Risk Analysis:

Option #1: Do Nothing

Though insignificant in value as there would be no operational increases, the likelihood of a reputational risk to the City is more probable by weakening the best practices for lighting found in LISS as passed by Council (CR228/2005). This would impact the ability to require Full Cut-Off lighting through planning applications such as Site Plan Control. The distraction of the lights will continue through the glare they create resulting in the possible health and safety risk by people and drivers being distracted and/or temporarily blinded by the intense lights being shone directly into their eyes. Even though the perceived intent is to reduce health and safety risks, these lights create a risk to pedestrians caused by the light sources being directed into people’s eyes reducing their ability to discern details of any criminal activity, or their vulnerability.

Option #2: Regulation

Through regulation of nuisance lighting, there is a greater probability and diversity of risk to be incurred by the City and the public. Instances where property owners will push the envelope will result in legal disputes based on the type of lights that are being used. Additionally, the City could inadvertently be drawn into neighbour-to-neighbour disputes between two property owners.

Consequences would include minor to moderate financial risks to the corporation as result of complaint driven routine evening inspections by Enforcement staff, requiring overtime staffing costs. Additional monitoring would effectively create a moderate operational risk through routine increases in enforcement staff hours and ongoing specialized training to ensure that recommendations for mitigated measures are appropriate.

Business owners who have installed light fixtures already will not necessarily be required to remove them; however, they will be required to bring those into compliance, which will add financial burdens upon them. Any regulation will also be regarded as bureaucracy and additional costs to business owners, creating a minor reputational risk to the corporation. Conversely, this would help address comments from BIAs that the City is willing to work with them to achieve a mutual agreement.

Public health and safety consequence will remain as demonstrated in photos that even with shielding some existing lights can create glare issues and coloured lighting does not allow clear visibility for Police and CPTED.

Option #3: Prohibition

This option provides the least risk to the City however there will be instances that will be disputed, but it is anticipated that prohibition through a By-law would benefit the city.

Consequences to the City would also be minimal financially, as this is a prohibition and as identified in the Financial Section of this report would involve the least impact on operational budgets. Permits for temporary uses as identified in the exemption clauses could also facilitate offsets to any financial costs that may be incurred for training staff.