1. Produce suggestions about policy changes and introduce new ideas;
2. Receive items from city council for review and input; and
3. Act as a contact point for the public to bring forward their ideas and concerns.

The first role has been in full force during my experience. Committee members work with city staff to produce reports that reflect the desired outcome of the concept along with any restrictions of existing legislation at all levels of government. Much of our collaboration with staff have resulted in stronger ideas being put forward, and even strengthening existing programs that were in need of review.

The third role has been used effectively to introduce ideas such as joining the Compact of Mayors and establishing London as a Blue Community, which have been accepted by city council to varying degrees.

Unfortunately, in the over eight years that I’ve been serving on advisory committees, never has the second role taken place. City councillors can’t possibly have both breadth and depth of knowledge to address all of the issues faced by modern society. Having advisory committees act as a resource for knowledge about a diversity of topics is a boon to how a city acts and operates. Council needs to make better use of advisory committees as such. These committees are not deterrents to how decisions get made: in my experience, ideas put forward by advisory committees are taken seriously and considered by councillors. While not every concept gets accepted in the end, the fact that citizen advisors are able to have input into the direction of city policy means we have a strong democracy.

A very recent example of advisory committees going underutilized was at Tuesday’s council meeting. The recommendation was put forward (and ultimately failed) to change the tree preservation bylaw, in an effort to increase conservation of our urban forest by requiring a permit for cutting down trees of diameter 40 cm or larger instead of the current 50 cm minimum. The Trees & Forests Advisory Committee was not even consulted on this. Had they been, perhaps the experts on that committee would have given their insight and aided staff in producing a business case for the change.

There are many problems with the proposed new framework for advisory committees. While I could comment on all of them, I will instead focus on the two committees that I work on: Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) and London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH).

ACE

The proposal is to combine the current ACE with the Trees & Forest Advisory Committee (TFAC), and rename it to deal with “climate change” shows how those involved in this reformation process do not understand what these committees do. We are (supposedly) “The Forest City” – wouldn’t we want to ensure our city can proudly live up to that moniker? London is sadly underforested and would benefit from TFAC continuing as its own entity.

Adding trees to the ACE mandate would make the committee quite unwieldy: ACE already deals with how to protect the natural environment (pollution of the water, air, & ground; species at risk; impacts on nature and human health) and the built environment (sustainable development; renewable energy; impacts of active transportation and transit), on top of the climate emergency. As it is, ACE should perhaps be split into two separate committees!

Combining these two committees would be like combining the Ministry of the Environment with the Ministry of Natural Resources. It sounds like they deal with the same thing on the surface, where the mandates and city departments connected are a lot more diverse.

LACH

We have a similar nonsensical combination with LACH and the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC), and turning it into a planning advisory committee. LACH already has agendas that can reach upwards of 700 pages, and is required by provincial law to provide advice on heritage issues. It also has a massive mandate and doesn’t need anything further to dilute the focus of the committee.

If there is a feeling that AAC isn’t being effective, it may find a better home with another committee that deals with planning issues, or needs a broader mandate.

A dry spell

All of this is also occurring during a global pandemic, which has prevented the majority of the committees from meeting starting mid-March. It wasn’t until August when LACH started meeting again, and that was only because there were legislative items that required addressing. Why weren’t all of the other committees asked to start meeting again in September? October? Now that we know how to run digital meetings, it should be easy enough to allow anybody to join the committee meetings.

Having digital capacity should also allow for more participation across our community. It removes the undue burden of requiring physical attendance, which presents a problem for many with mobility issues, lack of transportation options, or caregiver responsibilities.

While a review is welcome and needed on occasion, it has to be done with thoughtfulness toward consideration for how to best engage citizens and produce appropriate policy for our city. Let’s make sure we don’t end up losing out in a blind attempt to save a few pennies.

—
This article is also featured as part of the Urban League of London’s series on reforms to London’s advisory committees.

https://www.urbanleague.ca/new-blog/2020/11/29/importance-of-advisory-committees-in-local-decision-making

Aside from firsthand experience with how thing get done at City Hall, working with fellow citizens on ACE has given me the opportunity to put forward ideas for improving our city’s environmental performance with my committee colleagues. One of these proposals that we have been working on has much promise and deserves implementation: a Property Assessment for Clean Energy (PACE) program.

