Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

06 June 2007 / le 06 Juin 2007

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe

Planning, Transit and the Environment/ Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Manager / Gestionnaire, Community Planning and Design/Aménagement et de la conception communautaires, Planning Branch/Direction de l’urbanisme

(613) 580-2424, 22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca

City-wide

Ref N°: ACS2007-PTE-POL-0032

SUBJECT:	Draft RIGHT-OF-WAY LIGHTING POLICY – interim report
OBJET :	PROJET DE POLITIQUE SUR L’ÉCLAIRAGE DES EMPRISES − RAPPORT PROVISOIRE

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That Planning and Environment Committee receive this report and direct staff to prepare the final draft of the Citywide Right-of-Way Lighting Policy.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement reçoivent le présent rapport et demandent au personnel de préparer la version définitive de la Politique sur l’éclairage des emprises dans l’ensemble de la Ville.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis:

An interim report is being presented to the Committees at this time in order to generate discussion on lighting options and costs, on the recommended lighting approach set out within the draft policy and to receive comments on the completion of a final Right-of-Way Lighting Policy. The project terms of reference approved by Council last year directed that staff return with an interim report and present a final draft policy for consideration at a later date.

The Right-of-Way Lighting Policy study has been ongoing since the spring of 2006 and has involved the Planning, Transit and the Environment and Public Works and Services, Departments, City Advisory committees, external stakeholders, interest groups and the general public. The draft policy covers street and sidewalk lighting for all urban and rural parts of the city. The policy was formulated based on the principles of energy conservation, mitigation of light pollution and cost savings. The policy addresses lighting requirements in various contexts including, for example, the completion of lighting in existing development areas and lighting upgrades for unlit roadways. The policy identifies two distinct areas for right-of-way lighting - “Special Areas” and “All Other Areas”. Decorative lighting equipment is proposed for lighting “Special Areas” and standard lighting equipment is proposed for “All Other Areas”. The policy references land use areas within the Official Plan for clarity on where the two lighting standards would apply.

The policy introduces new approaches to right-of-way lighting, including lower roadway lighting levels and requiring mandatory use of full cut-off (0% up light) luminaires on local streets in all new residential and employment areas, consideration of the use of full cut-off luminaires for all other right-of-way lighting applications, reducing lamp wattages for marker-type lighting in urban and rural areas, and providing guidelines for lighting installations adjacent to Urban Natural Features.

The study also investigated and considered the implementation of emerging technologies such as Light Emitting Diodes (LED), induction lighting, solar power and “smart lighting technology” in an attempt to find cost-effective alternatives to the current street lighting equipment. Changes to right-of-way lighting in existing communities are not proposed except for upgrades to marker lights where there is no street lighting, and in Special Areas of the city at the time of major relighting or road reconstruction. These changes would be undertaken incrementally over time based on Council-approved capital and operating funding at the time of major road reconstruction or relighting.

A cost estimate to undertake a future study to establish lighting regulations on private land adjacent to the public rights-of-way, which would compliment the Right-of-Way Lighting Policy, is discussed in the report.

Financial Implications:

If the decorative lighting approach in the draft Policy is approved as attached to this report, the following additional average annual budget increases would be required: $417,000 capital and $17,700 operating budgets for 2.5kms/year decorative lighting on reconstructed roads in Special Areas and $12,100 operating for 1.0kms/year decorative lighting on new roads in Special Areas. The total per year can be rounded up to $500,000. These averages were based on actual construction/reconstruction of roads in the last five years but are subject to change based on actual construction programs and decorative lighting styles selected. The detailed financial implications of approving the draft Policy are discussed in the body of the report. The consultant cost of approximately $50,000 for the possible preparation of a Lighting Zone Study is also discussed in the body of this report.

Public Consultation/Input:

The details of consultation with the public, Advisory Committees and stakeholder groups are set out in Document 3.

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse :

À l’heure actuelle, un rapport provisoire est présenté aux comités afin de susciter des discussions sur les options d’éclairage et les coûts, sur l’approche de l’éclairage recommandée énoncée dans le projet de politique et dans le but de recevoir des commentaires sur l’achèvement d’une version définitive de la Politique sur l’éclairage des emprises. Conformément au mandat du projet approuvé par le Conseil l’an dernier, on demandait que le personnel présente un rapport provisoire ainsi qu’une version définitive de la politique pour prise en considération à une date ultérieure.

L’étude sur la Politique sur l’éclairage des emprises est en cours depuis le printemps 2006 et les services de l’Urbanisme, du Transport en commun et de l’Environnement, Services et Travaux publics, les comités consultatifs de la Ville, des intervenants externes, des groupes d’intérêt et le grand public y participent. Le projet de politique couvre notamment l’éclairage des rues et des trottoirs pour toutes les parties urbaines et rurales de la ville. La politique a été formulée selon les principes de la conservation de l’énergie, de la réduction de la pollution par la lumière et de la réduction des coûts. La politique aborde les besoins d’éclairage dans divers contextes, y compris, par exemple, l’achèvement des travaux d’éclairage dans les secteurs résidentiels actuels et l’installation de lampadaires sur les routes où il n’y a pas d’éclairage. Dans la politique, on soulève deux secteurs distincts pour ce qui est de l’éclairage des emprises, soit les « secteurs particuliers » et « tous les autres secteurs ». On propose un matériel d’éclairage décoratif pour l’éclairage des « secteurs particuliers » et un matériel d’éclairage standard pour « tous les autres secteurs ». La politique renvoie aux secteurs d’utilisation des terres dans le Plan officiel pour plus de précision sur les cas où les deux normes d’éclairage s’appliquent.

La politique présente de nouvelles approches de l’éclairage des emprises, y compris des niveaux d’éclairage routier moins élevés et l’utilisation obligatoire de lampadaires à défilement total (0 % d’éclairage dirigé vers le haut) dans les rues locales de tous les nouveaux secteurs résidentiels et centres d’emploi, envisager l’utilisation de lampadaires à défilement total pour toutes les autres applications d’éclairage des emprises, réduire le wattage des ampoules pour l’éclairage de repérage dans les zones urbaines et rurales et fournir des lignes directrices pour les installations d’éclairage adjacentes aux espaces naturels urbains.

Dans le cadre de l’étude, on a également examiné et envisagé la mise en œuvre de technologies émergentes, comme les diodes électroluminescentes (DEL), l’éclairage par induction, l’énergie solaire et la « technologie d’éclairage intelligent » dans le but de trouver des solutions de rechange rentables à l’équipement d’éclairage que l’on retrouve actuellement dans les rues.

Dans les collectivités actuelles, on ne propose pas de modifications à l’éclairage des emprises, à l’exception de l’installation de lumières de repérage où il n’y a pas d’éclairage de rue et dans les secteurs particuliers de la ville au moment de l’installation massive de nouveaux lampadaires ou de la remise en état des routes. Ces modifications seront apportées graduellement au fil du temps en fonction du financement d’immobilisations et de fonctionnement approuvé par le Conseil au moment des grands travaux de réfection des routes ou de l’installation de nouveaux lampadaires.

Dans ce rapport, on discute entre autres de l’estimation des coûts nécessaires pour mener une étude éventuelle visant à établir les règlements régissant l’éclairage sur les terrains privés adjacents aux emprises publiques et qui compléterait la Politique sur l’éclairage des emprises.

Répercussions financières :

Dans le cas où l’approche de l’éclairage décoratif dans le projet de politique est approuvée telle qu’elle est jointe au présent rapport, les augmentations suivantes du budget annuel moyen seront nécessaires : un budget d’immobilisations de 417 000 $ et un budget de fonctionnement de 17 700 $ pour 2,5 km/année d’éclairage décoratif sur les routes reconstruites dans les secteurs particuliers et un budget de fonctionnement de 12 100 $ pour 1,0 km/année d’éclairage décoratif sur les nouvelles routes dans les secteurs particuliers. Le total par année peut être arrondi à 500 000 $. Ces moyennes sont basées sur les chiffres réels de la construction/reconstruction des routes au cours des cinq dernières années, mais peuvent changer selon les programmes de construction actuels et les styles d’éclairage décoratif choisis. Les répercussions financières détaillées découlant de l’approbation du projet de politique sont abordées dans le corps du rapport. On discute également dans le corps du rapport des coûts des services de l’expert-conseil (approximativement 50 000 $) pour la préparation possible d’une étude sur les zones d’éclairage.

Consultation publique / commentaires :

Les détails de la consultation avec le public, les comités consultatifs et les groupes d’intervenants sont présentés dans le Document 3.

BACKGROUND

In 2001 a residential street lighting policy that harmonized street lighting methods used by the former municipalities was approved for the city. Since that time the need to address a broader range of lighting approaches specific to community context, and to provide further opportunities for innovation within the policy has become evident. Public Works and Services (PWS) staff began a comprehensive update to the harmonized street lighting policy in 2003. A considerable amount of inventory work and formulation of criteria necessary to evaluate possible approaches to Citywide street lighting was completed under PWS direction. This project was paused to re-examine the range of lighting opportunities that should be addressed in the formulation of the policy.

In 2005 interdepartmental discussions with Public Works and Services resulted in an agreement to have the then Planning and Growth Management Department participate as an equal partner in the formulation of the new Right-of-way Lighting Policy so that it could be dovetailed with the related “Street Design” project. Council approved the terms of reference for the Right-of-Way Lighting Policy and the Street Design Policy studies in the spring of 2006.

The intent of the new Right-of-way Lighting Policy is to clarify the range of permitted types of lighting, determine appropriate lighting levels in various city contexts, and establish areas where changes to the existing street light system are warranted. It also provides direction for specific circumstances or geographic areas in which specialty lighting is appropriate. Within this report on the draft Right-of-way Lighting Policy are estimated costs to undertake a subsequent study looking at implementing “lighting zones”, which would limit the maximum light level on development sites adjacent to the roadway in selected locations of the city.

The related Street Design policy will be brought to Committee for consideration under separate cover later this year. Updates related to hydro burial and placement of right-of-way lighting are part of the street design policy, which incorporates all other aspects of surface treatment including sidewalks, benches, trash receptacles, bollards, bike racks etc.

DISCUSSION

Study Process

Planning, Transit and the Environment, in collaboration with Public Works and Services Department undertook this project. Staff from a range of branches within the City were provided the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process through the establishment of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). City Advisory Committees were also consulted. External stakeholders, interest groups and the general public were also given the opportunity to participate through various circulations, project meetings and two Public Open Houses.

The project commenced in April 2006 with the development of a “Strategic Directions” discussion paper that provided an overview of possible lighting options for all parts of the city. The Strategic Directions document was circulated to City Departments, technical agencies and stakeholder groups, and was presented to several City Advisory Committees for input. The first draft of the policy was developed in the fall of 2006 based on the comments received from the circulation of the Strategic Directions document. The first draft of the policy was circulated to various committees, external stakeholders and interest groups for review and comment late in 2006. The draft policy subsequently was revised and presented to the public at two Public Open Houses; one in the urban area at City Hall and the second in the rural area in the Village of Richmond.

The urban area open house was well attended and many comments were received from the public. The rural area Open House was not as well attended and fewer comments were received as a result.

The Open House information as well as the draft Right-of-Way Lighting Policy was made available on the internet at www.ottawastreetlighting.ca (accessible through the City’s project site on “Ottawa.ca”) for review by the public that were unable to attend the Open House meetings. The open house meetings were advertised in the Citizen and LeDroit as well as several rural weekly newspapers. Also, notice was emailed directly to all registered community groups. In general, the response to the first draft policy from the public, committees, external stakeholders and interest groups was positive. Comments received from the open house meetings, Advisory Committees and stakeholder groups are set out in Document 3.

Where appropriate, the draft policy was revised to reflect the comments received as a result of the consultation process. Comments received from the Committees and from the public as a result of the presentations of the draft will be used to develop the final draft of the policy. The final draft will then be submitted again to the three Committees and Council late in the summer of 2007 for approval.

Study Organization

The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provided recommendations to the core study team in the development of the policy. The TAC comprised City staff from Planning, Transit and the Environment and Public Works and Services. City Advisory Committees were circulated project information and were invited to review and provide comments. Presentations were made to several of the circulated committees in the summer of 2006 and winter 2007. The Advisory Committees involved included Roads and Cycling, Pedestrian and Transit, Parks and Recreation, Rural Issues, Environmental, Taxi, Seniors, Forests and Greenspace, Accessibility, Health and Social Services, Business, Local Architectural Conservation, and Arts, Culture and Heritage. Stakeholders, interest groups and technical agencies consulted in the development of the policy included the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Hydro Ottawa, Ottawa Police/CPTED, Fire Services (Urban), Fire Services (Rural), National Capital Commission, Utilities Coordinating Committee, Developer Liaison Group Steering Committee, Ottawa Carleton Home Builders Association (OCHBA), and Building Owners and Managers Association of Ottawa (BOMA).

Right-of-Way Lighting Policy Overview

General Structure:

The policy contains general design requirements applicable to right-of-way lighting in all locations in the city. For the purpose of identifying select areas to receive decorative lighting, the policy divides the city into two distinct areas: “Special Areas” and “All Other Areas”. The purpose of assigning certain areas of the city to receive decorative lighting is to improve the urban design quality of the streetscape in areas of high pedestrian usage. This in turn may promote increased nighttime use by citizens in these areas of higher density residential and/or commercial activity.

Right-of-way lighting for each of the two lighting policy areas will be selected from a specified list of equipment tailored to each area context. The “Special Areas” are identified primarily in Ottawa’s Official Plan Schedules and include the Central Area, Mixed Use Centres / Town Centres, Arterial and Traditional Mainstreets, Heritage Conservation Districts, Business Improvement Area (BIA) mainstreets, Rural Village mainstreets and “Core Areas” (small town centres such as the future core area located within Riverside South).

