Open Council

The 10th Meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee

Open Council

The 10th Meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee

August 23, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 4:02 PM; it being noted that the following Members were in remote attendance: Councillors J. Helmer, S. Hillier and M. Salih.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Hillier disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 5.1 of this Report, having to do with the Deferred Matters List, specifically item number 1 on the list, by indicating that his family hosts a five day event.

2.   Consent

Moved by M. Salih

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Items 2.1 to 2.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   2nd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

2022-07-28 ACAC Report

Moved by M. Salih

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 2nd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on July 28, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

2022-08-04 AWCAC Report

Moved by M. Salih

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on August 4, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   Information Report on Line of Sight for the Emergency Communications System

2022-08-23 SR Information Report on the Line of Sight for the Emergency Communications System

Moved by M. Salih

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, the staff report dated August 23, 2022, with respect to information on Line of Sight for the Emergency Communications System, BE RECEIVED. (2022-P16)

Motion Passed

2.4   Occupant Noise Enforcement - Pilot Project

2022-08-23 SR - Occupant Noise By-Law Enforcement- Pilot Project

Moved by M. Salih

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report dated August 23, 2022, with respect to an Occupant Noise Enforcement Pilot Project, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from M. Temme, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-P01)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Adult Live Entertainment Parlour - Relocation Request (from 2010 Dundas Street to 238 Dundas Street)

2022-08-23 SR Adult Live Entertainment Parlour - Relocation Request to 238 Dundas - Full

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 23, 2022, related to an application made under the Business Licensing By-law L.-131-16 (the By-law) to substitute an existing Adult Live Entertainment Parlour location at 2010 Dundas Street to a proposed new location at 238 Dundas Street:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the request to transfer the adult entertainment license from 2010 Dundas Street to 238 Dundas Street BE DENIED; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the necessary steps to allow Municipal Council to consider the deletion of the license from 2010 Dundas Street and hold a public participation meeting at the October 4, 2022 Community and Protective Services Committee meeting with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    C. Pugh Roberts;

  •    T. Gray;

  •    M. Post, Attic Books;

  •    E. Moriarty;

  •    S. Chodis;

  •    J. Bancroft-Snell;

  •    E. Tony;

  •    O. Pizyo;

  •    D. Stambler – see attached;

  •    K. Morris, London Abused Women’s Centre; and,

  •    K. McCandles;

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from H. Minogue, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-P09)

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve parts a) and b) of the clause.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve part c) of the clause.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by M. Hamou

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by M. Hamou

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   Adult Entertainment Body-Rub Parlour - Relocation Request (from 802 Exeter Road to 232 Dundas Street)

2022-08-23 SR Adult Entertainment Body-Rub Parlour - Relocation Request to 232 Dundas - Full

The following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 23, 2022, related to an application made under the Business Licensing By-law L.-131-16 to substitute an existing Adult Entertainment Body-rub Parlour location at 802 Exeter Road to a proposed new location at 232 Dundas Street,

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the request to transfer the adult entertainment body-rub parlour license from 802 Exeter Road to 232 Dundas Street BE DENIED;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    S. Keyes, representing the applicant;

  •    S. Centen, Ambiance Spa;

  •    S. Chodis;

  •    E. Moriarty;

  •    M. Post, Attic Books;

  •    J. Bancroft-Snell;

  •    D. Slansky, Ambiance Spa;

  •    J. Bolschetschenko, Ambiance Spa;

  •    S. Komaromi;

  •    M. Williams;

  •    O. Pizyo;

  •    D. Stambler – see attached;

  •    K. Morris, London Abused Women’s Centre;

  •    K. McCandles; and,

  •    E. Tony;

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from H. Minogue, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-P09)

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by M. Hamou

Motion to approve part a) of the clause.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by M. Hamou

Motion to approve part b) of the clause.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

CPSC DEFERRED MATTERS as at August 15, 2022

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at August 15, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by M. Hamou

Motion to receive the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at August 15, 2022, with the exception of Item Number 1.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by M. Cassidy

Motion to receive Item Number 1 on the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at August 15, 2022.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:42 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (2 hours, 58 minutes)

[1:02] Sound test from Committee Room 5. Sounds good from Chambers. Sounds good remote. Sound test from Room 1.

[12:48] Sounds good from Chambers. Sounds good. Also tell you, John, that I accidentally muted the chambers. Okay. Okay, it’s 402.

