I don't see why not. LEED doesn't specify a certain format / design of the signage.

Agreeing with Omar. I've seen a wide variety of signage for this credit and often not in white/red. The last project that was certified had signs in black letters on a yellow background.

Shakir,

The guideline states under the implementation section that "if interior smoking areas are incorporated within the building, install separate ventilation systems" ... "test their effectiveness to ensure that they are isolated from the non-smoking portions of the building".

Thus, a dedicated exhaust system is needed for all rooms that allows smoking. But there apparently are no specific requirements for negative pressure if you use case 2 (residential and hospitality projects).

For hotels (hospitality projects), weather stripping, sealing and etc. are needed for all doors or operable windows which separates
- the building and the exterior
- the building and potential smoking partitions (rooms, areas, etc)

This is in addition to the dedicated exhaust system as previously stated. However, you should note that if you opt for case 2 (Residential & hospitality projects only), all common areas of the building, such as a restaurant or bar, will have to be designated as non-smoking.

Source: Reference guide + leed online submittals (the format of the submittals seems to indicate this as well)

Thanks Isaac.

I beg to differ though. It doesn't make sense to completely prohibit smoking in a restaurant or bar in a hotel that has a designated room for smoking with the required exhaust system and pressure differentional. LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. ID# 610 states "...the project team and owner may wish to consider creating a fully contained smoking section within the facility that meets the requirements set forth under the prerequisite."

Is there a formal definition for the term "common areas of the building" that you or anyone on this forum knows of?

Thanks,
Shakir

Omar, I don't see why you couldn't take this approach, if you meet the credit requirements that are given.

Thanks Tristan, I just think that it doesn't make sense to have no limitations on the smoking zones' percentage out of the whole building.
In other words, why not permit smoking inside the whole building, and design a non-smoking zone on each floor for example?

On the principle that non-smokers shouldn't be subject to smoking. Nonsmokers shouldn't have to navigate lobbies, corridors, elevators, stairs, bathrooms, etc, with smoke, in order to reach a nonsmoking refuge. Also, I would say that operations and maintenance staff shouldn't be exposed 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. any more than necessary, so keeping smoking to a designated area helps with that.

That explains it perfectly, thanks

Heather, in our experience the requirement is "any opening". However the vast majority of our projects elect to completely ban smoking, or choose that path when they cannot meet the blower door requirements.

Hi, just wanted to bump this back up into the conversation in case anyone else has had direct experience with the hotel room balconies question. Thanks-

Heather, based on your reading of the requirements, I see your point, but I'm not sure I really like the answer. I agree with Ante that I have always focused on the "any opening" aspect of the requirements. I think what you're seeing may be a loophole, and not the intended result. However, maybe it is intended. I would suggest contacting GBCI for feedback, and post back here what you learn.

Thank you Tristan. I frequently teach exam prep and was asked this question by a student. Since it is not a real project, I can't submit a 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. I am definitely not advocating for smoking, or inhaling someone else's 2nd hand smoke. But I do like to know exactly what is required, and then progress to what would be the best approach to meet the fullest intent for a strategy, not just stick with the lowest baseline.

Hypothetical questions can be really hard in LEED. Without an owner or someone driving the project team intent in a certain direction, I find that it is easier to get tied up in knots by wording.

If you really want to know, just contact GBCi via their website. You don't need to submit a 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.

yeah - I get a lot of those. But it does keep it interesting, plus a way for me to learn something new about LEED every day :)
I didn't realize I could directly ask GBCI without a project to go along with the question. I will do that, then post back here when I hear back. Thanks Tristan!

By having signage prohibiting smoking or within 25 feet of the building you are complying with Option 1 for this Prerequisite, and nothing further is required.

Michael, it would be nice if there were specific standards in place for signage like this. However, I'm not aware that USGBC has published any. I think your sign sounds fine but I couldn't say for sure.

If you are submitting this as Design credit, you will have a chance to change it, in case the LEED reviewer objects.

You are correct, the person needs to be the owner and the LO computers are smart enough to know that the engineer signed the form instead of the owner. Sit down with the owner and walk them through the whole process. Bring donuts.

On this topic of Owner signatory, what do you suggest when the Owner does not ever log into LEED Online? We are agents for most if not all of our Owners and many of them never go online at all. Our Owners aren't interested in being walked through this process, donuts or no donuts. They pay us to handle the online process for them.

We are seeing a raft of reviewer comments about the Owner not being assigned to the credit and us signing off for them, despite our executed Agent agreement form. I can only assume this is because we cannot actually assign the Owner contact to the credit when they don't go online. As far as I know, it can't be done.

We have an uploaded executed Agent form that says we are able to sign off on their behalf. If we can't assign them to the credit, how are we supposed to address this to the USGBCs satisfaction?