Where these “Special Areas” are not identified in the Official Plan, (BIAs, Village mainstreets and Core Areas) the Right-of-Way Lighting Policy contains schedules identifying the location. City rights-of-way not located within the identified Special Areas are deemed to be within the “All Other Areas” policy area for lighting purposes.

The Right-of-Way Lighting Policy applies to roadways and sidewalks within public rights-of-way under the jurisdiction of the City. It does not apply to private properties, parks, open spaces, and pathways. It also does not apply to federal, provincial and greenbelt area roadways or to transitways. Right-of-way lighting on these roadways will be undertaken on a project-by-project basis in cooperation with and approval from the respective roadway authority. Since commencement of the study, Planning and Growth Management was restructured to include the transit portfolio. Staff will review the inclusion of the lighting of transitways as part of the preparation of the final draft of the Right-of-Way Lighting Policy.

At present, there are over 100 different styles of streetlights in the city. Many of the existing luminaires do not have “cut-off” lighting optics and therefore contribute to light pollution and result in wasted energy. The draft policy reduces the number of approved streetlights to 25, comprised of 13 standard and 12 decorative fixtures and associated poles. Only efficient semi-cut-off (maximum 5% direct up light) and full cut-off (0% direct up light) luminaires have been included in the approved equipment list. Of the 25 approved luminaires, five are listed both in the “decorative” and “standard” groups of equipment resulting in a total future inventory of 20 luminaire styles. Also, the Policy permits lighting equipment in Heritage Conservation Districts (HCD) to be selected from either an existing HCD light fixture, from one lighting style from the approved “decorative” lighting group or one “custom” fixture that more accurately represents the heritage nature of the district. Lighting of HCDs is under the control of the City. Several of the HCDs have existing decorative light fixtures on some streets. If the City selected a new custom fixture for each existing HCD, an additional 12 fixture styles could be added to the City’s overall lighting inventory.

All 13 standard fixtures are part of the existing 2001 Residential Street Lighting Policy and therefore have a proven performance track record. Five of the decorative fixtures are also part of the existing 2001 Residential Street Lighting Policy. There are 10 decorative poles and eight standard poles proposed. Of the 18 poles, three are listed both in the “decorative” and “standard” groups of equipment resulting in a total future pole inventory of 15 pole styles.

The majority of streets and sidewalks in the city are located within the “All Other Areas” lighting policy area and therefore will be lit with the “standard lighting” equipment with a high-pressure sodium (yellow) light source. High-pressure sodium light is the existing light type found on most city roads. Over the long term, as streets are relit as part of regular lifecycle upgrades, the lighting inventory will be reduced to the 20 approved styles. This will result in cost savings in maintenance and operation.

“Special Areas” will be lit with decorative lighting equipment with a metal halide (white) light source. Some city streets are already lit with metal halide light but at present it is more commonly found in commercial lighting applications. Laurier Avenue in front of City Hall is an example of a street lit with metal halide light. The style of decorative lighting equipment to be installed in all Special Areas will be selected through a future public consultation process. This could be as part of the preparation of a Community Design Plan or environmental assessment process.

Equipment must be selected from the approved group of decorative lighting equipment except in the case of lighting for Heritage Conservation Districts where a custom lighting design that better reflects the nature of the District may also be chosen.

Decorative lighting installations with a metal halide light source has higher capital and operating costs compared to standard equipment, discussed in financial section of this report, but offers several benefits including:

• Improved aesthetics,
• Promoting pedestrian activity in Special Areas,
• Providing a unique character definition for a given area, and
• Improved nighttime colour identification (building architecture, landscaping and clothing).

New Approaches to Right-of-Way Lighting:

Several new approaches to right-of-way lighting are proposed in the draft policy. Highlights include the following:

a) City of Ottawa Official Plan – The draft policy is linked to the Official Plan map schedules to provide defined boundaries for all “Special Areas”. The policy uses roadway classification terminology found in the Official Plan and in the Transportation Master Plan. As the Official Plan is updated from time to time the Right-of-Way Lighting Policy will automatically apply to new and modified Special Areas.

b) Addition of Decorative Lighting Equipment – The policy now includes decorative fixtures for use in designated “Special Areas”. The use of the decorative fixtures will highlight and distinguish these recognized “Special Areas” as unique to their surroundings. To provide flexibility in addressing a variety of lighting design contexts in Special Areas with the 12 decorative luminaires, three possible configurations for lighting installations are provided for as follows:

· Stand alone tall-height poles (applicable to Arterial mainstreets),

· Tall-height poles in combination with a single short-height pedestrian scale pole located midway between each pair of tall poles. The tall-height pole may also be fitted with a decorative pedestrian-scale luminaire (applicable to all Special Areas), and

· Mid-height poles (applicable to all Special Areas with the exception of arterial mainstreets with wide pavement design).

c) Context-Based Applications – The policy identifies several lighting situations and provides direction for the installation of right-of-way lighting. Highlights of the context-based applications include the illumination of:

a. New residential, employment, and mixed-use centre area development: In these areas there is a requirement on local streets to use full cut-off luminaires and the maximum level of illumination is set at one-half of that recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (former City of Ottawa standard).

b. Completion of Existing Subdivision Development: Existing lighting equipment style and level of illumination will be required to be installed up to the nearest adjacent arterial or collector road regardless of developer ownership. Approved lighting equipment and level of illumination as set out in the new policy would be required to be installed in the balance of the community.

c. Infill Development: Lighting equipment style and level of illumination that matches or is complimentary with the adjacent lighting style found in existing development would be required for infill developments on public roads. Equipment would be selected from the approved styles in the policy.

d. Existing Lighting Installations: Methods for undertaking future lighting projects along existing rights-of-way in rural and urban areas are set out in the policy.

d) Design Requirements and Considerations – The policy provides direction on dealing with various lighting design factors. Highlights include:

a. Establishing the required minimum lighting levels specific to right-of-way classification (arterial, collector, local) and highlighting the importance of not excessively exceeding this level,

b. Mitigating light pollution such as light trespass onto private property, ‘sky glow’ and light glare which can be disabling to the uses of the right-of-way.

c. Identifying that street trees along the right-of-way may shade the lighting thereby seasonally reducing the lighting levels on the right-of-way and that tree trimming will only take place under special circumstances.

d. Requiring transition illumination from lit to unlit rights-of-way to help the driver adapt when a vehicle enters / exits the area.

e. Directing that lighting equipment is to be attached to existing utility poles where practical to save costs.

f. Identifying that lighting of rights-of-way owned or under the control of other upper-tier government authorities will be in accordance with the respective authority’s policies.

e) Lower Light Levels – The policy reduces the lighting level requirement for new local roads in urban residential and employment areas to one half the recommended Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) levels. This one-half IESNA level is the standard used for many years for local and collector roads in the former City of Ottawa. There is no legal requirement to light to the IESNA recommended levels. The reduced levels would result in energy cost savings (refer to Financial section of this report) and reductions in light pollution (sky glow, glare and light trespass). Recent installations of one-half IESNA light levels can be seen at Staten Way in the Central Park community and full IESNA light levels can be seen on Sunvale Way in Barrhaven. The marker lighting (street lighting located only at road intersections and super mailbox locations) wattage standard has been reduced from 150 to 100 watts. In addition, marker lights at all super mailbox locations must be full cut-off style (0% up-light).

f) Full Cut-Off Luminaires (Flat Glass) – Full cut-off luminaires emit 0% up-light into the sky. The City is currently using this style of fixture on a limited number of streets but the majority of streets have been lit with the Semi Cut-Off (5% up light) luminaires. In the draft Right-of-Way Lighting Policy, flat glass luminaires are mandatory for use on local streets in new residential and employment areas. The full cut-off fixture would also be given first consideration in any right-of-way lighting design application as opposed to automatically selecting the semi cut-off fixtures.

g) New Sidewalk Lighting Levels – The existing Residential Street Lighting Policy, 2001 has lower light levels for all City sidewalks than are recommended by IESNA. The draft policy maintains the existing 2 lux standard (IESNA is 3 lux) for sidewalks on local roads to correspond with the proposed lower light levels (one-half IES) for the street. The sidewalk lighting levels for collector roads is proposed to be increased to meet the recommended IESNA lighting levels. Collector sidewalks would increase from 2 lux to 3 lux and major collector sidewalks from 2 lux to 5 lux. For sidewalks along arterial roadway classifications, the level of illumination would need to be increased from 5 lux to 20 lux if the most restrictive IESNA light level was met. This would result in a significant overlighting of the roadway in order to light the sidewalk. Therefore in keeping with the recommendations of the policy in not “over lighting” City roadways it was decided to lower arterial sidewalk levels by 50% from 20 Lux to 10 Lux, which is the same as the resultant light level from the backlighting of the roadway lighting system. All sidewalks will be lit to the minimum standards in the policy through “backlighting” provided by the roadway lighting system. No separate dedicated sidewalk lighting systems will be installed in the city. However, decorative pedestrian scale lights may be installed in certain of the Special Areas.

h) New Approach to Urban / Rural Lighting Upgrades – The existing City policy is to upgrade existing streets in the urban area and in rural estate residential and village subdivisions that are unlit, have marker or partial lighting to a “full continuous” lighting standard. Under the existing approach, these upgrades to existing streets would take place over time when normal lifecycle replacement occurs or major road reconstruction is undertaken and based on approved capital funding. Under the proposed policy, changes (upgrades) are not proposed to right-of-way lighting in existing communities except in the case of upgrading to marker lights where there is no street lighting and in Special Areas to decorative lighting at the time of major relighting or major road reconstruction. Changes in these two circumstances would be undertaken incrementally over time based on Council-approved capital, maintenance and operating funding.

i) Urban Natural Features – In recognition of possible adverse effects of right-of-way lighting on birds, animals, plants and trees, the policy addresses right-of-way lighting adjacent to Urban Natural Features (woodlot areas) as identified by the City’s Urban Natural Features Strategy. The policy identifies measures that must be undertaken to minimize the impact of right-of-way lighting on Category 1 and 2 Urban Natural Features areas.

j) Light Pollution – With mandatory use of Full Cut-off luminaires and the reduction of lighting levels by 50% on local streets in new residential, employment, and mixed-use centre areas, and given the fixture consideration in all right-of-way lighting; light trespass, glare and ‘sky glow’ are reduced. The lamp wattage of marker lighting in urban and rural areas is proposed to be reduced by 33% from 150 watts to 100 watts, thereby also reducing the amount of ‘sky glow’, glare and light trespass. The policy also requires that all lighting fixtures used in the city must be at a minimum, of semi-cut-off class i.e. the maximum allowable ‘direct uplight’ must be 5% as opposed to fixtures that have unlimited ‘direct uplight’. This limit of 5% will reduce the overall amount of ‘sky glow’ within the city.

k) Energy Conservation – In recognition of rising energy costs and the desire to reduce green house gas emissions, several measures are proposed in the policy to reduce the overall energy consumption in right-of-way lighting. The measures include the reduction of lighting levels on local streets in new residential, employment and mixed-use centre areas by 50% (i.e. one half IESNA lighting levels) as well as reduced lamp wattage in rural area marker lighting by 33% (150 watts lowered to 100 watts).

l) Luminance Method – The existing way of undertaking lighting calculations in the City uses the “Illuminance” method. The new policy proposes use of the Luminance method that takes into account what the driver can actually see in terms of the reflected light off the pavement. Luminance will take precedence in roadway lighting designs. The Illuminance method, however, is proposed to continue to be used to calculate intersection and sidewalk lighting levels as well as unique roadway lighting design situations where the Luminance method is inadequate.

m) Glare Criteria – The use of glare criteria is now also being introduced in the Policy to be used as part of the lighting design process to ensure that the quality of right-of-way lighting is neither disabling nor obtrusive to the users of the right-of-way.

n) National and International Roadway Lighting Standards – The policy was developed using the Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting by the Transportation Association of Canada and the RP-8-00 Roadway Lighting by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America as benchmarks. In some instances the policy refers directly to the Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting for recommendations and guidelines on performing lighting warrant analysis and transition lighting.

Emerging Technologies:

The lighting industry is currently undergoing changes with respect to the available types of equipment. These changes include new types of lamps such as light emitting diode (LED) and induction lighting as well as smart systems that can provide variable lighting levels as part of a central control system. In addition, it is expected that solar powered lighting systems will become more commonplace as the luminaire wattages decline. New lighting technologies considered but not recommended for adoption in the policy at this time are as follows:

• Light Emitting Diodes – LED lighting is advancing rapidly and new products are emerging almost daily. The main advantages include longer lamp life and lower power consumption compared to high intensity discharge (HID) lamps. It is important to note that the energy savings are currently only realized with the lower wattage lamps. In addition, LED’s have a high initial capital cost but this is expected to be reduced as their use becomes more common. Although LED lamps show promise and have literally replaced the incandescent lamp in traffic signal applications, there are still significant gains to be made before they revolutionize the roadway lighting industry. Their use should therefore be revisited at the time of the next policy update.

• Induction Lamps – Induction lamps are sometimes referred to as the electronic light bulb. Similar to HID lamps, induction lamps have a high efficacy and an even longer lamp life.  Currently, no manufacturing standards have emerged in the production of induction lamps resulting in varying lamp performance from manufacturer to manufacturer.  At present, induction lamps are more expensive to purchase compared to the standards in this policy and also require special equipment to operate which would result in increased maintenance costs for the City.  These higher costs are not offset by the lower energy costs.  Furthermore, their large physical size restricts their use in retrofit applications. Given these shortcomings, induction lamps are not considered a viable option for inclusion in the policy.  This lighting technology should be revisited at the time of the next policy update.

