that smoking is allowed somewhere and then state how and where and make sure that it aligns with the requirements.
No photos, diagrams or other documentation is usually submitted.
Please register to use the forum.