Urban Building: Does Not Own Sidewalk

In anticipating response(s), I should probably clarify my question/concern: Oregon law prohibits smoking within 10 feet of workplace entries/exits/air intakes/operable windows, and requires posting signage to that effect. It also allows a workplace to extend the prohibition distance *on the property*.

In the case of a project which opens directly onto the public sidewalks, there is thus a 10-foot, legally required no-smoking zone. However, as noted in previous comments, the building has no legal ability to prohibit smoking to the LEED 25-foot distance, when that extends off the property.

In this case, are we OK with the legally required "no smoking within 10 feet" signage? Anything beyond that is basically asking nicely, but is unenforceable, and might cause confusion with regards to the state 10-foot no-smoking zone.

To clarify, to earn the LEED prerequisite, you absolutely must have a policy that prohibits smoking within 25 feet of all building entrances, operable windows and air intakes. The review team is not going to allow you to fall back on state law which is not as stringent as the LEED requirements.

So, the real question becomes: how do you enforce a 25-foot restriction on a zero-lot line building? Zero-lot line buildings all over the country encounter challenges with this requirement. However, please keep in mind that LEED is not asking for you to initiate legal or police action if a person violates your smoking policy. When it comes down to it, all you can do (and all that LEED expects of you) is to create your policy, communicate it to building occupants and tenants, and post appropriate signage to ensure that people know that this particular building does not allow smoking within 25 feet of any building openings. Your previous comment hit the nail on the head - you're basically relying in good faith on people to observe your building policies. If someone smokes next to a door, you can ask them nicely to stop. If they don't stop, then it's up to building management/security to decide how they want to handle that. LEED wants to see that you're doing as much as possible to enforce a compliant smoking policy, so focus on meeting those requirements.

Thanks for your reply, Jason. While I agree with the gist of your comments, I don't think it adequately addresses the specific technicalities of this situation.

The prerequisite language does not say that you must have a "policy that prohibits smoking within 25 feet ...". Rather, the policy must "prohibit _on-property_ smoking within 25 feet ..." [emphasis added].

Given that LEED only requires the prohibition of "on-property" smoking, Oregon state law appears to me to actually be more stringent, not less -- in this specific case of a property which has no exterior, _on-property_ areas which extend further from an entance/exit/window/intake than what is covered by state law. The law prohibits smoking within 10 feet of an entrance, etc., period -- regardless of whether that is on or off the property. (The law then allows an owner the option to extend the prohibition beyond 10 feet _on the property_. But we don't have any exterior property that extends beyond the 10-foot prohbition of state law.)

I think we either submit with photos of the 10-foot signage and narrative / site plan showing that 10 feet covers all exterior, on-property areas; OR I go to the state DHS and ask them if the property would still be in compliance with the law if we posted a "no smoking within 25 feet" sign.

I'm wondering if there are any further thoughts on this topic. Jason's comments were pretty clear that it's 25 feet and signage should probably reflect that. But, when I looked at the 2009 EBOM form for this prerequisite for a project I'm working on, it seems to give the option to indicate whether you are either (1) prohibiting smoking on the entire project site, OR, (2) you are prohibiting smoking within the 25 foot guideline. Looking at the LEED form, it seems that prohibiting smoking on the entire project site would suffice for the exterior component of this prerequisite. Am I correct? I'm in the same boat with the originator of this inquiry as I'm working with a tight urban site with public sidewalks running in front of our building's retail units.