• Smart Lighting Systems – There are various smart lighting systems available which range from simple ballast controls that turn the lights on and off at pre-selected times to centralized systems which can monitor the status of each luminaire as well as dim the light output. The high cost of the specialized hardware and software for these systems is the primary limiting factor.

Even with the expected energy savings, their payback period is approximately 7.5 to 14 years. Again, this technology should be revisited in future updates of the policy.

• Solar Power – Another technology that was investigated to provide energy savings was solar-powered street lighting equipment.  With LED lighting requiring little energy to operate, it would be ideal for a solar power application.  Unfortunately, since LED lighting is still in its infancy and is not part of the approved lighting equipment list, the solar power option is not viable for use with the standard street lighting equipment. Solar powered applications should be revisited for future policy updates as new lighting technologies are approved for use such as LED lighting.

Right-of-Way Lighting Policy Implementation:

The Right-of-Way Lighting Policy will be administered by the Public Works and Services Department. In the draft policy, the Director, Traffic and Parking Operations has the discretionary authority to vary from the requirements of the policy for unique lighting circumstances not specifically addressed by the policy. Any new area designations for either “Special Areas” or new right-of-way designations in “All Other Areas” will apply without amendment to the policy.

The policy requires review and updating from time to time. Since the policy references the Official Plan, the review will occur to coincide with the five-year update of the Official Plan or at an earlier date as may be required to reflect changes in lighting technology. Minor changes will be made at the staff level by Public Works and Services Department in consultation with Planning, Transit and the Environment Department. More substantive changes, involving changes in lighting technology (i.e. such as incorporating LED lighting as a new standard) will be brought to Committee for consideration.

There is now an approved list of lighting equipment for both “Special Areas” and “All Other Areas” from which all right-of-way lighting project selections must be made. This approved list helps control the inventory of lighting equipment and reduces both maintenance and operational costs. Staff may revise the approved lighting equipment list by substituting similar style fixtures on an as needed basis due to but not limited to the following circumstances:

a. The manufacturer of an approved lighting equipment no longer supports that fixture, or

b. The increased cost of the approved lighting equipment, or

c. New lighting technologies

The policy will be used in conjunction with the Roadway Lighting Prioritization Database (RLPD) in determining which right-of-way will be illuminated. The RLPD (Document 2) was prepared as part of the Right-of-Way Lighting Policy.

It does not form part of the policy but will be used by Public Works and Services staff as a guide in deciding upgrades to roadway lighting under the policy. The RLPD uses a priority ranking approach where roadways are weighted based on specific characteristics such as:

a. Road classification,

b. Average annual daily traffic,

c. Presence of schools, community centres, libraries,

d. Bus Route, and

e. Emergency Route.

The final score of each roadway is then ranked in descending order with the highest scoring roadway given the greatest priority for the installation of roadway lighting. The RLPD will be revised on a periodic basis as street lighting is installed by the Public Works and Services Department. Although a roadway may have priority for street lighting, it still has to meet lighting warrants before any lighting is installed. The lighting warrants in the policy are referenced from the Guide to the Design of Roadway Lighting by the Transportation Association of Canada. The process under which a roadway is considered for street lighting is illustrated in the process flow chart shown in Document 4.

Financial

In order to assess the financial impacts of the draft Right-of-Way Lighting Policy, a financial review of the costs associated with the various options contained therein is necessary. Three areas of the policy have therefore been examined as follows:

• The use of a half-IES vs. full-IES lighting criteria for local roads
• The use of decorative lighting equipment vs. standard equipment for special areas
• The use of metal halide (MH) lamps compared to high pressure sodium (HPS)

The analyses that were conducted are based on a 30-year life cycle and a one-kilometer section of road. City standard roadway cross-sections and the equipment proposed in the Policy were used for all calculations. For comparison purposes, only a sample of the luminaires was included. All life cycle costs are in 2006 dollars.

Half-IES vs. Full IES

The use of half-IES light levels is recommended in the draft policy for local roads in new residential, employment, and mixed used centre areas. This approach follows the former City of Ottawa practice. The comparison of costs for this alternative involved carrying out lighting calculations using a City standard local road cross-section and then determining the required pole spacing that would satisfy both the half and full IESNA lighting criteria. The calculations were performed using High Pressure Sodium lamps and four different “standard” luminaires recommended for use in the new draft Policy. The luminaire types and cost comparison results are tabulated below.

LuminaireType	Present Value Life Cycle Cost per km of Road
	Full IES			Half IES			Savings/km Associated with Half-IES Criteria
	Const	Energy	Maint	Const	Energy	Maint	Const	Energy	Maint
	Total			Total			Total
Cobrahead – Flat Glass (100W) Type A2	$92K	$23K	$38K	$70K	$17K	$28K	$22K	$6K	$10K
	$153,000			$115,000			$38,000 (25%)
Lantern (100W) Type B2	$89K	$22K	$36K	$78K	$19K	$32K	$11K	$3K	$4K
	$147,000			$129,000			$18,000 (12%)
Disc (70W) Type C	$89K	$13K	$32K	$76K	$11K	$26K	$13K	$2K	$6K
	$134,000			$113,000			$21,000 (16%)
Gullwing(70W)	$81K	$13K	$30K	$69K	$11K	$25K	$12K	$2K	$5K
	$124,000			$105,000			$19,000 (15%)

Regardless of the type of luminaire used, the half-IES design criteria results in fewer poles than a full-IES design and hence an initial construction savings. These savings are further increased when both the reduced energy consumption and maintenance operations are factored in. Overall, the present value savings per kilometer of road range from $18,000/km to $38,000/km. Assuming an equal use of all luminaires used in the analysis, the average savings are $24,000/km. Energy and maintenance savings alone average approximately $10,000/km.

Decorative Lighting vs. Standard Lighting Equipment in Special Areas

The comparison of decorative and standard lighting equipment installations was achieved by preparing typical designs for various City standard roadway classifications using both a decorative luminaire/pole assembly with metal halide lamp compared with a standard pole/flat glass cobrahead luminaire with a high pressure sodium lamp. For the case of arterial roads, three separate comparisons to standard equipment were prepared; mid-height poles, tall-height poles, and tall-height poles with a short-height pole interspaced between each pair of tall poles. For all other roadway classifications, the decorative option utilized the most expensive option contained in the policy (mid-height poles) in order to illustrate the maximum differential in cost that could be expected. The luminaires used for each analysis are identified beside each of their respective life cycle costs. The results are shown in the table below.

Roadway Type	Present Value Life Cycle Cost per km of Road
	Standard Equipment			Decorative Equipment			Additional Cost/km for Decorative Equipment
	Const	Energy	Maint	Const	Energy	Maint	Const	Energy	Maint
	Total			Total			Total
Arterial (Mid-height)	$128K	$125K	$52K	$1036K	$254K	$340K	$908K	$129K	$288K
	$305,000 (Type A2)			$1,630,000 (Type E1)			$1,325,000 (434%)
Arterial (Tall-height)	$128K	$125K	$52K	$236K	$210K	$106K	$108K	$85K	$54K
	$305,000 (Type A2)			$552K (Type D1)			$247,000 (81%)
Arterial (Tall and Short Height)	$128K	$125K	$52K	$468K	$233K	$196K	$340K	$108K	$144K
	$305,000 (Type A2)			$897,000 (Type D1 with Type B2)			$592,000 (194%)
Major Collector	$106K	$63K	$41K	$273K	$83K	$111K	$167K	$20K	$70K
	$210,000 (Type A2)			$467,000 (Type E1)			$257,000 (121%)
Collector	$106K	$38K	$41K	$197K	$59K	$79K	$91K	$21K	$38K
	$185,000 (Type A2)			$335,000 (Type E1)			$150,000 (81%)
Local	$67K	$16K	$26K	$137K	$39K	$52K	$70K	$23K	$26K
	$109,000 (Type A2)			$228,000 (Type E1)			$119,000 (109%)

The use of decorative lighting equipment will result in increased costs in all aspects of the lighting installation life cycle. Generally speaking, decorative lighting equipment carries a higher material cost than standard equipment which results in increased initial construction costs. The increased number of poles required to satisfy the lighting criteria translates directly to increased energy consumption and increased maintenance. The cost premium associated with construction, energy and maintenance of decorative lighting equipment for the situations analysed above range from 81% to 434% or $119,000/km to $1,325,000/km. A portion of the premium cost is associated with the use of metal halide lamps instead of high-pressure sodium. The costs associated with metal halide are summarized below.

Metal Halide (MH) vs. High Pressure Sodium (HPS)

The analysis associated with metal halide lamps compared the design requirements for one typical road cross-section of each roadway classification. The equipment style in each comparison remained the same (type C luminaire), only the internal lamp type was changed. The results are summarized in the table below. The intent of this analysis is to demonstrate the potential savings that can be realized if it is decided to use HPS lamps instead of MH lamps in the Special Areas.

Roadway Type	Present Value Life Cycle Cost per km of Road
	High Pressure Sodium			Metal Halide			Additional Cost/km for MH
	Const	Energy	Maint	Const	Energy	Maint	Const	Energy	Maint
	Total			Total			Total
Arterial	$205K	$177K	$73K	$226K	$198K	$100K	$21K	$21K	$27K
	$455,000 (Type C)			$524,000 (Type C)			$69,000 (15%)
Major Collector	$166K	$88K	$58K	$183K	$98K	$80K	$17K	$10K	$22K
	$312,000 (Type C)			$361,000 (Type C)			$49,000 (16%)
Collector	$148K	$47K	$51K	$165K	$62K	$71K	$17K	$15K	$20K
	$246,000 (Type C)			$298,000 (Type C)			$52,000 (21%)
Local	$85K	$18K	$30K	$94K	$20K	$40K	$9K	$2K	$10K
	$133,000 (Type C)			$154,000 (Type C)			$21,000 (16%)

The use of metal halide lamps to achieve white light as compared to the yellow light produced by high pressure sodium lamps does result in an increase in costs. As can be seen from the results, the typical premium for MH is approximately 15‑21%. The higher costs are primarily attributed to the fact that metal halide lamps produce less light output (approximately 25% less) than high pressure sodium lamps of comparable wattage. Furthermore, metal halide lamps have a shorter life span (approximately 25% less) than high-pressure sodium lamps and are about twice as expensive to purchase.

The policy currently identifies that metal halide lamps will be utilized for all decorative lighting equipment used in special areas. Given the premium cost associated with the decorative lighting equipment, the metal halide lamps may be considered as optional, i.e. the decorative lighting equipment may be installed with high pressure sodium lamps. In the event that it is decided to use high pressure sodium lamps with the decorative lighting equipment, savings of $21,000 to $69,000 per km of road can be expected over the life cycle of the installation (30 years).

Financial Implications Summary

Having completed the financial life cycle analyses above, it is necessary to estimate financial impacts by consolidating the costs/benefits and relating them to the expected/estimated roadway lighting projects for each type of roadway.

Half IES Lighting Levels

For roads built between August 2002 and April 2007 in urban areas outside the Greenbelt, the total length of new public local roads built was 151.1 km. Based on this historical data and for the purpose of analysis, it has been assumed that the City will inherit from developers approximately 30 km of new local roads per year. Although the City will not incur construction costs for these new roads, it will be responsible for the energy consumption and maintenance of the lighting on these roads. The adoption of half IES lighting criteria will apply to the 30km of new local roads and therefore the City will realize a present day savings of approximately $300,000 for each 30km of road ($10,000 per year over the 30 year life cycle) or, $333 per year for one kilometre of road.

Decorative Lighting

With respect to decorative lighting, a summary has been prepared which indicates the total lengths of existing roads that qualify for decorative lighting under the policy and their respective additional construction, energy, and maintenance costs as compared to standard lighting. Note that the table below does not include the length of local roads located in the various Heritage Conservation Districts however certain road segments listed pass through these areas. Also, those roads, which already have decorative lighting, are not factored into the cost summary since they will be reconstructed at normal lifecycle replacement time subject to budget approval and the existing decorative lighting will be replaced at that time. It is important to note that costs will be incurred for the replacement of existing decorative lighting. The remaining roads i.e. those without existing decorative lighting are included. For the purpose of the analysis each of the arterial roads have been assumed to receive one of the three different styles of decorative lighting as discussed above. To complete the forecasting estimate of overall costs, other roads have been assigned one of the possible lighting scenarios appropriate for the road type as set out in the draft Policy. The following table summarizes the present value life cycle (30 years) costs for decorative lighting:

Road / Area Type	Existing Kms with Decorative Lighting	Existing Kms without Decorative Lighting	Present Value Decorative Lighting Cost per Km (30 Year Life Cycle)				Present Value Total Cost
			Const	Energy	Maint	Total
Arterial Mainstreet	0	44.9	$236,000	$210,000	$106,000	$552,000	$24,784,800
Traditional Mainstreet	11.4	22.5	$1,036,000	$254,000	$340,000	$1,630,000	$36,675,000
Central Area Local Road	2.9	7.6	$137,000	$39,000	$52,000	$228,000	$1,732,800
Central Area Arterial Road	1.1	12	$1,036,000	$254,000	$340,000	$1,630,000	$19,560,000
MUC Local Road	9.2	22.7	$137,000	$39,000	$52,000	$228,000	$5,175,600
MUC Collector Road	4.2	13.2	$273,000	$83,000	$111,000	$467,000	$6,164,400
MUC Arterial Road	0.3	34.9	$468,000	$233,000	$196,000	$897,000	$31,305,300
Village Mainstreets	3.7	35.3	$468,000	$233,000	$196,000	$897,000	$31,664,100
Totals	32.8	193.1	$450,268*	$381,115*	$172,395*	$813,371*	$157,062,600

* Totals shown are weighted based on road length and therefore represent average cost/km over 30 years

The total cost of new decorative lighting construction will be spread out over many years as roads are reconstructed or undergo major lifecycle re-lighting, subject to Council approval of annual capital budgets. The following table summarizes some average road construction costs and separates out average costs for lighting using standard lighting and using decorative lighting. The purpose of the table is to illustrate approximate increases from standard lighting to decorative lighting relative to the total cost of road construction. The sample road costs shown represent the general costs associated with the above-ground components of new road construction including standard lighting, landscaping, pavement, sidewalks, curb and gutter. They do not include utility relocations that may be required as a result of construction nor any underground utilities. These additional works would increase the general costs shown and would have the effect of correspondingly reducing the percentage of lighting costs.