I literally sit them down and force them to log in and sign them. It is the only thing I find that works with the owner. Invite them to LEED Online, call them when you know they have gotten the invitation, walk them through the sign up process and then make the appointment. I show up, get them logged on (often doing it for them which is why I am on the phone when they sign up), and roll them through the credits they need to sign. It is a 20 minute process and a pain for both of us. You have to find some way to make it a fun process and easy on them. But the intent of these signatures is for the owner to engage in the process and not outsource to consultants. If the person you interact with is a 'construction' person for the owner and they pass it off to a 'facility' person, then that person may be more interested and will sign things for you. You may need to find someone else at the owner to sign the forms.

On the projects that I have worked on to date in LEED 2009, I have walked the owner through placing their initials. As Susan mentions, it's a pain, but it has to be done. If you make it clear to them that without their initials, there is no certification, they will usually comply - if reluctantly. As Susan said, our job is to try to make it as easy and painless as possible (can't say I've managed to make it "fun"...). I realize that the online Forms know WHO is placing their initials - which is why I always have the owner do it - or for other signatories, whichever discipline is the responsible one.

My hope was that the GBCI had updated or created an addenda (hard to keep up with all the addenda) allowing us to sign on behalf of our client. It would seem the answer is "No." If anyone knows otherwise, please let us know.

Thanks! - Kris Phillips

Ladies,
I appreciate the responses, and the fact that your approach to handling your Owner clients is to make them do it (in the nicest possible way of course). We are LEED consultants, and our approach is to take the burden and brain damage of dealing with the online platform off their shoulders. That's part of the value we offer.

It is actually not accurate to say that a project cannot get certified if the Owner doesn't put their initials in the box. The fact is there is a mechanism for the Owner not to have to spend their very expensive time to perform these online signoffs themselves. It's called an Agent Authorization form and is a fully executed legal document. As I understand it, the entire purpose of this Agent form is to allow a representative to execute the online issues for them.

If the position truly is that an Owner has to go online and initial things themselves or no certification is possible, why have the Agent form and this process in place?

FYI, I have just been advised by my review team that the Owner does not have to go online or be assigned to the credit. The Agent form, however, needs to be fully executed by the USGBC prior to submittal, i.e., we now need to send the signed Agent form ourselves to Legal at USGBC for their signature prior to uploading it.

Glad you got good resolution on this issue.

Be sure, that who ever you assign as the "agent" is listed as Agent. In alot of my cases, I create an architect/agent role for my project managers. They dont mind us being the agent, but you have to designate that person on the project administration tab as "agent", so when you sign the form, it states that you are acting the "agent" or " ______/agent".

Michelle,
I was not aware of the Agent Authorization form. Thank you for making everyone aware of this option. You seem knowledgeable on the issue, so I will ask the question: what kind of liability would the "consultant" assume signing on behalf of the client?

I generally use the signatory process as an opportunity to walk them through the MPRs and various issues that we the design/engineers (or consultants) need to ask of them anyway. Essentially killing three birds with one stone (sorry for the reference bird lovers): eco-charrette, fact finding, signatory execution.

By the way, for the record, I would fall under the category of "Gentleman".

Thanks!

Hi Kris,
You and Susan are obviously taking the time and using a good approach to explain the Owner's responsibilities to them through the signatory issues. Since we have a lot of repeat owners and developers, we find that it's more about high dollar people fussing with the computer platform and the forms and the navigation to get them to sign off than their understanding of the issues. We take that brain damage off their hands.

It's also easier for me as PM to close things out when the documentation is done rather than waiting for this sign off. I prefer not to spend my fee to chase the Owner for a formality, and they seem to appreciate our focus on getting things done.

Please note there are indications that signatories are going away in v4, though I don't know if that applies to all of them.

The agent form is available on the Registration Details tab of any project if you click from Owner to Project Team Member. You can download it and read it. Basically the liability remains on the Owner, all we are doing as Agent is executing the online functions. The Owner is still responsible for the data and claims made.

Always a pleasure to deal with a gentleman.

It's been approved in the past by providing copies of the legal contract that condo buyers sign with the Homeowners Association that governs the building. Often there are "bylaws" that condo residents have to follow, so that document or something similar will need to describe the no smoking policy.

I don't know what the review comment is referring to. I would suggest asking GBCI for clarification.

Soo young and Tristan,
I've encountered the same issue. Was there any resolution on this issue?

Yes..I have verified w/ USGBC and got approved for this credits.
What they mean is..
"Sign and date on the basic credit form and scan and upload it", not just owner's letter.
I do not understand why we have to do that...but...just did as they ask me to..
We had same comments with some of other credits, too.

From all I have been reading about this topic with regard to a similar question about my own project, the answer is yes, you need to state the 25' limit.

The signage needs to communicate that smoking is prohibited within 25ft of the building (entrances, window, outside air intakes), is prohibited on the site, or is limited to designated smoking areas. A sign that states "you are entering a non-smoking area" seems ambiguous and is likely to get flagged during the review process, especially if it's posted at the entrances to the building.

