|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TO: |
Mayor and Members of Council |
|
|
|
|
FROM: |
Peter Loukes, Director of Operations and Asset Management |
|
|
|
|
PREPARED BY: |
Stan Lau, Senior Project Manager Alan Laver, Manager, Utilities
and Contract |
|
|
|
|
DATE OF MEETING: |
2005-May- 16 |
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: |
Light Pollution – Update Report |
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report entitled “Light Pollution –
Update Report” be received;
AND THAT the draft Site Plan Agreement Clause
and the draft Exterior Illumination Requirements (Attachments 1 and 2) be
endorsed in principle and presented at a developers roundtable meeting on May
18, 2005;
AND THAT staff of the Development Services
Commission be directed to manage site illumination through the site plan
approval and agreement process and report back to General Committee with final
conditions, clauses and processes, following the developers roundtable meeting;
AND THAT the Illuminating Engineering Society
of North America (IESNA) Standards be adopted for town-wide lighting design;
AND THAT Community Services staff in consultation with Strategic Services develop a public education and communication program regarding light pollution for consideration in the 2006 Business Plan and Budget.
AND FURTHER THAT Phase 1 of a 5 phase
Light Replacement Strategy at Town facilities and parks, in the amount of
$100,000, be considered for approval in the 2006
Business Plans and Capital Budget.
PURPOSE:
The
purpose of this report is to provide Council with an up-date and
recommendations on the Light Pollution issues, as directed by Council
Resolution of
BACKGROUND:
On
The two options were:
Option I – Control by Light Pollution By-law.
Option II – Control by Site Plan Agreement.
Council on
1.
Council gave direction to staff to deliver Option
II, managing site illumination through site plan control;
2.
That staff be requested to finalize lighting
standards and site plan agreement clauses for managing site illumination;
3.
That staff be directed to circulate the staff report
for public review to appropriate agencies, including the York Regional Police
for comments;
4.
That staff report back by October, 2004 on ,a public
education program, the compliance of Town owned facilities including financial
implications; the potential implementation issues of Option I; a proposed phase
in plan; ramifications of site plan agreement, subdivision agreement or by-law
compliance; ICI/residential differential; grandfathering; equipment requirements/possible
additional staff; and training requirements;
5.
And that a public information meeting be scheduled,
when appropriate.
DISCUSSION:
In
response to the above-noted Council resolution items, we provide updates as
follows:
1. Managing Site Illumination Through Site Plan Control
As
directed by Council, a draft Site Plan Agreement Clause regarding site
illumination installation has been developed (Attachment 1). This is to ensure that in the future,
exterior lighting in areas that are subject to site plan approval will be
designed and constructed in accordance with the illumination requirements in
terms of Light Pollution, Light Trespass and Glare. Exterior Illumination Requirements
(Attachment 2) have been developed for applicants as a guideline for the design
and installation of illumination at site plan stage. These tools will also be reviewed for
possible implementation for new subdivisions.
These two documents, if endorsed by Council, will be taken to a
developers’ roundtable meeting on
2. a) Lighting
Standards
With
respect to lighting standards, it is recommended that the current Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standards, which are now generally
being used by the Town’s Engineering and Operations & Asset Management
departments, be formally adopted for design of all external lighting systems
(including site plans, park facilities, streetlighting etc.).
The
IESNA Standards are the most recognized and are used by almost all
municipalities throughout
It is proposed to apply the IESNA Standards for town-wide lighting designs in order to provide staff and design engineers with guidelines to deal with all the exterior lighting design issues. These standards outline quantity and quality requirements for illumination which include light pollution goals, objectives and design requirements.
b) Equipment/Resource Requirement for Option II
Council’s
directive was to manage site illumination through site plan control. The guidelines and revised agreement clauses
will require the applicant to pay all costs for preparation of a detailed
exterior lighting plan and certification of compliance by a certified lighting
professional. Until proper certification is received by the Development
Services Department, development related Letters of Credit will not be released. Therefore, except for additional staff time
spent on review of applications and to ensure receipt of the compliance
certificates, the Town’s cost and resource needs will be minimal.
c) Grandfathering for Option II
Managing site
illumination through the site plan approval process would only apply to new
development and re-development that require submission of applications for Site
Plan approval. All existing light fixtures that are non-compliant to the
standard/guideline, either in commercial/industrial or residential properties
would not be affected by the new process. However, should an existing
development seek an amendment to an approved site plan agreement staff will
make best efforts to ensuring any new lighting required is compliant.