Road Type	Sample Total Road Construction Cost / km	Standard Lighting Component Cost / % of Total Construction Cost	Decorative Lighting Component Cost / % of Total Construction Cost	Cost / % Increase of Total Const. Cost for Decorative Lighting
Arterial*	$3,328,000	$128,000 / 3.8%	$468,000 / 14.1%	$340,000 / 10.2%
Major Collector	$2,406,000	$106,000 / 4.4%	$ 273,000 / 11.3%	$167,000 / 6.9%
Collector	$2,006,000	$106,000 / 5.3%	$197,000 / 9.8%	$91,000 / 4.5%
Local	$1,167,000	$67,000 / 5.7%	$137,000 / 11.7%	$70,000 / 6.0%

* Tall & Short Height lighting option used.

In summary, the inclusion of decorative lighting in road construction projects in Special Areas based on the examples used above requires approximately 4.5% - 10.2% increase in overall construction costs compared to standard lighting. The average increase in road construction cost per kilometre for decorative versus standard lighting based on the four road types illustrated above is $167,000. This average cost will increase or decrease year-to-year depending on the road type reconstructed and the lighting option selected.

Over the past five years approximately 57.5 kms of City Roadway underwent major reconstruction. Approximately 13 kms (2.5 kms per year) of these roads were located within the “special areas” as identified in the policy. The average increase in construction cost for decorative compared to standard lighting equipment is approximately $167,000 per kilometre. Using this average cost, and assuming that similar lengths of road are reconstructed in future years as were reconstructed in the last few years, it is possible to forecast basic future annual increase in capital costs for decorative lighting in Special Areas. The approximate annual cost increase would be $417,500 ($167,000 per/km x 2.5kms per year). Note that this amount is in addition to the budget normally required to pay for standard street lighting installations. Staff will review the ability to partially offset the capital cost of installing decorative street lighting through development charges at the next update to the City’s Development Charges By-law.

Energy and Maintenance Costs

An increase in energy and maintenance costs will be experienced with each new installation and hence a mechanism is required to allocate the additional funds required to properly maintain the new decorative lighting. Therefore, for every kilometre of decorative lighting approved for installation at budget time for new roads, an annual budget allocation to cover on-going total increased energy and maintenance costs of $12,100 /km/year should also be approved. For roads with existing standard lighting that are reconstructed with decorative lighting, the increased energy and maintenance budget over that required for standard lighting is $7,075/km/year. This amount represents an estimate of the average total energy and maintenance cost for one kilometer of decorative lighting when each type of road cross section is combined. It is further expected that the City’s maintenance contractor may increase the equipment stocking costs charged to the City as new decorative lighting equipment is required to be maintained in their inventory. These cost increases are not known at this time.

Over the past five–year period, approximately one kilometer per year of new road that would qualify for decorative lighting was constructed in Special Areas at developer cost. If this average of one kilometer per year continues in the future, an average annual increase in the budget for energy and maintenance of $12,100 would be required. For the estimated 2.5 kms per year of reconstructed road (discussed above), an on-going annual maintenance and energy budget increase of $17,700 ($7,075 x 2.5kms) would also be required. Note that these amounts are in addition to the usual energy and maintenance budget allocation required for standard street lighting.

The final capital, energy and maintenance cost increases will be refined based on required revisions to the draft Right-of-Way Lighting Policy and will be included in the future report to Committee. The final cost increase estimates would also need to be added to the Long Range Financial Plan.

Based on the preliminary average costing and assumed lighting designs discussed above, the required additional (i.e. over and above standard street lighting costs) operating and capital costs for 2008 if the Policy is approved as drafted are summarized below. Note that these costs cannot be finalized until the actual road construction / reconstruction program for 2008 is finalized and the actual lighting designs for the roadway are selected.

· The total budget required to reconstruct 2.5kms of roadway based on the average costs shown is $5,566,875 of which an average of $254,375 (4.5%) would be the cost for standard street lighting. The additional average capital budget to pay for the cost premium associated with installing decorative lighting on 2.5 kms reconstructed roadway in Special Areas is $417,500 (7.5%) which would increase the total average lighting cost to $671,875 (12.1%).

· Additional average operating (energy and maintenance) budget to pay for cost premium associated with installing decorative lighting on 2.5kms reconstructed roadway in Special Areas: $17,700.

· Additional average operating (energy and maintenance) budget to pay for cost premium associated with installing decorative lighting on 1.0km of newly constructed roadway in Special Areas: $12,100.

· Therefore, the net average 2008 budget increase would be: $417,500 + $17,700 + $12,100 = $447,300 / rounded up to $500,000.

Comparison with Lighting Ordinances and Policies of Other Municipalities

As part of the development of the Right-of-Way Lighting Policy, the polices/practices of other municipalities were reviewed. The lighting policies of North Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Hamilton, Kitchener, Burlington, Windsor, Vaughan, Mississauga, Oakville, Oshawa, Kingston and Mississippi Mills were reviewed and/or discussed with municipal staff. All the municipalities that were investigated recognize the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) or the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) as authorities for defining the lighting criteria. The primary differences between the other municipalities’ practices and Ottawa’s relate to when and where decorative equipment is used. Although some municipalities have practices in place relating to the use of decorative equipment on a case-by-case basis, Ottawa’s Policy is unique in how decorative lighting equipment is required to be used in specified “Special Areas” and that the Special Areas match Official Plan land use designations. These land use designations include for example the Central Area, Mixed-Use Centres / Town Centres, and Traditional Mainstreets.

Existing Lighting Policies Reaffirmed

The Right-of-Way Lighting Policy incorporated parts of the existing Residential Street Lighting Policy, 2001 including;

• The replacement of existing City-maintained lawn lamps in the Beaverbrook and Katimavik neighbourhoods of former Kanata with standard street lighting equipment at the end of their life expectancy.

• The lighting equipment approved for use in 2001.

Future Lighting Zone Study

The proposed Right-of-Way Lighting Policy only deals with street and sidewalk lighting located within the public rights-of-way. At the time the terms of reference for the Right-of-Way Lighting Policy were approved by Council in 2006, staff were asked to provide in the interim report to Committee the cost to undertake a subsequent lighting study looking at ways to regulate and provide guidelines for maximum light levels for lighting on private land adjacent to the public right-of-way. For example, private lighting of commercial properties (e.g. car dealerships) can adversely affect adjacent public right-of-way users, more so the drivers than the pedestrians, as they have to adapt to the increased light levels adjacent to the roadway. Unregulated private lighting contributes to light pollution, e.g., poorly aimed floodlighting for signage or building frontage that in turn wastes energy and increases green house gas emissions. At this preliminary stage it has been assumed that the Lighting Zone Study would apply to commercially-zoned land and to high-density residential zones. The locations and applicable zone types would be refined through development of the terms of reference and further through the actual study. The study for lighting properties located off the public right-of-way would look at:

• Developing lighting zones
• Developing lighting criteria to control maximum light levels
• Creating regulations to limit the amount of light pollution

With direction from Committee, the terms of reference for this future study will be finalized and the cost included for consideration in the 2008 budget discussions. The study is estimated at this time to cost approximately $50,000.

Study Completion Timetable

Summer 2007

- Revise draft policy in accordance with Committee and public comments.

- Undertake stakeholder consultation as may be required.

September 2007

- Present final Right-of-Way Lighting Policy to Committee and Council.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION / INPUT

The details of consultation with the public, Advisory Committees and stakeholder groups are set out in Document 3

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The financial implications of approving the draft Policy are discussed in the body of the report. The consultant cost for the possible preparation of a Lighting Zone Study is also discussed in the body of this report.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Draft Right-of-Way Lighting Policy (distributed under separate cover and on file with City Clerk)

Document 2 Roadway Lighting Prioritisation Database (distributed under separate cover and on file with City Clerk)

Document 3 Consultation Details

Document 4 Lighting Installation Flow Chart

Documents 2 and 3 are available in English only. The City of Ottawa may translate these documents or parts thereof on request. Requests for translation should be forwarded to Chris Brouwer at Chris.Brouwer@ottawa.ca or (613) 580-2424, ext. 27813 or to the French Language Services Division at DSF-FLSD@ottawa.ca or (613) 580‑2424, ext. 21536.

DISPOSITION

The Department of Planning, Transit and the Environment to complete the Right-of-Way Lighting Policy in consultation with the Department of Public Works and Services.

The Department of Planning Transit and the Environment to prepare, in consultation with the Department of Public Works and Services, the terms of reference to undertake a Lighting Zone Study.

CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 3

CONSULTATION PROCESS AND NOTIFICATION

1. Strategic Policy Directions Paper

A Strategic Policy Directions Paper was prepared and circulated to City departments, Advisory Committees, technical agencies, stakeholder groups and to Council members in June 2006. The document summarized for discussion purposes possible approaches to roadway and sidewalk lighting citywide. The purpose of the circulation was to receive input early in the project to guide subsequent preparation of a first policy draft.

Presentations were made to six Advisory Committees at their request (Accessibility, Seniors, Rural Issues, Pedestrian and Transit, Roads and Cycling and Forests and Greenspace). Oral comments were received from Advisory Committees as follows:

a) Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee

Comment: Inquired if the policy will address trimming of trees to accommodate street lighting?

Response: The draft policy will include that tree trimming will not be undertaken to accommodate street lighting except under special circumstances and provided that tree planting was carried out in coordination with streetlight placement as part of the design of the street.

Comment: Concerned about the effect of light on trees.

Response: Staff agreed to look into this issue and to address it as may be needed in preparing the draft policy.

b) Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee

Comment: Are lawn lamps to be used in the new policy to light streets?

Response: Lawn lamps are not proposed to be used for street lighting. Existing lawn lamps located in the right-of-way in two Kanata communities are planned to be phased out over time.

Comment: Inquired if LED lighting technology was considered for the new policy.

Response: LED was considered but not adopted at this time since it is at present an emerging technology and is not at a point where it can be used cost-effectively on a citywide basis.

Comment: Asked about annual energy cost for street lighting and if the new policy would result in energy cost increases.

Response: The annual energy cost for the City is approximately $4 million. Metal halide (white) light is proposed for use in “Special Areas”. This style of lighting has a slightly higher energy cost but that increase is expected to be partially offset by savings realized through other lighting efficiencies proposed in the policy. Costs will be presented to Committee for consideration in an interim report later in the project.

c) Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee

Comment: Is hydro burial part of this policy?

Response: Consideration of Hydro burial is part of a related “Street Design” policy project being undertaken by other staff.

Comment: Asked who is responsible for streetlight maintenance in the City.

Response: Streetlight maintenance is carried out by contract between the City (Public Works and Services) and electrical contractors Black and MacDonald.

Comment: Inquired if solar lighting technology was considered for the new policy.

Response: Solar was considered but not adopted at this time since it is at present unproven for use on a citywide basis.

d) Rural Issues Advisory Committee

Comment: Thought that public consultation approach was good but asked if more than one rural area public open house meetings could be held.

Response: Project budget constraints prevent staff from undertaking additional open house meetings but it was agreed to email notice of the rural public open house meeting to all registered rural community organizations to ensure greater awareness of the proposed policy.

e) Seniors Advisory Committee

Comment: Inquired as to whether or not night time safety for seniors was improved through use of proposed metal halide (white) light source in “Special Areas”.

Response: It is accepted in lighting design that there is improved colour recognition (clothing, vehicles, buildings, landscape, etc.) in white compared to yellow (high pressure sodium) light and therefore may be a perceived increase in level of safety and security.

Comment: Inquired if LED lighting technology was considered for the new policy.

Response: LED was considered but not adopted at this time since it is at present an emerging technology and is not at a point where it can be used cost effectively on a citywide basis.

f) Accessibility Advisory Committee

Comment: Can the policy address lighting of street name signs?

Response: Street sign lighting is not part of the scope of the project as approved by Council. This approach would also be costly for the City to operate and maintain. Not needed since high reflective sheeting is used for all street signs.

Comment: Are Transitways included in the lighting policy?

Response: Transitways are excluded from the policy but are to be lit as may be required based on site-specific review with appropriate City departments.

Comment: Regarding the two proposed light levels for sidewalks (higher for sidewalks along arterials and lower for sidewalks along other streets), are the IES standards being followed?

Response: The first draft of the policy adopted the sidewalk levels of the 2001 Residential Street Lighting Policy that are lower than the current ANSI/IESNA recommendations. Upon further review during the technical analysis, it has been determined that certain sidewalk design criteria can be increased to satisfy ANSI/IESNA recommendations for Major Collector (now 5 Lux as opposed to 2 Lux), Collector (now 3 Lux as opposed to 2 Lux) and Local (unchanged at 2 Lux). The design level for sidewalks on arterial roads has also been increased in the new policy from 5 Lux to 10 Lux .

This arterial road sidewalk level however does not satisfy the 20 Lux criteria recommended in ANSI/IESNA since the roadways would need to be correspondingly “over lit” to achieve the brighter sidewalk standard. It is worth noting that 10 Lux is an ANSI/IESNA recommendation for sidewalks adjacent to arterial roads but not directly beside the traveled lanes.