Here’s how it works: property owners make energy improvements to their homes or buildings. This may include installing high-efficiency furnaces and water heaters, replacement (for vinyl) and repairs (for wooden)  to windows and doors, renewable heating such as solar thermal and geothermal, solar electricity, grey-water recovery systems, and other energy- or water-saving technologies. Rather than paying the cost of these improvements up front, property owners would pay for them over several years in installments added to their property tax assessment, using the Local Improvement Charge (LIC) provisions.

There are several benefits. By making our houses more energy efficient, we reduce carbon emissions that are contributing to climate change. Property owners who participate save money on utility bills, since they are using less energy. The money they save goes toward paying the loan back, and what remains left over can be spent in the local economy.

Energy improvements are beneficial, and they can have high upfront costs. A PACE program will put these kinds of improvements within reach for families with a wider range of incomes, allowing them to save money and lower their carbon footprint as well.

Another upside to PACE is that even if a family plans to sell their home within a few years, energy improvements still make sense. The new furnace, windows, insulation, or other improvements stay with the home and continue generating savings for the new owner. The cost also stays with the property, and the new owners who are seeing the benefits of a more energy-efficient home continue to pay for the improvements on their property tax assessment until they are paid for.

The other part of this win-win-win situation is economic stimulus.  There will be many local jobs created for the vendors and installers of qualifying equipment, which means the money being spent by property owners will go to companies in London to employ workers living in the city. It would also be revenue neutral for the City of London, and could be done in conjunction with some of London Hydro’s existing promotions.

The City of London has been working with a number of other Ontario municipalities to make a framework for cities to follow. Toronto has a successful program called Home Energy Loan Program, or HELP, that could be easily adapted across the province – including here in London.

I have championed a PACE program at the Advisory Committee on the Environment and will continue to do so on City Council. It makes sense to provide Londoners with easier ways to improve energy efficiency at their homes and businesses, and to create a stable environment for employment in this sector. We can help people save money, create jobs, and make London an environmental leader at all at the same time.

On Tuesday, the Civic Works Committee voted to move ahead with an environmental action plan that includes curbside organic waste pickup – essentially, paving the way for green bins. It’s wonderful to see the city finally move forward on organic waste diversion after more than a decade of stalling and even moving backwards on the issue.

London is the only major city in Ontario without a green bin program, and as a result we are still mired in the mid-40s for percentage of waste diverted from the garbage dump. We can’t meet the provincial target of 60% waste diversion from landfills without addressing organic trash. There is another reason for urgency.  London’s landfill site, W12A, is only expected to meet the city’s needs for a little more than 10 years. It’s already the size of 190 football fields. Improving waste diversion will help that space last longer and reduce (or potentially avoid) the cost of land expansion.

It’s difficult to understand the delay. The City began requiring big festivals in Victoria Park (such as SunFest and Rib Fest) to also separate organic waste at EcoStations in 2007. It was a great way to make our festivals greener while getting Londoners ready to sort food waste at home. Unfortunately, the City stopped that requirement in 2014 and Home County was the only festival to continue with EcoStations that year. A Green Bin pilot project was also completed in 2012, but hasn’t progressed to citywide policy until now.

I am glad to see the current council moving forward with green bins and I looking forward to supporting them when the next stage of this implementation plan comes before the next council; however, we need to make sure we aren’t continuing to miss opportunities for effectively dealing with waste in London.

So far, the 60% Residential Waste Diversion plan only includes a firm commitment for what it calls a “Curbside Green Bin Program”. For the most part, that means single-family dwellings only. While the plan does call for a pilot for multi-residential homes (mainly apartment buildings), we’ve seen how long it can take for waste diversion pilots in London to result in real action after wallowing in the “pilot” phase.

Pick-up from apartments should be built into the plan from the beginning. It’s simpler that many might think. While many buildings, especially older ones, only have a single-stream garbage chute, residents have adapted to carrying recyclables down to a central location for sorting and pickup. Chutes could be easily converted to organic waste only. If all of the messy, smelly garbage is going in the green bins (including food waste, pet waste, diapers), what’s left is dry, non-messy garbage that could be carried out like the recycling with very little additional effort. Once we have collection of residential organic waste set up, then the city needs to expand the program to cover commercial and institutional disposal.  Our long-term vision as a city must be set to zero waste, with a stated goal: 2050 is certainly achievable in my estimation.