[18:17] So we will get this party started. I will start by saying that we acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwok, and Adwondron peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all the treaties that are specific to this area. The two row wampum belt of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, silver covenant chain, the beaver hunting grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nanfan Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Tract Treaty of 1827 with the Anishnabek and the dish with one spoon covenant wampum of the Anishnabek and Haudenosaunee.

[19:06] The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. From everybody, I will also let you know that the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings and information upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact CPSC@london.ca or 519-661-2489 Extension-2425.

[19:50] Now I will begin by checking with committee members to see if there are any disclosures of conflict. I will go to you, Councillor Hillier. Yes, 5.1 to four matters list number one. I need to recuse myself ‘cause my family puts on events in the park. Thank you, Councillor, anybody else? Seeing none, I will continue with the consent items. There are four items on the consent agenda. Any item to be pulled by members of committee? I see Councillor Salih has your hand up.

[20:26] Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, Madam Chair. Not to pull anything, but I just want to speak on 2.4. So happy to move a motion for the bounce. Sorry, the entire consent items. Okay, and I see that Councillor Hillier is seconding the motion for all the consent items. And I have not seen anyone else pull anything. So I’ll go to you, Councillor Salih, for comment on 2.4. Thank you, Chair. So I’m really happy to see this come forward. I know back in 2015, myself along with Council pushed to have policing kind of take a pause on the noise complaints and them responding to that ‘cause obviously this is tied with resources.

[21:07] And if we were to calculate the dollars, it’s significant. So I think this pilot is a step in the right direction. I mean, if it was up to me today, I would move a little bit more aggressively and just implement it and look for it to be fully funded. But I’m happy with this. So happy to support it at this time. But hopefully the future Council will take more long-term solution to this and remove the responsibility from policing because I think it’s a ties up resources and it’s better, better operationally to have the city deal with these issues. Thank you.

[21:40] Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Humming. Thank you, Chair. And my, I have some questions actually about 2.4. But first I’d like to say I echo Councillor Solis’s comments and I think this is a really good step in the right direction. What’s the current penalty for sound violations and how many have we raised in the past year through you? Through the Chair for an AMP for a sound bylaw violation is $175.

[22:16] And the penalty for a nuisance bylaw violation ranges from $500 to $1,000. And in 2021, bylaw officers issued 77 of these penalties totaling $38,000 in AMP penalties. Thank you. And through the Chair again, do you anticipate a faster response time for the noise complaints? Yes, through the Chair. In discussions with London Police, there are numerous noise complaints calls for service, which have not been attended to, simply because the volume of more serious calls for service of a criminal nature are of a higher priority.

[23:01] So in speaking with the police, we anticipate a higher response rate because the pilot project really focuses on a unique job description where the officers will focus solely on sound bylaw violations and parking violations. And the fact is that the calls for service for these two bylaws are offsetting. So when calls for service for noise complaints are high, parking calls for service are low and vice versa. Councillor?

[23:35] Thank you. It’s a concern for my neighborhood in Old North where we have lots of noise complaints between September and April. And so I really appreciate this pilot project coming forward. I’m aware that we’ll also be partnering with LPS. On St. Patrick’s Day in FOCO and whatnot, do you think we could do blitzes if this works, this pilot project works so that we can possibly make up the money for the officers that we have, Mr. Catullick?

[24:13] Through the chair, we will continue to work with London Police Service on high priority events such as FOCO, HOCO, Halloween, St. Patrick’s Day, Fresh Week, so we anticipate that there will be specific proactive enforcement occurring during that period. And in terms of blitzes, what this will allow us to do is free some of the MLEOs work that currently do noise enforcement on Friday evenings and Saturday evenings to undertake blitzes of specific bylaws that are property related.

[24:49] And I could advise committee that we have already begun some of these smaller blitzes within the community based on discussions with counselors. Councilor? Thank you, that’s all for me. And Mr. Catullick, we do have some people in the gallery which is lovely to see, it’s the first time for this committee that we’ve had people in person. But just for the benefit of the people, can you explain what AMPS stands for and how it might also add efficiencies? Yeah, certainly, through the chair, AMPS are administrative monetary penalties.