Comments were received from stakeholder groups as follows:

g) Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (RASC)

Comment: RASC would like City to adopt Small Target Visibility (STV) method of undertaking lighting calculations.    

Response: Not recommended since STV is at present an unproven street lighting calculation method.

Comment: RASC wants City to use full cut off luminaires located at pole spacing used for semi-cut-off fixtures and thereby accept less light in-between fixtures in order to achieve further reductions in energy cost, light levels, glare and light trespass.  RASC suggests that the reduction of glare provided by full cut-off luminaires will compensate for the possibility of reduced visibility caused by lower light levels in-between fixtures.

Response: Not recommended since in addition to reduced levels, the uniformity may become sub-standard.  Staff agreed that use of full cut-off luminaires on growth-area residential, employment, and mixed-use centre area local streets with spacing in accordance with IES calculations could be introduced into the draft policy.   (These areas are also subject to the proposed 1/2 IES light level.) Glare criteria in accordance with IES criteria has been introduced as part of the policy.

Comment: RASC agrees with the need to use semi-cut-off luminaires for rural area marker lighting but would like the City to use lower wattage lamps.

Response: Staff agreed to review by area application and include lower maximum wattage lamps where possible in the rural area. Reduction to 100 watts from the current standard of 150 watts is proposed for all rural area marker lights in the draft policy.

Comment: RASC would like City to review use of 1/2 IES illumination on collector roads and less than 1/2 IES (1/3 or 1/4) on local roads in residential areas.

Response: Not recommended given higher traffic volumes and increased pedestrian traffic on collector roads. 1/2 IES light level is proposed given its use as a standard lighting approach in former Ottawa. Staff and consultants are unaware of any municipality where less than 1/2 IES is being used except where marker lighting or no lighting is the adopted municipal standard.

Comment: RASC wants City to use programmable photo controllers to turn off streetlights in specified areas after normal business hours – at for example 2am or 3am.

Response: Not recommended given that the cost of installing and maintaining such devices may be greater than cost savings realized through energy reduction.  In addition, evening shift workers and others on City streets during late evening hours should enjoy the same level of perceived safety afforded to all citizens.

h) Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders Association

Comment: I have been asked to comment on the proposed policy as presented in the power point presentation that you distributed to OCHBA.

We are encouraged by the approach taken of identifying different development styles, road categories and options for both luminaries and poles and differing lighting levels for those categories. We are obviously very interested in pursuing these standards with the City. Unfortunately, as you explained, we do not know the impact of the new lighting levels and, therefore, it is difficult to provide any specific comments at this time.

We would appreciate being included in any information packages that become available as the policy develops as well as the opportunity to comment along the way.

Response: Draft Right-of-Way Lighting policy was circulated to the OCHBA in March 2007 for its consideration and comments.

2. General Comments From The Public

The following general comments were received prior to public release of the first draft of the Right-of-Way Lighting Policy:

a) Comment:

You made a presentation June 20th for RIAC with regard to subject above.  Because you are asking for input, as an individual, I have taken the liberty to post to you a copy of an article in last week's Almonte Gazette entitled "Town praised for its decision to preserve night sky viewing."  Perhaps you have already had the opportunity to read this article or one similar.  I have spoken to Mr. Forbes Symon about his "responsible lighting" policy and as a nearby resident who has participated in area astronomy events in the past, I have followed the leading attitude Mississippi Mills has developed with regard to lighting in a mainly rural area.  Mr. Symon recently received an award from the RASC given "in recognition of Mississippi Mills being the first municipality in Canada with policies in place that preserve night sky observing as well as a bylaw that regulates lighting issues for all site plan agreements."  Symon later says "When discussing the Official Plan, one of the questions we asked was 'what is rural character?'

One thing that struck us was how you can go into your backyard, look up into the sky and see the stars.  That is something that is distinctly rural.'"  As well "The reason we have been so successful with this is because aside from the whole night sky thing, it also saves money, reduces energy consumption and stops light pollution onto other people's properties, which ties in with property rights."

 In the case you might want to speak to Mr. Symon or add him to your circulation list (and he is always glad to share his views) his number is 256-2064 X 259.

 Hopefully the work you are engaging on will save us money and preserve the beauty that is a brilliant rural evening sky.  Thank you again for your initial presentation and questions answered.

Response:

The Lighting Policy for Mississippi Mills covers public road rights-of-way as well as private property. It requires the use of full cut-off luminaires (0% up-light emanating from the light fixture) for all lighting applications. Although not as comprehensive as the Ottawa Right-of-Way Lighting Policy, there is one similarity relating to reduced lighting levels. The Town’s by-law identifies ranges of lighting levels for each classification of road (major, collector and local). These levels range from 66% of IES recommendations at the lower end up to 94% of IES recommendations at the higher end. The proposed Right-of-Way Lighting Policy for the City applies only to public rights-of-way. The draft policy for the City does propose to require use of full cut-off luminaires for all new local roads in residential and employment areas and also requires that full cut-off lighting be considered for all other roadway lighting designs. Maximum wattage for marker lighting is also100 watts (reduced from 150w).

b) Comment:

In section 2.4 of the policy entitled “illumination equipment”, several different types of equipment were listed within the inventory of lighting currently used by the city of Ottawa. As your policy will aim to reduce the variety of lighting equipment within the city, this is a perfect opportunity to focus investments in equipment that can potentially improve efficiency and reduce detrimental effects on bird populations.

Many species of birds migrate at night, including numerous species of warblers, thrushes, and wrens (Graber 1968). Collision with man-made structures is a problem that is continent-wide for migrating birds (Ogden 1996). Nocturnal migrants have demonstrated a form of attraction to light, with lighthouses as the first man-made structures to attract birds (Reed 1985). A scientist by the name of Richard Graber (1968) described birds’ reluctance to leave a lighted area and to fly out into the dark upon entering. This reluctance is currently noted as a hazard today by a concerned group of residents who collect dead and injured birds within the city of Toronto.

The birds that they collect for rehabilitation have become trapped within the city itself, upon entrance (Ogden 1996). A study performed by Reed demonstrated that light shielding decreased the attraction of endangered seabirds in Hawaii. He found that fledgling birds were attracted more to light sources themselves, rather than the areas they illuminated (Reed 1985). This indicates that the effectiveness of lighting for human purposes need not be lessened in order to decrease avian attraction, or light pollution in general for that matter.

Cut-off lighting which reflects additional light downward would increase the efficiency of lighting. Meanwhile shielding of low-level lighting such as the potential streetlights being considered, may reduce the attraction of migrant birds to light shining upwards from Ottawa (Ogden 1996). This could potentially increase the survival rate of these birds by avoiding their entrapment within the city.

Two criteria for the lighting policy currently under consideration could be met with cutoff lighting: cost effectiveness, and abatement of light pollution. As a result, we could save money and maintain our continued enjoyment of the night skies while additionally mitigating the effects that a large city like Ottawa has on night migrants.

Response:

The draft policy requires use of full cut-off luminaires for all new urban area residential and employment area local streets. The policy also directs that full cut-off luminaires should be considered for use first in lighting design for all other roads (with semi cut-off being the only other option on an as needed basis). Light levels are also proposed to be reduced in urban residential and employment areas as well as on marker lights in rural areas. The policy also requires special consideration of lighting design for all roads in proximity to Urban Natural Features areas.

c) Comment:

We have a committee working on Beach Protocol with respect to the waterfront access lanes (rights of way) in Constance Bay. As part of our scope we are examining whether or not the community wants improvements to the access lanes.  Perhaps further down the road, lighting could be considered a possible improvement, depending the committee's finding and recommendations.  Would this policy apply to the waterfront (rights of way) access lanes?

Response:

The intent in early drafts of the policy was that marker lighting would only be considered for installation at the intersection of two opened public roads (public rights-of-way that have constructed roadways within them). A new subsection dealing with marker lighting has been added to the draft policy to clarify this issue. Specific site review is required to determine if the beach access roads referred to in this comment would qualify for marker lighting.

3. Preliminary Draft Policy - Summary Of Input

In March 2007 City departments, technical agencies and stakeholder groups were asked to review and comment on a preliminary draft of the policy prior to public release of a revised draft at the April 10^th and 11^th 2007 public open house meetings. The following comments were received:

a) Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (RASC)

Comment:

1.2 Intent

We would like to see a specific reference to the reduction of light pollution

Response:

Revision made.

Comment:

1.3 Purpose of Lighting

Item “iv” in last list of section - amend to ...resulting increased cost for electricity, and greenhouse gas emissions.

Response:

Revision made.

Comment:

2.1 Lighting Design Calculations

The use of a 0.7 maintenance factor will result in illumination of 40% above the recommended values. We ask that it be increased to reflect the degradation of the light output over the life of the bulb. The flat glass of the FCO luminaires does not suffer the same dirt build up as the drop glass lenses. As long as the sealing gaskets for the fixtures are serviceable, insects should not be able to enter the enclosure.

Response:

The 0.7 factor is the standard used by many authorities responsible for roadway lighting. It is derived by combining the losses associated with not only dirt but also lamp lumen depreciation in order to account for the effect of an aging lamp. Sealed luminaires are susceptible to interior dirt depreciation regardless of the fact that they are sealed with a gasket. No known evidence to support less exterior dirt build up on full cut-off luminaires as compared to semi-cut-off luminaires.

Comment:

2.2 Required Average Roadway Lighting Levels

The maximum glare ratio does not factor in the higher sensitivity to our aging population or the scratches and pits of an automotive windshield. Although this is virtually impossible to accurately characterize - they are important factors and some correction should be made. We can suggest at least a factor correction that would lower the limiting glare from 0.3 to 0.15 (specified later in the document) until research can suggested a more statistically determined number.

Response:

The 0.3 factor is based on IES recommended values. The suggestion to reduce it from 0.3 to 0.15 may likely necessitate an increase in the Pavement Luminance lighting levels since the Disability glare is the ratio of Maximum Veiling Luminance (L_V) to Average Pavement Luminance (L_P).

Comment:

Table 2.1 - Under Rural Area - Arterial. We suggest lowering the average luminance from 0.8 to 0.6. The roads are typically much narrower and it is in keeping with the rural character of small towns and villages. We do not think the Rural Collectors should be lighted to the same level as the Urban Collectors. Similarly, the Rural Local streets should be lighted to lower levels than the Urban Local streets.

In footnote #3, we feel the reconstructed roadways should not be re-lighted to the original levels. They should be lighted to the new levels.

Response:

Footnote #3 - The policy does not require that reconstructed roadways be lit to new (lower) lighting levels. If the Policy is approved as presently drafted, residents on streets that have marker street lighting or that have full street lighting for example will not have lighting changes made to their communities. The reason for this is that citizens presumably were aware of and preferred the style of lighting on their chosen street when they selected to live in the community. Also, the cost of installing full street lighting with lower light levels on streets that presently have marker lighting or changing to lower light levels (which may require new pole spacing) on streets that have existing full lighting would be considerable. Rural collector and rural local roads will only receive marker lighting unless the roads are classified as village mainstreets under a future public consultation process

Comment:

Table 2.2

This table should be corrected for the suggested changes to Table 2.1.

Response:

No changes required.

Comment:

2.4 Sidewalks

We suggest that waist level fixtures be used to “mark” pedestrian walkways (bollards?). These are used in some parks in Toronto (Willowdale Park in North York). Although some see damage by vandals, so do the 3 m high luminaires.

Response:

Bollard (waist level) lighting is highly susceptible to vandalism. The minimum height for “through-block pedestrian walkways” in the policy is 4.5 metres which is high enough above the ground to avoid most forms of vandalism.

Comment:

2.5 Underpass, Tunnel, etc.

The light from these fixtures reflects off the concrete walls resulting in more light that scatters onto the road surface. We feel the illumination levels can be reduced because of this effect unless the calculation accounts for this effect. (One feels trapped by the walls of light). Also, these luminaires are well sheltered from the weather. So the maintenance factor should be increased to only account for bulb degradation.

Response:

Underpass illumination does not consider reflections from the concrete surfaces since the light output is typically directed away from these surfaces and therefore the reflected light, if any, is minimal. Tunnel illumination will be dealt with on a project by project basis. In these cases, tunnel illumination design will consider the wall reflectance since these walls are typically of a highly reflective material and the luminaires, when ceiling mounted, direct the light both downward and towards the walls.

Underpass luminaires accumulate more dirt as compared to typical street light fixtures because they are sheltered from the weather elements such as wind and rain which aids in the natural cleaning of the fixture. Also because they are in a semi-enclosed environment and mounted at almost half the height of typical fixtures they are more susceptible to moisture and dirt spray from passing vehicles, especially in the winter months, thereby requiring more frequent cleaning. The current maintenance factor of 0.7 takes into account the regular scheduled maintenance of underpass lighting fixtures by the City. Increasing the factor would result in increased maintenance costs as the City would have to clean the fixtures more often to maintain the light levels within the underpass.

Comment:

3.2 “Special Areas”

If lantern style is preferred by businesses and residence it should be made explicitly clear to them that the quality of lighting (referring to illumination, glare and light trespass) will be inferior to that of the FCO luminaires. Further, in order to illuminate the roadway to the required levels will result in much brighter bulbs and electrical usage. Also, they should be made aware of the higher cost for these fixtures.

Response:

The draft policy has both semi and full (FCO) cut-off style lantern style luminaires. The project consultants are to ensure that efficient, high quality lighting was recommended and have evaluated all Special Area equipment. The wattage for lantern fixtures has been set at a range of 70 to150 watts (in the low range) to reduce potential for light glare. With lower wattage lights, (decorative) poles will be placed more frequently along the street. This adds to the urban design quality of the street and helps to improve lighting uniformity. The additional cost of lighting with decorative lighting equipment is discussed in the body of the staff report.