Wei,

For some reason, the LEED form was not built to address this situation of smoking being prohibited in residential/hotel units. I would suggest leaving the box that states "the project building includes residential units" UNCHECKED. This allows you to skip the blower door testA blower door test gives an overall value for airtightness of a space, and can help identify air leaks. The testing unit consists of a calibrated fan that is sealed onto the unit entrance. The fan creates a continuous flow of pressure into the unit (or out of the unit when using theatrical fog to locate leaks). Devices detect the rate of pressure retention and loss due to possible air leaks in the construction. details of the form. Then under the "Additional Details" section of the form, I would check the "alternative compliance approach" box and add a narrative that states smoking is prohibited in all guest rooms. I would also suggest uploading a supporting building policy that clearly shows that smoking is prohibited. This has been an approved approach used on previous projects.

Maura, it doesn't sound like it to me. The review team is saying that smoking in cars has to be forbidden, so putting up a sign but having the administration nod and wink to the employees that smoking in the car is still ok doesn't sound like it will work. Note that the LEED requirement is to prohibit smoking, and no smoking signs are merely an enforcement piece.

How many parking spaces does this affect? Why not just prohibit smoking in those spaces?

All parking spaces are outside of the 25' boundary.

Oh... I misunderstood. Now it's obvious... In that case, yes, I think having the policy in place with the signs should suffice.

If signs state "No smoking within 25' of building," etc. it implies that smoking IS allowed beyond that limit, when in fact smoking is highly restricted everywhere. How can we phrase or place signage to succinctly communicate the full policy? We need a common sense solution.

Maura,
How about a student sign-writing contest for the wording that communicates this full and somewhat unique policy most succinctly? If the signs just said "No smoking within 25' of building" I doubt that people would start smoking beyond that limit at a boarding school where students and staff are already quite informed about such matters!

I suppose you could say "No smoking within 25' of building; smoking policy in effect for all campus areas." (Students might come up with something more clever... "No smoking, drinking, or PDA within 25' of building”... “No smoking or nuclear warheads within 25’ of building…” I’m sure Thomas Paine would have taken issue with LEED. Sorry to digress.)

We're putting up the "No smoking within 25'" signage on building doors, but do we also have to put up "Designated smoking area" signs when there is no "area" per se? Cars are not "areas." Frankly we don't want people to know that smoking is okay anywhere on campus.

Sounds like in the eyes of the reviewer, you have areas where smoking is allowed, even if only for certain people -the school employees. If an employee is allowed to smoke in their car, then a parking lot is technically a designated smoking area *for school employees only.*

The reviewer will probably want to see a site plan that shows this "area" where someone might smoke is more than 25' from entries, windows, vents, etc. If you can show that, I think you will have addressed their concerns. I know it seems crazy, but sometimes it helps to look at this (and many other permitting procedures) like a game of "Simon Says." I don't think indicating "designated smoking areas" on a site plan only used for LEED Online changes the message students receive about the smoking policy.

The smoking area does not need to be covered to meet the requirements of LEED. I have already done plenty of projects that just met the baseline criteria above and the area designated was just an enlarged piece of the sidewalk without a canopy. Or in some cases a concrete pad located far enough away from the building. Some owners have certain requirements for their smoking areas like trash receptacles, benches, and sometimes a covered area. You will have to check with them to see if they want to include a roof structure as part of the smoking area design.

Smoking is allowed only in vehicles in the parking lot, which is further than 25' from the building but within the LEED boundary. That's not exactly "designated area" but we are not going to designate a physical area, nor do we want to erect signage pertaining to smoking in vehicles. Can someone comment on how the review team might react to this or what alternatives we should consider?

Loic, yes, it does.

Sarah,

My experience with this on two projects was that it should be included in the blower door testing rather than being taped or used for the placement of the blower door. An elevator shaft can be an obvious path for air leakage between units. These doors can be very leaky as well so it's important to make sure one is selected that is tightly weather-stripped and installed properly to prevent leaks.

Thanks Keith! It would be helpful to know if the elevator doors you used on the 2 projects mentioned actually provided an adequate seal and, if so, what type of weather stripping was used.

Thanks again.

Sara, I would assume that the 25-foot measurement would go around solid obstacles, as long as they are continuous and totally impervious.

Regarding measurement from grade vs. an opening above, I don't think that passes the "sniff test." Smoking happens at head level, which is not at grade, and then smoke tends to go up, so openings overhead should get all the clearance they can.

Tristan,
what about the measurement, if the smoking area is at floor 0, and there's an entrance at floor -1 (patio) ?
Do i need to comply with the 25 feet (smoke tends to go up as you said) ?

Thanks

I have the same question for a rooftop a/c unit on a one story building. How would you measure the 25'? Up and over for a combination of horizontal and vertical distance or would it be a horizontal measurement only to the 'top' of the smoking area? What determines the 'top' of an outdoor smoking area?

Thank you.