[25:24] So they are very similar to what publicly is known as a ticket. And the benefit of AMPS is that AMPS provide for a variety of different forms of service. So for example, to serve somebody with a ticket, the bylaw officer has to serve that person in person that violated a bylaw with AMPS, which has allowed Ontario municipalities to better efficiently run an enforcement agency. Service can be provided by mail, by fax, by email, and also in in person.

[26:04] So since we began the AMPS program approximately two years ago, we have found huge efficiencies in service of penalties, specifically to those who reside outside of the city limits and outside of the province as well. Thank you, Mr. Catullick. Just a reminder to people that are connecting virtually, if you could please mute yourself so that we don’t have any background noise. Thank you for that.

[26:36] Any other comments? Councillor Fife Miller? Thank you, Chair. And through you, just a staff on the 2700 noise complaints, when we do this, is this based on just properties, or is this based on properties and, for instance, vehicles that are driving that are noisy? Mr. Catullick. Through the chair, the 2700 complaints is what annually the police receive. Our plan is to focus on properties, because we have no jurisdiction in actually pulling over a vehicle to address a noise complaint.

[27:18] However, in saying so, if there are vehicles that are creating a noise issue in a static position, so, for example, in a parking lot, revving their engines, squealing their tires, and they are static, we can certainly address that issue through the sound by-law and the issuance of amps. Wonderful, thank you for that. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for giving me an opportunity to speak at your committee. I also want to touch briefly on 2.4.

[27:54] I’m very, very excited that this is coming forward, like Councillor Himu, particularly in the fall. My ward experiences, and I’m sure Councillor Salise does as well, a number of noise complaints as new residents are arriving in certain parts of the ward. But it’s not just at that time of year, and many of the times when residents have called LPS, they have been told that the call volumes are just such that no one is going to get there until the next day, and the reality is the noise will be gone by then. This is a really good step forward.

[28:29] I shared the media story last week on this through my social media accounts, and I’ll tell you, the community response has been absolutely overwhelmingly positive and in support of this. Like Councillor Salise, I’d be prepared to go right to ramping this up to full speed, but I realized that we need to do a pilot project to make sure that the integration of dispatch is coordinated, that the staffing levels are going to be able to meet the requirements, and so I appreciate that we’ve got this as a pilot, and I hope that when we analyze the results, we are able to take this off.

[29:04] LPS is played completely, and free up their time to do the policing work that we need them to be doing. So I know that both Mr. Mathers and Mr. Catola have put in a great deal of work on this. I’ve had a chance to talk to him a couple of times as ideas have bounced back and forth, and I really appreciate that they’ve been able to bring this forward in a pretty quick manner to start to help to alleviate some workload on our police and address resident concerns. Thank you. Any other comments on the consent items? So I’ll just say briefly from the chair, if that’s okay.

[29:39] I also am pleased to see this. I’m a member of the Police Services Board. I don’t speak for the Board. Only the chair can speak on behalf of the Board, but I am aware of some of the challenges going on right now with London Police, with resources, and I know having done a ride along with a police officer, and I know many counselors do ride alongs now, and then just to understand the role and the complexities in policing in London right now. So I know the line, the queue that sits on the computer in every police officer’s car never gets down to zero.

[30:17] And there are certain items in the queue, such as noise complaints, that always stay at the bottom. And I know people get frustrated when they call police, and a police officer doesn’t show up sometimes for days. It’s because there are those high priority calls. There are many weapons calls going on in London, a lot of high criminal activity, and so the lower priority items like a noise complaint don’t tend to get addressed. So this will, having municipal by-law enforcement officers responding to these complaints, will free up police officer’s time, and actually, since they tend to often not be able to respond to these complaints, it might not free up a lot of their time, but at least these complaints will get addressed.

[31:10] And I like the integration of police dispatch to make sure that if it is a noise complaint, is there any criminal activity accompanying the noise complaint? And so therefore, in those situations, they would send a London police officer to address those concerns. So I’m happy to see this pilot project go forward, and anything that we can do to make city systems and London police systems more efficient is always greatly welcomed. So with that, double check again to see if there are any other comments or questions on any of the consent items I’m seeing none.

[31:45] They were moved and seconded, so I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Okay, been a while since we’ve had a public participation meeting, people in the gallery. So again, I’m really happy to see this.

[32:18] And that takes us to our scheduled items. 3.1 is, we are well on time. It’s a public participation meeting regarding adult live entertainment parlor relocation request from 2010 Dundas Street to 238 Dundas Street. And I will look for a motion first to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Hamou. I’ll call that vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero.