Also the lantern fixtures are only being used on Collectors and Local roadways where the road cross-section is small as compared to an Arterial roadway. For these smaller road cross-sections the lighting performance of the lantern fixtures are actually comparable to the FCO cobra head fixtures in terms of pole spacing and lamp wattage.

Comment:

3.3.1 Rural Local Roads / 3.3.2 Existing Unlit Urban Local Roads

“Super Mailbox” locations should be lighted with FCO fixtures. There will be sufficient vertical surfaces to scatter light to assist in “locating” the boxes and provide light to access the boxes.

Marker lighting should be with the lowest practical wattage (70 watt HPS or lower wattage LPS).

Lighting sharp horizontal curves should not be used. When retro-reflective markers only mark curves, on-coming traffic can be seen as motorists enter the curve. If the curve is illuminated by pole mounted fixtures, the lights from on-coming traffic cannot be seen. We suggest that it is safer to not light these curves.

Response:

Revision made – marker lights at super mailbox locations will be full cut-off style.

The standard marker lighting wattage presently in Ottawa and in most other Canadian municipalities is 150 watts. The policy proposes to reduce the wattage for all marker lights by one-third to 100 watts.

Staff is not of the opinion that lighting the curves will result in a negative impact on safety since studies have shown that lighting reduces night time accidents by 30%. Therefore, the draft policy directs that unlit roadway curves that do not meet the geometric design standards of the Canadian Roads and Streets design manual would receive partial lighting subject to site specific review and available funding.

Comment:

3.3.2.1 Existing Urban Local Roads with Marker Lighting

We feel existing marker lighting should be reduced to70 watt during reconstruction.

Response:

The standard marker lighting wattage presently in Ottawa and in most other Canadian municipalities is 150 watts. The policy proposes to reduce the maximum wattage for all marker lights by one-third to 100 watts. It is recommended not to reduce this further as a standard.

Comment:

3.3.4 Lighting Strategy

As the city grows outward, boundaries between “rural” and “urban” areas will continually change. This is not a slow wave of development. Rather, we see housing developments being built in “very rural” locations as farms are turned into homes and business areas. As they are built, these areas can be deemed to be “urban” and the proposed increase in illumination will dramatically increase the sky glow over our members “dark observing sites”. We would like to see the illumination levels remain at rural levels until the space between these enclaves has been in-filled.

Response:

Urban style housing development only occurs on approved urban area land as designated in the Official Plan. This land is often used for agriculture until development occurs. Leaving new streets in new urban area subdivision developments at rural lighting levels (no lighting) is not recommended as an interim measure prior to full lighting. Light levels for growth area development is already proposed to be reduced compared to the existing standard. The draft policy sets urban residential and employment area local street lighting levels at one-half the IESNA recommended lighting levels. Marker lighting is also proposed to be the new standard for rural estate subdivisions. Marker light wattage is proposed to be reduced from 150 to 100 watts.

Comment:

3.3.7 Pedestrian Walkways

We suggest that low-level bollards be used to mark and illuminated the ground along these pathways. Since there is no motor traffic, they do not have to be illuminated to the level of sidewalks along streets.

Response:

Bollard (waist level) lighting is highly susceptible to vandalism. The minimum height for “through-block pedestrian walkways” in the policy is 4.5 metres that is high enough above the ground to avoid most forms of vandalism.

Comment:

4.1 Background

Explicitly state the option for bi-level lighting.

Response:

Bi-level lighting (dims at off-peak periods) requires installation of special lighting ballasts in addition to the dimming equipment on every luminaire. Lights also become susceptible to premature failure when they are dimmed which may increase maintenance costs. This approach has not been proven as being cost-effective and is still a relatively new technology. On streets that are lit, the same level of safety should be provided to citizens using roads and sidewalks at all hours of the nighttime.

Comment:

4.4 “Special Areas” - The phrase “areas that may also use” suggests that two systems of lighting can be used. This is both expensive and adds visual clutter along the street. The cost of the second system (capital and maintenance) should be borne entirely by the residence.

Response:

The intent was not to permit two lighting systems along any right-of-way. The wording in the draft policy has been clarified.

Comment:

4.4.1 Lighting Strategy for “Special Areas”

We feel the opening statement “Special lighting shall be used ...” should be relaxed to read, “Special lighting MAY be used ...”. This would avoid the automatic use of non-FCO fixtures where people of the areas may prefer FCO fixtures (see earlier suggestion in paragraph 3.2 “Special Areas”).

Similarly in the second paragraph, we would prefer “The first option MAY be installed ...”

4.4.2

Special Lighting Equipment

In the second paragraph we prefer, “Special lighting MAY be ...”.

Response:

Use of the word shall is needed so that decorative equipment is used in Special Areas. It does not mean that non-full-cut-off fixtures are automatically used in these areas. Non-cut-off fixtures are also not part of the approved lighting equipment for the City.

Comment:

Table 4.1

We discussed this table during our meeting. We understand some entries will be reviewed and revised (400 watt levels). We note that the higher wattages are restricted to FCO luminaires and lower wattages are used in the lantern type. We also note that the higher wattage lanterns use higher wattages than the clear glass lanterns.

I question the entry that places lantern-type fixtures under the semi cut-off column. From my practical experience, I very much doubt that only 2.5% of the light from these fixtures shine above the horizon. I suggest it is more like 20%. Further, with a frosted glass it is probably higher than 20% “up-light”. Similarly for the Acorn-, Hat- and Cage-style fixtures.

We understand our proposed reduction in limiting glare from 0.3 to 0.15 (papa. 2.2) will place constraints on the selection of lantern-type fixtures. However, these types of fixtures, for all their daytime and twilight aesthetics, are very distracting during the night for senior citizens and drivers behind windshields.

Response:

The semi-cut-off designation is based on independent photometric testing as per IESNA luminaire designations (note: semi-cutoff is 5% and cutoff is 2.5% uplight). 400 watts are still to be used in “All Other Areas” and it has been deleted from “Special Areas”.

Comment:

4.5.3 Roadway Lighting Equipment Context

We are concerned that lantern-style fixtures will require very high wattage to illuminate the roadway to the specified levels. This will result in severe glare, light trespass. The public MUST be made aware of this when these fixtures during open (public) meetings.

The images in this section show lantern fixtures used in residential neighbourhoods and during daylight hours. By using promotional images in the document, they are displayed in an “attractive way”. They do not show how they look in operation at night.

Response:

The maximum lamp wattage for all low and mid-height decorative fixtures in the policy has been set at lower than the manufacturers permissible levels to reduce glare. In addition, any semi-cut-off decorative fixture has frosted glass to further diffuse the light and reduce glare. Light trespass will not be an issue with use of semi-cut-off and full cut-off luminaires.

The intent of showing pictures of lighting equipment in daylight hours is to clearly show the intended equipment style (design) to assist in selection for future lighting designs. It is difficult to accurately demonstrate the appearance of illuminated fixtures at night through photography since the image can easily be manipulated to look brighter or darker through adjustments to photo exposure time.

Comment:

Table 4.2

We understand this table is to be reviewed and revised (Rural Areas - 250 watt). We suggest lantern -type fixtures not be used in high traffic environments due to glare and its contribution to “visual clutter”. These mask hazards and reduce the safety of the roadway for both pedestrians and motorists.

B1 Lantern-type fixtures should not be used into rural areas. The light trespass has a profound impact on the natural night time environment.

Response:

Rural arterial and collectors only get marker lighting unless they are designated as a Village Rural Mainstreets. Therefore maximum wattage will be 100 Watts. The use of 250 watts in rural arterial and collectors have been deleted. The lantern styles proposed for use in the policy for rural (and urban) areas are full or semi-cut off styles that will minimize light pollution.

Comment:

5.1 Light Pollution

Please change to, “ 150 watts to 100 watts or 70 watts ...”.

Response:

The standard marker lighting wattage presently in Ottawa and in most other Canadian municipalities is 150 watts. The Policy proposes to reduce the maximum wattage for all marker lights by one-third to 100 watts. It is recommended not to reduce this further as a standard.

Comment:

5.2 Horizontal Curves

Please include explicit reference to the use of retro-reflectors.

Response:

Establishing use of roadway reflective safety marking for curves is not within the scope of this project.

b) City of Ottawa Environmental Advisory Committee

Comment:

This project falls under the Community Design Plans and related studies 2007 item in the Development Application Review (DAR) Working Group’s 2007 work plan.

Positive Points

p.2: “The Policy strives to achieve the following over time…

vii. Reduce energy consumption by lowering lighting levels in specified areas and using energy efficient fixtures…”

p.2: “the designer should always attempt to minimize the amount of ‘over lighting’”

p.18: The Policy calls for a decrease in excessive lighting on arterial roads in the former Ottawa area (implemented at the time of major roadway reconstruction).

p.22: “”(LED) lamps were considered for street lighting…but at this time more testing and technical information is required…the LED should be re-visited at the time of the next Policy update.”

p.32: Full Cut-Off luminaires produce zero “uplight”, so they will be preferred over Semi-Cut-Off in locations other than Special Areas. (Full Cut-Off versions aren’t always available for special lighting styles.)

p.37: Light Pollution is Design Consideration number 1.

p.37: “Street trees will not be trimmed to accommodate the street lighting except as may be approved for special circumstances by the Director, Traffic and Parking Operations”

1. Would it be possible to also look into the feasibility of a solar-powered pilot (or small scale use of solar power) as well as an LED pilot? For example, if the technology isn't advanced enough to use large solar-powered lights on all major streets, perhaps solar power could be considered for weaker lights, such as the ones lighting municipal paths between two illuminated rights of way.

Response:

The technology for both LED and solar powered is not at the stage where they could safely and cost-effectively be adopted for street lighting on a Citywide basis. Solar powered lights for through-block pedestrian walkways have at present not proven to be reliable or cost-effective in existing City applications.

2. On page 27: "LED should be re-visted at the time of the next Policy update". Would it be possible to put in a similar statement for solar-powered lights?

Response:
The draft policy directs that the City review these emerging technologies and consider implementing them as they become efficient and cost effective for citywide use.

The EAC brought forward the following motion regarding the draft Policy:

“City of Ottawa Right of Way Lighting Policy (March 12, 2007 Draft)

Draft EAC Motion (March 28, 2007 version)

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa’s draft (March 12, 2007) Right of Way Lighting Policy balances roadway safety, present technological limitations and environmental considerations, as indicated in the attached brief;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee recommend that City Council propose solar power for implementation of the Right of Way Lighting Policy when this technology is sufficiently advanced;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee recommend that City Council support the new Right of Way Lighting Policy, and that City Council direct staff to fully implement the Policy.”

4. Public Open House Meetings – Public Release of Draft Policy

Two public open house meetings were carried out as part of the public consultation phase of the study. Comments on the revised draft policy were submitted as a result of the open house meetings and as a result of public review of the open house materials and draft policy on the project web site “ottawastreetlighting.ca”.

 Notification of the public open house meetings was carried out as follows:

• On the City’s Right-of-Way Lighting Policy project web site under “Public Consultations” on “Ottawa.ca”.
• Direct email sent to all registered Community Organisations and Business Improvement Area representatives in the City.
• Advertisements were posted for both public meetings in the Citizen and Le Droit newspapers as well as in seven weekly papers covering the rural area including the Weekly Journal, L'Express, Stittsville Weekender, West Carleton Weekender, Ottawa South Weekender, Nepean This Week, Kanata Kourier-Standard.
• Direct email to of the notice of public open house meetings along with a copy of the draft policy was sent to stakeholder groups.

Open House #1 Urban Area–April 10/07 and Open House #2 Rural Area–April 11/07

The purpose of the open house meetings was to introduce and seek comments on the draft Right-of-Way Lighting Policy. The meetings consisted of a walk-through open house display, which highlighted the study process and components of the draft policy. There was a timed PowerPoint presentation that provided an overview of the draft policy. City staff and project team consultants were on-hand to answer questions from the public. Twenty-two written comments were submitted by the public and stakeholders on the draft policy released for the open house meetings:

a) Comment:

I am an educated on-road cyclist. Desire Kanata streets to move to full lighting rather than decorative lighting. Desire lighting in greenbelt where safety warrants. Lawn light not be required for street or sidewalk lighting. Condo and corner street name light signs should be replaced – use reflective street name signs on all streets. Lights should illuminate sidewalk beside road. Special lighting on mainstreets should be maintained. Support moving Kanata streets to full lighting rather than limited corner lighting as is now the case on Bellview Drive for example.

Response:

The areas of the Katimavik and Hazeldean neighbourhoods that have lawn lamps on the public right-of-way will be upgraded to full continuous lighting to the new suburban standard (one-half IES light levels). Greenbelt roads are excluded from the policy but may be lit subject to separate review and approval with relevant agencies. Illuminated street name signs are not included in the policy. Streetlights will be used to light the sidewalk to minimum standard. All street lights are part of a maintenance contract with Black and MacDonald. No changes to existing streets that have marker, partial or full lighting are proposed.

b) Comment:

What information do you have on the effect of light on trees. Are there effects on tree physiology, flowering, fruiting, budbreak, dormancy, growth?

Response:

Undertaking detailed analysis of the effect of light on trees was not part of the scope of the project. However staff and project consultants carried out limited research and met with persons with expertise in this area. There was varying opinions on the degree of impact, the colour and intensity of light that may affect trees and the types of trees that may be impacted. Given general consensus that there may be some impact, the draft policy was revised to include special attention to lighting design when in proximity to any identified Urban Natural Feature (woodlot).

c) Comment:

Encouraging that plans proposed will maintain infrastructure at lesser cost by streamlining options for renewal / maintenance. Use of technology which limits energy consumption positive. Consider next step to reduce excessive use of energy by “Box Stores” ie. Innes Rd. A by-law could reduce power failure such as the experience last week in Orleans.