3. Review and Comments
Staff
from Community and Fire Services, Development Services, and Legal Services have
discussed and reviewed lighting pollution issues internally. In addition, Town staff met with the York
Regional Police to get their input and comments.
Comments
from internal departments are mainly related to implementation issues such as
cost, staff resources and enforcement.
For Option II – Control through Site Plan Agreement, concerns have been
addressed through revisions to the development approval process. Under Option I – Control by Light Pollution
By-law issues would be substantially more significant. Staff are very concerned
about issues related to the implementation of a by-law such as; legal
implications, enforcement and inspection requirements, additional staffing,
training , and the availability of additional financial resources.
At a meeting with Town staff on
4. a) Compliance
of Town Owned Facilities to IESNA Standards
Using the IESNA Standards as a guide, over
the summer of 2004, Lumentech Engineering Inc., the Town’s lighting consultant
inspected most of the Town owned facilities, including sports fields, Community
Centres, parking lots, fire halls, libraries, pathways and streetlighting.
A daytime review was carried out to determine
the type and number of fixtures used for each application and general
compliance. A further review was carried out at nighttime at selected sites
(approx. 20%) in order to establish compliance to the nighttime criteria in
terms of:
·
Lighting levels on the
surface of the facility
·
Lighting levels at the
property line/Light trespass (spill)
·
Compliance with cut off
requirements/Light pollution (Sky Glow)
·
Glare
The results of the field inspection are
tabulated in Attachment 3- Town Owned Facilities Inventory List and Attachment
4-Town Owned Facilities-Site Light Measurements. The field observations are
summarized below:
i) Sports Fields
In
general, it can be stated that the lighting for the majority of sports fields
within the Town are designed to meet the IESNA standards for the specific
activity. The lighting equipment is specifically designed for sport field
applications and a substantial amount of the light is used effectively for the
task. However, the result of light measurements at night indicated that some of
the installations do not comply with the proposed requirements to control light
pollution in terms of glare and sky glow.
ii) Pathways and Parking
Lots
The
lighting at pathways and parking lots is generally not meeting the lighting
level requirements of the IESNA Standards. The average lighting levels in some
locations are more than the recommended values and the uniformity of
illumination is very poor resulting in pools of light that are not uniformly
distributed. The luminaries used for the pathways are cut-off type with very
little light causing sky-glow, spill and glare problems. The problem with
pathways was generally the number of light fixtures that are required to provide
uniform coverage. Parking lots are
illuminated with various types of fixtures varying from cut-off type to
floodlights aimed at very high angles which cause high levels of glare, spill
and sky-glow.
iii) Streetlights
Streetlights
in the Town in general have been designed to the IESNA Standards and are based
on standard system components. The lighting fixtures used for most arterial and
older local roadways are standardized with “cobra head” fixtures on concrete
poles. Decorative or heritage type fixtures are now commonly used for internal
residential streets in newer subdivisions.
The
majority of the “cobra head” type luminaries in service are semi cut-off with
limited control in terms of light pollution. Since year 2000, all new Cobra
Head fixtures have been full cut-off (flat glass). PowerStream, on behalf of the Town, has been
replacing defective semi cut-off fixtures with full cut-off (flat glass)
fixtures. The newer full cut-off
fixtures have improved light control and are quite effective in reducing
sky-glow.