[33:07] So we do have a number of people online connecting via Zoom and we have a number of people in the gallery. So what I’m going to do is go to the people in the gallery first. If you would like to speak to this item, it is concerning the possible relocation, the request to relocate the adult live entertainment parlor from 2010 Dundas Street to 238 Dundas Street. So if you would like to speak to this matter, I invite you to go forward to one of the microphones.

[33:41] There are four of them in the gallery. I will recognize whoever gets there first. And then you will have up to five minutes. There’s no need to actually take the full five minutes, but you have up to five minutes to address the committee. If you could start with your name, I would appreciate that, go ahead. Hi, it’s Caroline Pugh Roberts and I am a survivor of the commercial sex industry of eight years. I am also a resident of this city and a voter. I also represent the coalition of Ontarians against commercial sex operators, which supports Canada’s existing prostitution and sex trafficking laws.

[34:24] The two applications before you today will out refer to this one initially. The granting of an adult massage parlor. This application must be rejected as they are in violation of the federal law that has been in fact since 2015. The law has criminalized four types of prostitution slash sex trafficking activities that are commonplace in commercial selling establishments. These criminal activities include the purchasing of sex services, the procuring AKA, the pimping of women for sexual services, the advertising of offers to provide sexual services to purchasers, and the operating of commercial establishments in which the operators receive financial benefits from the purchase of sexual services by Johns.

[35:16] That is clear in Bill C 36, all of that is illegal. I refer you also to Canada’s criminal code, specifically sections 286.1, two, three, and four. The penalties for the criminal activities which I have outlined for you are indictable offenses with maximum penalties of five to 10 or 14 years of imprisonment, and find starting at $500 depending on the violations of the sections I just told you. I also refer to Canada’s Department of Justice.

[35:51] In its explanation of the criminal code 286.2, it states, and I quote, “It is illegal to earn money by owning, managing, “or working for a commercial enterprise, “such as a strip club, massage parlor, or escort agency, “knowing that sexual services are purchased there. “Attached to my deputantation is the document “of Canada’s Department of Justice. “Their link to the site is also included. “As a London resident and voter, “I must ask you the following. “Why would you license a commercial selling establishment “when the law clearly states that it’s illegal?

[36:29] “For anyone to own and manage or work in them. “Do you realize that by granting licenses “to commercial sex selling operators, “you are in effect, aiding and abetting them “in the commission of these crimes? “Do you realize that your past decisions “to license them facilitated their success “in breaking the law through their financial, sexual, “and oftentimes violent exploitation of women? “And you should not, you should revisit and cancel “the adult entertainment body rub parlor licenses “that you granted in 2015. “I can hear your voices in my head and you’re asking.

[37:04] “Doesn’t the Municipal Act of Ontario, section 154, “that deals with the licensing of adult entertainment “and body rub parlors, AK Robin Tugs, “because I’m gonna call them what they are? “Give us the authority to license these establishments. “Yes, it does. “However, section 154 became outdated “when the new federal law came into effect in 2015. “Our position is that section 154 must be scrapped “in order to bring a province-wide end “to municipal practices of licensed criminals “who exploit women.

[37:38] “Be advised that our coalition is requesting the province “through the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario “to table legislation in the legislator to that effect. “In closing, I ask that the application be denied. “I can tell you, as the survivor of eight years “through the sex industry and having been trafficked “through them, that historically these Robin Tugs, “if a woman is five minutes late, it’s $100 fine. “If she falls asleep on shift, it’s $100 fine.” By the end of the month, she owes them money and is then being human trafficked.

[38:11] Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Roberts. I’m gonna go over to this microphone here. Go ahead and please state your name and then we will have five minutes. Thank you, so Thomas Gray in reference to agenda item 3.1, speaking on behalf of Kelly Roy and Beverly Gray of Mums Entertainment. In February 2022, myself and my friend, Beverly Gray, were approached by the owner of Lavish London to offer some help. Little did we know how our lives would transform. Bev and I noticed that Lavish was hit hard by the pandemic and wanted more than anything to see this amazing, queer safe space to stay open and growing.