Response:

Staff will discuss cost of undertaking a second lighting study dealing with private property at the interim report stage of the right-of-way lighting project.

d) Comment:

It is important to consider street safety for pedestrians when considering the type of lighting to be installed. White light is better than colour light for visibility purposes. Please also consider global warming and choose energy efficient lamps over the appearance of the lamp.

Response:

Pedestrian safety was a consideration in preparing the policy. All lighting equipment is energy efficient. Lighting design using proposed luminaires was also undertaken to ensure cost effective lighting would result.

e) Comment:

Sandy Hill needs more lighting. I hope it doesn’t take a persons life to do it. I lived in Centretown for 17 years and it needs more light on side streets.

Response:

Both Centretown and Sandy Hill are located in former Ottawa and therefore the existing lighting standards reflect that municipality’s policy of full lighting to IESNA standards on Arterial roads and one-half IESNA standard light level on Local and Collector roads.

f) Comment:

Wish to retain local lighting (essentially “driveway” lights). Overall trying to obtain “special” status for Beaverbrook.

Response:

The direction in the draft policy for the areas of the Katimavik and Hazeldean neighbourhoods that have lawn lamps on the public right-of-way is to upgrade them to full continuous lighting to the new suburban standard (one-half IES light levels) when the lawn lamps reach the end of their useful life cycle.

g) Comment:

I support the proposal that new local roads be lit to one-half of the IESNA recommendations. This level has proven to be safe and sufficient in the old City of Ottawa. I support the use of full cut-off lighting for “All Other Areas”. This will provide low glare, reduce light pollution, while still providing light for roadways and sidewalks. I support the use of decorative lights as well in Special Areas to encourage pedestrian use in these areas.

Response:

(None required)

h) Comment:

Glad to see that trees and lighting are components of downtown urban design. As long as there is enough lighting to see and be seen on main intersections where traffic is greater (especially in winter). That will be very important. Although suburbs need less light – safety of pedestrians should be prime concern. Congratulations – looks reasonable but burying overhead wires would be an attractive feature.

Response:

Tree trimming to provide for proper intersection lighting may be undertaken under the “special circumstances” provided for in the policy.

i) Comment:

Addition of decorative lighting for mainstreets is a positive change to enhance mainstreets. White light is preferable to yellow light – if high pressure sodium then ensure maintenance to keep them from getting too yellow. Adequate lighting is important for security. The inner City is well lit at the moment – keep it this way.

Response:

White light (metal halide) is proposed for all “Special Areas” (mainstreets, town centres, mixed use areas, etc.).

j) Comment:

Light should be directed downward with none escaping into the sky. The Glebe would be a great place to test new types of energy efficient lighting.

Response:

All lighting equipment proposed in the Policy directs between 95% and 100% of the light downward. Selecting locations for any possible future light testing area was not part of the scope of this project.

k) Comment:

The combo light standard – hydro pole concept shown in “Street Design” should also be incorporated into the “Lighting Policy”. Is a “Special Street” the same as “Special Area”? Term should be the same in both policies. Please try to reduce the amount of jargon for public consultations (ie, full cut-off luminaires) to encourage more dialogue.

Response:

Lighting equipment on existing hydro poles is permitted in the policy. “Special Streets” are located within “Special Areas” but will also be subject to decorative street furniture subject to the outcome of a separate Street Design Study scheduled to be completed later this year. Technical language was necessary to describe accurately the proposed equipment. Annotated pictures were provided at the open house to explain “full cut-off luminaire”.

l) Comment:

I am very impressed by the work city staff has done on the lighting and street design policies – Bravo! I feel very strongly that all of Bank Street from Wellington to Billings Bridge should have decorative lighting as the services below the street are replaced.

Response:

Bank Street from Wellington to Queensdale is designated in the Official Plan as either Arterial Mainstreet or Traditional mainstreet. Much of the northerly section already has or is under design/construction for decorative lighting. The balance of Bank Street (to Queensdale) will receive decorative lighting as major road reconstruction takes place under the proposed policy.

m) Comment:

Adequate lighting that is energy efficient is more important to me than the “style” of the fixture.

Response:

All the decorative and standard lighting equipment selected for use in the City is energy efficient.

n) Comment:

And here is a URL pointing to a wide variety of bylaws in the U.S.: http://www.darksky.org/ordsregs/usamunis and here is a moderately technical overview of a range of factors  http://www.darksky.org/handbook/lc-hb-v1-14.html#lamptypes -- which by the way seems under the section on the eye and dark adaptation) seems to support metal halide for its colour spectrum.

I just skimmed the Tucson bylaw.  Do you (or your lighting engineer colleagues) have any idea why they seem so strict with metal halide lights?  Could there be something about the colours (spectral range)?

I was talking to you at this evening's presentation on the City's draft policy, and asking the questions about light pollution.  Here are two references for Tucson, Arizona (I mistakenly remembered Phoenix -- right state, wrong city):  Tucson's ordinance  http://www.darksky.org/resources/information-sheets/is091.html   and  a short newspaper article http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=4104183 (found with Google).

I like the idea of a per acre (or hectare) limit on light.  Why doesn't Ottawa adopt something similar?  I'll try to get you and your colleagues some more info...

Response:

Tucson, from brief review of its lighting ordinance, appears to regulate use of metal halide light in certain districts. Metal halide is prohibited in Area ‘A’ except where the design engineer deems that colour rendering is critical in which case the metal halide luminaires must be fully shielded.

Metal halide is regulated as it produces white light which spans the full colour spectrum. Since it is not a monochromatic light source like high pressure sodium, it is difficult if not impossible to filter by astronomers.

With regard to the reference to “per acre limit on light”, staff believe this is referring to what is called “Unit Power Density” as practiced by the state of California. The purpose of this is to limit the amount of power per unit area (e.g. 1 Watt/ft²) consumed by a lighting installation. The restriction is applied to private lighting installations that are not part of the mandate of this policy. Roadway lighting is not included because Unit Power Density minimum levels must be satisfied for safety reasons.

o) Comment:

General point: Reduce light pollution.

Options: mandate full cut-off everywhere (including decorative fixtures). Use more marker versus continuous lighting. Lower wattages as much as possible (subject to trade-offs of number of light poles); maybe even better to lower lux (light flux) requirements. Use expertise of International Dark Sky (?) Association (astronomers) for technical expertise re: low light pollution approaches. Study leading edge cities’ approaches – eg. I think Tucson Arizona (near Kitt Peak Observatory) has done some innovative work. Explain to the general public that brighter lights do not mean safer streets: a) bright lights lead to glare and lower visibility in shadow areas. b) the normal human eye does not “dark adapt”, so after exiting a brightly lit area a dim street will look dark at first; but after a few minutes of adjustment visibility can be better! Use satellite photos of Ottawa at night (or equivalent means) to monitor Ottawa’s lights pollution. Set as an objective of City policy to reduce overall light.

Response:

One of the main objectives of the study was to reduce light pollution. Full cut-off luminaires are proposed in all new residential, employment, and mixed-use centre area developments and are required to be considered for all other lighting designs in the city. Marker lights are proposed for rural estate residential (reduction in light from current standard of full continuous lighting). Upgrades from marker to full lighting in urban area residential are not proposed in the new policy. Maximum wattages are mandated based on luminaire type in the policy to avoid over-lighting and glare issues. The study team has involved representatives from the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada in all stages of policy development. The study team reviewed lighting policies from Tucson other municipalities. Transitioning from lit streets to unlit or to streets lit at lower levels will be carried out in accordance with accepted practice from the Transportation Association of Canada. Use of satellite photos to monitor light levels in Ottawa is one method of monitoring on a qualitative basis light distribution and intensity in the area. This approach may be more effective over the long term and particularly if the City implements restrictions on maximum light levels on private property.

p) Comment:

I have been an amateur astronomer for some time, and I have built an observatory in my backyard. In the past I have contacted the City about the possibility to retrofitting the existing street lighting so that the light faces downward, rather than sideways (with the existing "cobra" style lights). My concerns seem to fall on deaf ears, despite words of encouragement by my local councillor Maria McRae. It would be encouraging for the City to work on this issue. Other Canadian cities such as Edmonton and Calgary have made progress in addressing this issue, with strong programmes to retrofit street lighting.

The lack of darkness is not only an issue for astronomers but it also has an impact on health (lack of darkness leads to sleep problems for people) and on wildlife (e.g. birds migrating). Also, it seems a waste of energy to not shine lights properly. Good luck on this issue.

Response:

Many of the streets in Councillor McRae’s ward have street lighting at the former Ottawa standard of semi-cut-off light optics (maximum 5% up light) and light levels at the lower one-half IESNA standard.

Calgary, for example, is replacing all existing luminaires with full cut-off luminaires on existing poles except where the pole spacing is too large, ie., full cut-off luminaires don’t distribute the light as well as cut-off or semi-cut-off luminaires and hence may not always work with the existing pole spacing.

q) Comment:

There should be mention of illumination levels needing to be higher where the roadway is in an underpass. During the daytime our eyes are accustomed to higher illumination levels and as a consequence when entering underpasses our ability to see is impaired. With the impending widening of the Queensway, underpasses become longer and darker during daytime. Note that presently where Queen Elizabeth Drive and Col By Dr go under the Queensway, the lights are on all the (albeit many of the lamps don't work). Nice to see the use of halide lights instead of sodium, but what is the increased operational and capital cost of this decision? It would nice to see what the policy is with respect to maintenance of lights. I often request repairs and find some take a long time to get done and there does not seem to be systemic examination of by city employees that lights are out and rather seems to rely on a complaints-based system. I note also that there are increased numbers of lights that must be supplied by overhead lines as the underground connections are no longer operational. It seems to take a long time to get the underground connections fixed. You missed showing under "Existing Light Equipment Used", Pg 8, the lights we have a lot of here in downtown where a lamp arm has been stuck onto a hydro pole. Looks like we will never get rid of that ugly configuration.

Response:

Underpasses are lit to the same levels as the approach roads as this provides the best adaptation for the eye rather than having to adapt to a higher level as you enter the underpass and then a lower level after you exit. Tunnel lighting on the other hand utilizes various lighting zones to allow the eye to adapt from bright levels such as sunlight. In these cases the tunnel lighting is on during the day. The design of tunnel lighting will be dealt with on a project by project basis.

r) Comment:

When you're considering factors in ROW lighting policy, please consider including a component requiring attention to potential impact on adjacent natural habitat. There is quite a body of research indicating that artificial lighting inhibits/ degrades breeding success by many of the small wildlife species that contribute substantially to the long-term ecological performance of natural habitats - especially woodlands. Some breeding passerine (perching) birds, for example, do very poorly in woodland habitat that is within the glare of artificial lighting. In its narrowest terms, such an impact already constitutes a violation of the Migratory Birds Act and some folks are getting more exercised recently about enforcing that legislation more diligently. As you probably already know, this concern was factored into the design requirements for sections of West Hunt Club Road through the Greenbelt. Forgetting for the moment whether the light standards selected were the most appropriate design to address the issue, the consideration was most appropriate.

Any ROW lighting plan should include consideration of potential light impact on natural habitat within 50 m of the ROW (that figure is a guesstimate; there may be a more useful rule-of-thumb figure in the technical literature). ROWs passing by or within any of the City's ±190 designated Urban Natural Areas, for instance, should be so flagged. (I'm working with the guys at Dillon who are designing the Terry Fox Road section over the South March Highlands and we've had just such a discussion). While you wouldn't need biodiversity inventories or the like, a defendable landscape assessment should be required in such cases to determine if native breeding birds and/or other potentially light-sensitive fauna (e.g. amphibians, indicator invertebrates) utilize the impact zone for breeding. If so, a lighting design that minimizes such impact should result.

The evaluation is not a big deal and is not a big cost but should result in the conservation and/ or restoration of natural functions in hundreds of hectares of natural habitat in the City over the coming years. Might even reduce light pollution and energy use (operational cost) too ... win, win, win.

Response:

The draft policy was amended to include a section dealing with lighting considerations for all right-of-way lighting projects located within 50 metres of Category 1 and Category 2 Urban Natural Feature areas.

A presentation was given to one Advisory Committee as a result of circulation of the draft policy:

s) Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee

Comment:

Peter Hall, an OFGAC member, attended the Lighting Policy public consultation at City Hall on Tuesday 10 April 2007. You were also kind enough to provide our Advisory Committee with two briefings on the policy as it was developed – thank you.

It is beyond the Committee’s mandate to make comments about the majority of the items in the draft policy. We do note, however, that Section 5.3 (page 37) acknowledges that streetlights are occasionally shaded (seasonally) by trees. The policy further notes that “street trees will not be trimmed to accommodate the street lighting except as may be approved for special circumstances by the Director, Traffic and Parking Operations”.

Those “special circumstances” are not spelled out in the policy and we hope that to the best of your units’ abilities, the City Forester will be involved in any decision to remove a tree or severely prune it because of a conflict with street lighting.

We also suggest that if shorter poles are used, especially in new installations or when streets are being rehabilitated, trees will grow above the light fixture and conflict will be avoided once that has occurred.

From an environmental perspective, moving to full or 95% cut-off fixtures is a wise choice. Night-lighting is becoming an increasing problem all over the world.

Although there are little data on the impact of street lighting on trees, it is possible that night lighting could affect a tree’s normal physiological processes. So, reducing night glare is a positive step. Dr. Hall submitted a written comment on April 10 as to whether any investigation had been done concerning the possible impacts on various types of lights (spectrum, intensity etc.) on tree physiology. If you do find data, we would appreciate a reply at some point on what you learn. I had earlier consulted Dr. Tito Scainio, an expert on photochemistry at the University of Ottawa, on this very subject. He acknowledged that it was an interesting question but one that had not been well studied. His expertise is the effect of light at the cellular level and if leaves are impacted by artificial light, quality or quantity, it would be at the leaf cellular level. May we suggest that the City urge the Canadian Forests Service of Natural Resources Canada to consider conducting research on this subject as part of its Urban Tree/Forests Program. Thank you again for your briefings and for the opportunity to comment.