The
Town standard decorative or heritage type light fixture has mixed light control
abilities. Some of the new subdivisions are using fixtures with cut-off
characteristics which meet the proposed sky-glow requirement but not the light
trespass requirement. According to light
manufacturers, decorative lighting fixtures that meet both requirements may not
be available for another 1 or 2 years.
Summary of Inspection Findings
In summary, only the Angus Glen Community
Centre fully complied with the proposed obtrusive light control requirements.
The rest of the Town owned facilities require some form of modifications to the
existing fixtures to achieve compliance.
b) Financial Implications to Upgrade the Existing Lighting
System
The costs to retrofit all external Town
lighting to meet the IESNA Standards and light pollution requirements are
estimated as follows:
I: Facilities
and Parks
·
Add shields to 1065
floodlights @ $300 each…………………….…….$319,500*
·
Replace shoe box type
fixture with full cut-off fixture, 186 @ $750…...$139,500**
·
Replace wall packs with
full cut-off fixture, 26 @
$400……………….$ 10,400
Sub-total……… $469,400
II: Streetlights
·
Replace existing “Cobra
Head” fixtures with full cut-off (flat glass)
·
Replace existing
decorative residential luminaries with full cut-off
decorative
luminaries 6,000 units @ $1,200 ea… $7,200,000**
Sub
total…… .$14,640,000
Grand
Total…$15,109,400
* The actual number of shields
required will not be known until a comprehensive review of each facility is
completed.
** This item may be
reduced/deleted if the Town grandfathers acceptance of up to 4% of upward light
(above horizontal) as a standard. (Note:
light fixtures that meet the requirements will be used when they become
available)
Due to the magnitude of the work and the
costs involved, and although the Town may choose to grandfather all Town owned,
non-compliance facilities, it is recommended that Council consider
initiative and leadership measures to
retrofit the facilities described in Item I in phases (Facilities and Parks).
An amount of $100,000 (phase 1 of 5 @
$100,000/year) was included in the proposed 2005 Operations and Asset
Management Capital Budget for this work, but was not approved. This project should be considered for
approval in the 2006 Capital Budget.
Modifications to upgrade the entire existing streetlight
system is a much larger issue and would require more detailed analysis in terms
of re-design (light spacing), traffic safety, energy saving, financing and
phasing. It is therefore recommended
that streetlight upgrading be implemented through the Town’s maintenance program
when replacements are required for existing fixtures.
This is a much more complicated issue as it relates to matters such as legal implications, approvals, compliance, inspection, enforcement, staff and financial resources etc. that require further investigation and analysis. It is recommended that staff implement Option II-Control By Site Plan Agreement and not implement Option I- Light Pollution By-Law.
Since there is no funding for this program in the 2005 budget, it is recommended that Community Services staff in consultation with Strategic Services develop a public education and communication program strategy regarding light pollution for consideration in the 2006 Business Plan and Budget.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
An amount of $100,000 (Phase 1 of 5 @$100,000/year) for upgrading of Town Facilities was included in the proposed 2005 Operations and Asset Management Capital Budget, but was not approved. This project should be considered for approval in the 2006 Capital Budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Regulating and
controlling lighting installations will reduce light pollution and light
trespass. Setting lighting standards and
engineering implementation will improve safety and health concerns and help
return dark skies for the enjoyment of the astronomers and the general public.
Properly
designed lighting fixtures will use less electrical power and enhance the
environment in general.
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
The
following departments have been involved in the review and discussion and
provided input.
Legal,
Engineering, Planning & Urban Design, Building, By-law Enforcement, and
PowerStream (Markham Hydro).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Site Plan Agreement Clause
(draft
Attachment 2 – Exterior Illumination
Requirements (draft
Attachment 3 – Town Owned Facilities –
Inventory List
Attachment 4 – Town Owned Facilities – Site
Lighting Measurements
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Loukes, P.Eng., Director of Operations and Asset Management |
|
Jim Sales Commissioner of Community and Fire Services |
Q:\Commission Share\Operations and Asset
Management\Reports\2005\C & U\ROW\Other Report\Light Pollution Update
Report(March 4).doc