[38:48] Our reason was selfish. We are parents of queer kids and we want to ensure that our kids always have a place to celebrate themselves, to celebrate their life, their love and their creativity. So we asked if we could help organized drag shows that would continue to help the business grow. We had no idea of the uphill battle this would be. Right away, we saw the challenges that Lavish was facing. Dundas was being morphed into a beautiful outdoor pedestrian friendly environment, but it was missing the pedestrians. There is little to no parking on Dundas Street.

[39:22] The street is closed many evenings regardless of whether or not events are happening in the area and those experiencing homelessness, food insecurity and so on are everywhere searching for a place to rest their heads. So how do you bring people into an area in the evening when there are so many obstacles to doing so? You work to create the best entertainment possible while maintaining the focus on LGBTQ2S+ inclusion. This form of entertainment can take many forms and assumptions have been made that are not completely accurate. Bev and I have worked with an amazingly talented group of burlesque performers that brought their act to lavish from Niagara Falls for one evening.

[40:03] This was challenging in itself because we had to ensure we were working within the current parameters of what the venue was permitted to have as a form of entertainment. Even our local drag performers have to be reminded to limit their creativity, to respect the prescribed boundaries. But why can’t we deliver a beautiful full burlesque performance and/or drag themed burlesque performance? Why can’t we support our LGBTQ2S+ community by giving them the entertainment that any other resident of London is able to see when they go to specific venues in town?

[40:39] An adult entertainment license at lavish nightclub does nothing more than equal the playing field. It allows lavish to compete in a market that has been hit harshly by the pandemic and the city’s repurposing of the area. It allows for lavish to respectfully entertain its customers who choose to attend and support lavish. Grounding the license would demonstrate that London is progressive enough to evolve with the ever-changing landscape and population of the city. Bringing customers to the downtown call takes innovation. The growth of lavish’s entertainment portfolio is part of that innovation that is so desperately needed to grow the area and support the community we live, work, and celebrate in.

[41:21] I look forward to bringing amazing performers to our beautiful inclusive space, which is lavish nightclub, a venue where all are welcome. So now on behalf of the owners of lavish, as a business lavish supports the transfer of the license to the address of 238 Dundust Street, as it has been well documented in our local media outlets, lavish has no intention of using this license for anything other than entertainment purposes outside of the existing weekly programs. This license allows for our entertainers to exercise their creative freedom as members of the LGBTQ2S+ drag community seek to push the boundaries of their performances.

[42:01] It also allows for lavish to seek out performances that enhance what we offer to the community for entertainment. We understand that this is a unique situation and have read the definition of the license category to be very broad. If the city were to modify its license definitions to be more inclusive, we may be able to look at alternative license categories that better express our desires, but until council updates the definitions to better reflect the diversity of this community, this is our most accurate avenue to represent the venue and the performers within it.

[42:35] Now from myself, Thomas Gray, as a member of the LGBTQ2S+ community that frequently attends lavish is shows at the intentional safe space that was designed for members of the LGBTQ2S+ community, I urge the decision makers at this table to put aside any heteronormative bias that may unduly influence the decision making process as we consider this particular application for the transfer of the license. So two, sorry, I missed the address there, but it’s the three point one of the— 20 seconds left.

[43:07] The innovation lavish is seeking to introduce to their existing entertainment portfolio is about economic survival, as much as it is about embracing LGBTQ2S+ inclusion. It’s about making this intentional safe space economically viable for the members of our community who so desperately need a venue where they can safely be an outwardly express their true identity characteristics within the city of London. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Gray. I just want to remind people this is about item 3.1 on the agenda, just making sure we’re all on the same page and that is the relocation from 2010 to 238 Dundas and right now 238 Dundas is where the lavish nightclub is.

[43:54] Adjust for added help. When you’re a one minute from your five minutes, I will hold this up so I don’t have to interrupt you and then I will mention in the microphone when you have 30 seconds left. So whoever wants to go up to the microphone, if you could state your name and then you have five minutes. I’m Marvin Post from Attic Books and I’d like to address the confusion between 238 and 232 Dundas, both addresses are connected by someone named George Nicapolis who has keys to both.

[44:37] He owns the Paris pubs, which is the applicant for the transfer of the strip club license and from what I have seen, I don’t think it’s going to be a friendly strip club. It’s going to be a full out strip club that like the beef baron and solid gold, which is across the street. So we would have three adult entertainment locations within half a block and this is a red light district.