Another necessary part of making organic pickup work is enforcing the required sorting. London must make clear garbage bags mandatory for the remaining dry garbage, so any organic material that doesn’t belong can easily be seen. Cities like Markham and Guelph have had success with this strategy, that makes it clear to residents sorting is not optional. It also lets collectors spot refuse such as hazardous household waste, construction waste, and electronic waste that need to be taking to proper disposal facilities and not disposed of for curbside collection.

Finally, we need a definitive plan for where London’s organic waste will be sorted. Those who live near the private processing facilities in the region have reasonably expressed concerns about odour pollution. We either need a commitment from one of these facilities to make upgrades that reduce contamination and escaping odours before being awarded a contract for London’s organic waste, or we need a plan to build a top-grade municipally owned facility that could also take in waste from other municipalities.

The actions in the 60% Residential Waste Diversion plan are to be phased in between 2019 and 2022. Let’s begin working on these implementation issues now, and ensure that this program can hit the ground running. On council, I assure you I will be taking action that leads the City toward a robust and successful waste plan.

• improve our local economy by getting more people to more places quicker and easier;
• be better for the environment by reducing the number of single-occupied vehicles and directing higher-density development along transit routes; and
• enhance our social lives by giving us more time with the people we love. 

Lately in London, we have had quite the opposite, from the demolition of 505/507/511 Talbot Street to make way for another uninspired concrete monolith (think of the hideous Renaissance towers on Ridout Street North between King Street and York Street) to the pending destruction of 175/179/181 King Street (although thankfully 183 King Street will remain) for another 30-storey tower.

Now don’t get me wrong: we need a proper mix of high-rises, mid-rises, and low-rises in the downtown.  New buildings are always going to be required to regenerate and grow a city.  Making them the right density in the right locations builds a city inwards and upwards, which is what is needed instead of outwards and sprawling.  Urban infill is a good thing and a necessity; however, it has to be done with consideration for the existing built environment and adaptive reuse in the forefront, not as an afterthought.

Camden Terrace (479 to 489 Talbot Street) is under threat of complete demolition.
These row houses have a significant and rare form and style, designed by the renowned London architect Samuel Peters (click for short video on Peters and Camden Terrace).  This brilliant gem in our downtown core tells the story of how our city grew and evolved, and warrants a respectful integration with this infill development.  Instead, the developer prefers to tear the building down to make way for a 9-storey mixed commercial/residential building as the first phase, with plans for two towers (also mixed use) on the north (29 storeys) and south (38 storeys) as the second phase.  Plans also show a three-storey parking garage in the back.

I am a fan of the mixed use: it is ideal for a city where we want people to work and play all within walking distance of their home, which has huge benefits economically, socially, and environmentally.  The design of the nine-storey first phase can easily integrate the entirety of the original row houses, with appropriate modifications to permit the desired entranceway as proposed in the designs.

The London Plan aspires for no more aboveground parking, and rightly so:  parking in the inner core start to disappear with driverless cars and rapid transit, and therefore the people who are living and working downtown are less likely to own a vehicle.  The proposal has four levels of underground parking and three levels of aboveground.  In reality, the aboveground parking will become obsolete in the very near future and would be better use of space to expand the nine-storey construction: this keeps the nine-storey portion virtually unchanged (or potentially larger) and allows room for Camden Terrace to remain. Talk about win-win! The investment for the developer and the city will be huge if all phases are built: don’t we want this done right for ourselves and for future generations?

Adaptive reuse has become prominent recently with the Cornerstone Building, the London Roundhouse, The Cube, and many more.  Not only does it maintain a city’s character, it is also easier on the environment by not sending tonnes upon tonnes of building materials into an already-strained landfill site.  

Camden Terrace must be given designation and maintained in situ, as any needed changes to the buildings can be considered through a heritage alteration permit.  In fact, the London Roundhouse remains in place and will have a tower built behind it: why can’t we do the same here?

Heritage needs to have a voice at the table, and be included from the beginning of projects impacting our shared historical buildings.  A mature city values its heritage.  Other mid-sized cities in Ontario have been willing and able to push the creative inclusion of heritage buildings into new developments of various size:  isn’t London good enough to have the same?  Shouldn’t we demand better for ourselves?