Response :

The City Forester is aware of and agrees with the wording in the policy dealing with tree trimming. City Environmental staff was involved in the preparation of the section of the policy dealing with the effect of light on trees and the approach to recognise and mitigate potential impacts through future lighting designs.

t) Rockcliffe Park Residents Association

Comment :

Further to a letter to Scott Edey from Jane Dobell, then-President, Rockcliffe Park Residents Association (RPRA) dated 27 October 2004 (copy appended), the preferred option for lighting in the Heritage Conservation District (HCD) of Rockcliffe Park is a metal halide 50 watt bulb having a colour temperature of 3200K. That bulb would be fitted in an acorn luminaire installed at the same height and on the same type of bracket as the existing incandescent lights. We would hope that there would be continued use of wooden poles and that the spacing between poles would remain “as is”. As they burn out, the sodium vapour luminaries would be replaced by acorn luminaires of the model manufactured by Cooper Lighting. The same would be true of the incandescent bulbs.

This replacement practice is, in fact, being followed now and we thank you.

That said, Section 3.2.2 of the March 12 draft Right-of-Way Lighting Policy states that “The style of poles, luminaires and light sources will be selected as part of a future public consultation process on a district-by-district basis… “. Should you wish to hold further consultations with us, please let us know.

This letter also confirms that, except for Birch Avenue (a collector road on the east side of the HCD), there are no other collectors or arterial roads in Rockcliffe Park. The stretch of Maple Lane between Acacia and Springfield forms another boundary of the HCD. The Rockcliffe side of Maple Lane has several sodium vapour cobra-head luminaries on very tall concrete poles. If the opportunity arose, replacement of those fixtures with smaller scale poles and metal-halide bulbs in acorn-style luminaries would be an appropriate topic for consultation both with the RPRA and residents on both sides of the street. A precedent was set during the reconstruction of Birch Avenue for the installation of a shorter pole and residential-scale fixture.

We also note, that Section 5.3 acknowledges that street lights are occasionally shaded (seasonally) by trees. The policy further notes that “street trees will not be trimmed to accommodate the street lighting except as may be approved for special circumstances by the Director, Traffic and Parking Operations”.

Rockcliffe Park has many old and fine trees, some of which are in close proximity to street lights. The “special circumstances” are not spelled out in the policy and we request that the Environment Committee of the RPRA together with City Forester will be involved in any decision to remove a tree or severely prune it because of a conflict with street lighting.

Finally, Appendix E illustrates lighting styles in existing HCDs but does not show the acorn-style luminaire nor does it mention Rockcliffe Park as a HCD. We suggest that you add both the acorn-style luminaire and mention of Rockcliffe Park in the final policy due out in June.

Response:

The Rockcliffe community is a designated Heritage Conservation District the lighting of which, under the policy as drafted, will be subject to a future public consultation process to select lighting equipment. The City Forester is aware of and agrees with the wording in the policy dealing with tree trimming.

u) National Capital Commission (NCC)

Comment: I am forwarding, for your consideration, consolidated comments from NCC staff on the draft City of Ottawa Right-of-Way Lighting policy. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. We trust it will be useful in the finalization of your policy documents.

 The policy is a good document, well written and easy to use, with complementary graphics and illustrations. A general comment would be that the City’s policy should be flexible in order that staff are empowered to use their judgment, expertise and common sense in dealing with situations where jurisdictions/ownerships overlap or transition from one to the other, where there are special circumstances, or where there are partnerships or agreements that may not fit existing Official Plan designations but require special treatment. We realize that the City is trying to regularize and standardize to the extent possible, and commend this objective, but we also believe that there are special situations that arise in the Capital on a regular basis that require flexibility from a range of stakeholders.

Response:

Policy text revised to allow for flexibility to address special or unforeseen circumstances.

Comment:

Section 1.2: Intent

We note, in the final paragraph of this section, that this policy does not apply to federal, provincial and greenbelt area roadways. For the Greenbelt in particular, the NCC strives to create a unique setting and ambiance characteristic of a rural area. We recognize that major arterials pass through the Greenbelt, and are encouraged to see your reference to project-specific reviews of proposed roads and lighting schemes. In this respect, and in giving effect to the urban/rural transition and illumination levels referenced in sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5, special regard should be given to these Greenbelt objectives, and wherever possible a shift from an “urban to rural” lighting setting as quickly as is safely possible should be fostered. We also wonder if the Central Experimental Farm could be regarded as a unique rural setting, albeit within the urban context, where a lower level of lighting, and transition lighting from adjacent arterial roadways, could be considered.

Response:

Policy text in Section 3.4 already identifies that roads through land under the control of the NCC and the MTO are subject to the lighting design requirements of those agencies. The text has been revised to also include more generally that all land under the control of Federal and Provincial governments is subject to other right-of-way lighting design requirements.

Comment:

Section 3.2: Special Areas

We are pleased to see identification of "special areas" where pedestrian level lighting would be allowed, and where metal halide ("white light") lamps would be used (as a superior light source to high-pressure sodium). In Section 3.2.1, we see the logic of these Special Areas from the Official Plan policy perspective. Would it be appropriate to add Confederation Boulevard or Federal Roads under the ownership of the NCC as an additional Special Area within the Central Area in 3.2.1iii.)? Regarding the last paragraph of 3.2, "when approved by Council.....without amendment to this Policy", this seems to leave the "door open" for the City to add things to their own policy. If a reference to Confederation Boulevard or Federal Roads were added to the preceding paragraph, the possibility of future federal options being included could also be possible.

Response:

Special Areas are rights-of-way in locations under the control of the City of Ottawa. The text in Section 3.4 has been revised to reflect that rights-of-way under Federal or Provincial control are to be lit on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the appropriate agencies.

Comment:

Section 3.4: Other Jurisdictions

This section further recognizes the jurisdiction and lighting policies of the NCC and other federal and provincial governments, departments or agencies. Our concern here is attempting to be exhaustive in listing these situations, and also providing a means for allowing new roads or cases to be included here, for example, as site-specific approvals involving federal-municipal lands or projects are granted in the future. The list that appears in this section should perhaps be written as a non-exclusive list or a list of main examples, as there may be changes to this list over time. Major roads such as Experimental Farm Drive and Lady Grey Drive should be added to the list. The sixth entry in the list just says 'parkways', which may be a typo. There are a number of minor roads within the City that are under the ownership of the NCC (Middle, Mill, Birch, Vimy, etc.) which are not on the list.

Response:

The text of section 3.4 has been revised to reflect that the list is partial and that other roads or areas under the jurisdiction of upper tier governments exist and are subject to the lighting requirements of those agencies.

Comment:

Confederation Boulevard is on this list, recognizing that there is a unique agreement and set of policies that govern Confederation Boulevard and which take precedence over this ROW policy. Perhaps more reference to OP policies and maps would reinforce this, such as OP Annex 9, Central Area Gateways, Nodes and Distinctive Streets or Policy excerpts from the OP consolidation (January 2007) Volume 1, Section 3.6.6, policies 2 and 7, referencing important considerations such as heritage, unique identity, view sequences, linking points of political, cultural, historic and architectural importance.

Response:

Changes to this section are not recommended. The policies and design requirements that will influence future lighting design on all rights-of-way excepted from the policy will be identified and considered appropriately at the time lighting design commences through that design process. In this way the most current and relevant influences on lighting design can be considered when the lighting design occurs.

Comment:

There are other roads and bridges where special agreements exist that govern the provision of lighting, including the Mackenzie King Bridge and the Airport Parkway. In other locations, such as Prince of Wales Drive, a special situation exists where a section of Prince of Wales connects two parkways (QE and Experimental Farm Drives), and ornamental lighting already exists. Should this section of Prince of Wales be included in a Special Area due to its character and function? Could the Special Area list or criteria be somewhat flexible, or perhaps a schedule could be attached to the policy, to which additional existing situations outside of your list, or future situations that are considered special or subject to specific agreements could be added ? Perhaps the City would like to add a statement referring to how it enters or might enter into negotiations and agreements with other parties such as the NCC, and how context-specific lighting specifications or undertakings could thus be developed.

Response:

All roads excepted from the Policy in Section 3.4 are subject to the lighting design requirements of the relevant agency. The text of this section has been changed so that it is a partial list and that all such rights-of-way are to be lit on a case by case basis in consultation with relevant agencies.

Comment:

Where developments occur on lands abutting certain federal holdings, such as parkways, recreational pathways, intersections of pathways and municipal infrastructure, bridge crossings etc., the NCC will be implicated in a range of land use and design approvals in many instances. These give rise to situations where the City's lighting policy document could allow for the resulting recommendations from NCC's approval processes to be implemented, if they are over and above what these standard specs are, without an amendment to this policy? This recognizes that such recommendations may have more to do with aesthetics than illumination levels.

Response:

The text changes made to section 1.2 will allow the City to respond appropriately to special lighting design input not foreseen in the Policy.

Comment:

Other Considerations

The intersection of NCC and federal roads and rights-of-way may require transition level requirements to vary from the guidelines in the TAC Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting. They may require lighting fixtures, lamps and reflectors, as well as lamp post placement, to vary from normal standards. Merivale Road north of the Queensway (connecting to Island Park Drive) is a good example, and it would be better to light this short section according to NCC standards.

Response:

The text changes made to section 1.2 will allow the City to respond appropriately to special lighting design input not foreseen in the Policy.

Comment:

Federal facilities may have security lighting requirements that could lead to requests to vary or alter the lamps, fixtures, placement or intensity of light on public rights-of-way. Your policy could reference the appropriate IESNA guidelines - G-1-03 “Guideline on Security Lighting for People, Property, and Public Spaces”.

Response:

The text changes made to section 1.2 will allow the City to respond appropriately to special lighting design input not foreseen in the Policy.

Comment:

Lighting near airports must comply with the Aeronautics Act and its regulations.

Response:

A new section has been added to the policy to clarify this requirement.

Comment:

There may be requirements for lighting to be reduced or modified in order to avoid adverse effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat, on nearby federal lands. For example, should evidence be found that lighting negatively affects fish hatching areas or bird migration routes, there may be situations where conditions for modified lighting approaches would be appropriate.

Response:

The Policy has been revised to address mitigating the potential effect of light on wildlife in proximity to Urban Natural Features Areas. To address specific circumstances, the NCC and other agencies would have opportunity for input to road lighting design through the road design Environmental Assessment process.

v) Comment (public):

Having lived in Ottawa and still paying federal taxes remotely for its upkeep, I welcome the opportunity to see Ottawa and its environs become a dark sky friendly region in which the beauty and grandeur of the night sky can be enjoyed by all of its citizens. It is important that Ottawa gets it right since the resultant policy and bylaws will become a valuable template for the rest of the Canada and whole world.

I've read the draft Ottawa Right-of-Way Lighting Policy - http://www.ottawastreetlighting.ca/ , and I see it as a step in the right direction.

But there are some areas which have not been adequately addressed, such as:
 - showing the impact of light pollution on human health and their circadian rhythms,
 - showing the impact of light pollution on wildlife in the urban forests, near the highways and streets and the residential areas,
 - encouraging minimal wattage, motion-sensing, curfews and turning off lights when they are not needed,
- explaining clearly that any light shone upwards or horizontally resulting in sky glow, is wasted energy and is a major cost saving if it is mitigated.
- strongly deprecating the use of globes which are essentially glare bombs,
- providing guidance to show how existing fixtures can be replaced with dark sky friendly fixtures such as sharp cutoff light fixtures.
- providing in the policy that the light trespass, glare, and its concomitant sky glow are considered under the city's nuisance laws for which the perpetrators can be fined
- including and making use of additional international references from CIE in which Canada is a participating member, as well as IDA
- preventing the use of electronic or lighted billboards along the highways, roads and streets which can be a safety hazard and a source of light pollution

http://www.darkskysociety.org/handouts/idacodehandbook.pdf
IDA handbook
<!--[endif]-->

CIE S 016/E:2005, Lighting of Outdoor Work Places
- Lighting Requirements for Safety and Security 

CIE S 015/E:2005,   Lighting of Outdoor Work Places

CIE 126 – 1997  Tech.  Report. – Guidelines for Minimizing Sky Glow, ISBN 3 900 734 83 6  

CIE 150:2003  Tech. Report. – Guide On the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations

CIE 112 – 1994, Tech. Report. - Glare Evaluation System for Use within Outdoor Sports and Area Lighting

http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/browsePublisher?publisher_id=60 Source CIE standards documents and reports

Attached are some useful references in dealing with the mitigation of light pollution in Ottawa.

Response:

Carrying out detailed research on the impact of light on human health was not part of the mandate of the study as approved by Council. However, reducing light trespass (light spillage) onto adjacent properties was a consideration in selection of all lighting equipment styles in the policy. Use of full cut-off luminaires and lighting at one-half the IES recommended light levels is proposed for all new residential area lighting designs. This will reduce the amount of light from streetlights entering adjacent residences. A new section was added to the draft policy dealing with the effect of light on trees and wildlife. The policy encourages use of lower wattages in lighting design. Use of smart lighting systems was reviewed but not recommended for use in the City at this time. Globe lights are not part of the approved lighting equipment in the new policy. Use of full cut-off fixtures, depending on the street being lit, will be used for future relighting projects. Light trespass, glare, and sky glow are not proposed to be regulated by by-law given that this policy deals only with public rights-of-way. Illuminated signs are regulated under the City’s Signs By-law.

LIGHTING INSTALLATION FLOW CHART Document 4