[45:15] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Post. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Council for allowing me to speak. My name is Elizabeth Moriarty and I am the owner of outsiders for a boutique located at 238 Dundas Street upper unit. This affects me as a new company and as someone that’s coming into the downtown core. Like so many Londoners, I have avoided the downtown because of the drugs, the crime, everything.

[45:50] Just today I almost got robbed. This is going to bring a whole host of problems to the location into Dundas. We, so much of the taxpayers money has gone into beautifying the Dundas and making it a family friendly place. Having a relocation of an adult entertainment center is going to bring more crime, more problems that an already overworked police force is facing. And as members of the downtown business community that we face every single day, people camping out on our streets, the drugs, walking down the street and being afraid that someone’s going to stop us with a dirty needle.

[46:34] These are the problems that we face as a downtown business community. We ask you to look at us, hear us, acknowledge us. We don’t want this. This is going to affect our branding. I’m not open yet and I almost pulled stakes because I found out in the worst possible way. I found out about the relocation of Lancaster Club into my building by one of the other business communities. I wasn’t given any notice. When I signed my lease, I wasn’t aware of this.

[47:08] London is not Amsterdam. London is not Paris. Those areas have their very own districts and away from the city core. Dundas should be a family environment where people gather. You grab your favorite lunch, you go to the secret gardens in the central library and you escape for a little while. It’s where dancing happens on the street on Friday nights. To Latin use a couple’s gather, children gather. And you want to turn it into a red light district? We can’t have this.

[47:41] Hear us. Hear the business community. We do not want this. Thank you for your time. Thank you Ms. Moriarri. I think you need to hear from people on Zoom as well. I will come to you on Zoom. But we do have some people in the gallery and I don’t know how long they, some people might have to leave before the meeting is over. So I’m going to let the people that are present talk first and then I will go to the people that are on Zoom.

[48:13] I have a list of names of people who have registered, excuse me, registered on Zoom. And I thank you for your patience, but I will get to you. Go ahead, ma’am. Thank you. My name is Sylvia Childis. I live at 82 Rideout Street South and I work on Dundas Street. Actually I work two jobs on Dundas Street. So Dundas Street is very close to my heart. I want to talk about two things today. The impact of this on the businesses on that block, of which we are one, and secondly, what is London’s vision for Dundas Place?

[48:52] So I work at 217 Dundas Street, basically across the street from these two properties. I know we’re speaking about one today, but I believe they can address them collectively. And we feel that this would negatively affect our business if these applications for adult entertainment on the block are approved. I also work on Dundas Street. My second job is as a tour guide from Museum London. I lead historic and heritage tours, architectural and art-based tours up and down Dundas Street. And I brag about how wonderful the history and heritage of Dundas Street is.

[49:30] It’s very close to my heart. And people in every tour group invariably ask, someone will ask, so what’s becoming of Dundas Street? How’s it coming along? And I tell them, be patient. It’s coming back. It’s on its way up. Now it’s a little bit on the downside, but it’s going to make its way back. We have wonderful galleries. We have ethnic restaurants. We have lavish, which is a great nightclub. We have London Public Library there. Everything’s a wonderful place to be.

[50:07] And I want to be able to continue to say that. By the way, I’m sure that lavish would do a fine job if they received this adult entertainment license. But the thing to remember, that’s red herring to me. The thing is that the license doesn’t go with lavish. As nice a job as you might, tasteful a job as you might do, the license goes with the building. And should lavish relocate in two years, five years, I understand that that building will remain licensed for a strip club. And who knows what might move in? So it’s a little disrespectful to the businesses to say that you’ll do a fine job, but that the future doesn’t matter.

[50:44] I just wanted to point that out. My second question is, what is our vision for Dundas Place? In what direction do we want Dundas Place to go? Not just now when it’s hard times, but in two years, five years, 10 years. Will increasing the adult entertainment component take us to where we want Dundas Place to be? And I don’t think so. I think we want a vibrant, attractive, welcoming space there, family-friendly.

[51:17] And we want to encourage people from all around London who currently won’t come downtown to give it a try. And for them, perception is everything. Perception is reality. And you can say, well, these businesses will operate at night, and that won’t interfere with the family-friendly nature of Dundas Place during the day. But the point is, optics count and perception counts. And if there are three adult entertainment establishments on a block, that is pretty much close to a red light district. I agree with you on that.

[51:54] So in closing, I just want to say that I think that we should elevate the profile of Dundas Place and make it a place that we can all be proud of. And no one can nitpick and say, well, I live in this suburb, and I’m not going to go downtown, because you know it’s that place where they have those. Perception is reality, it’s my point. And I think that we should have a downtown that everyone in London can be proud of. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Chilis. Wherever’s next? Jonathan Crossnell, I own a business on Dundas Street.

[52:32] And with regards to lavish, I think when Eddie opened lavish as LGBTQI-friendly space, he did a wonderful job. And I totally agree with the person who spoke earlier about the need for LGBTQIA-safe spaces. However, burlesque does not require a strip club license. I think as counselors, as you well know, there were eight strip club licenses in London, many of which were allowed to lapse, one of my friends actually who owned a business on Richmond Street purposely allowed his to lapse about 20 odd years ago.

[53:08] The reality is that burlesque does not require a strip club license. And the evolution of saying it’s for burlesque and then evolving into being a strip club, we’ve got one right across the street with solid gold. Another point that needs to be mentioned is that when solid gold was purchased— rather, when solid gold purchased the red lion and turned it into a strip club. The reason that the entrance to solid gold is on clearance is that London does not allow a strip club license to be on Dundas.

[53:49] Which means that the strip club license for lavish would have to then have an alternative entrance, the alternative entrance being at the back of the building. The back of the building is hardly a safe space in daylight, much less when people are exiting and entering at closing time. I totally agree that there is a need for safe LGBTQI spaces in London. There used to be five or six of them. But the reality is time’s changed. And the other reality is that to have a strip club, a rub and tug parlor, and another strip club within not even a block across the street from one another is sending the wrong message.

[54:30] In the block that between Clarence and Dundas currently, you have one of the top libraries. You have my gallery. You’ve got not just adult-friendly businesses. You have businesses that cater to a large number of children. At 242 Dundas, there is a Taikon Kondo thing where he’s doing all kinds of things frequently with children. You’ve got the library. You’ve got all of these places. I think that it goes without saying that while the need for LGBTQI spaces is important, I myself am gay, the reality is I think that it is a red herring and that this is a strip club license that will evolve into something that we’re not looking forward to, including the young man who spoke earlier.

[55:16] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bancrocks now, the person in pink. If you want to— anyone else in the public gallery who would like to speak to this matter before I switch over to the Zoom people, nobody else looking to speak here? OK. You can always throw your hand in the air later. And I will switch right now to the Zoom participants. And I’m going to start with the first name on my list.

[55:50] And that’s you, Mr. Tony. If you would like to go ahead, we know your name. We see it on the screen. You have up to five minutes to address the committee. You are muted, sir. We can hear you. Yes, we can hear you now. Go ahead. My name’s Eddie Tony Pimpochan. I am the owner of 238 Dundas Street. I was the previous owner of Lavish Nightclub.

[56:24] I had it for seven years. I did the renovations myself. I built a safe space for the LGBTQ community. Sold after seven years to two owners. During the pandemic, they closed down. One of the owners continued with the business. And a few months ago, I was approached through email. I’m now living in Toronto, so I don’t have much ties to my building and to Lavish Nightclub besides collecting the rent and taking care of the maintenance. The current owner of Lavish— oh, I first, I do not approve of this relocation license.

[57:00] I just want to state my case clear right here. I do not want it in my building. But I want to give the backstory as well. I was approached by the current owner of Lavish that he wants to help boost business, to make Lavish thrive by bringing in Burlesque and mail reviews for the community. And this was through email exchange. So I have all email documents as well. And I approve. I’ve said, this is fine, completely fine. A couple of weeks went down the road and he said that we actually need a license to do this. And we have somebody.

[57:34] And that somebody was actually the person who invested money into putting a kitchen and doing the renovations in the Lavish 2.0 update. I did not know who this character was at first, just an unknown financier or investor into the building. And I saw the renovations as beautiful. And the brand new kitchen was in, it was beautiful. So I agreed, OK, let’s do this. After, I found out only a couple months ago— or sorry, not a couple of months ago, a couple of weeks ago. I started doing to do my research who this investor was.

[58:08] This investor is in connection to 232 Dundas Street and also the relocation of the license proposal to my building as well. I also found out that he had previous body rub parlors and strip clubs. And what I am suspecting, I don’t want to stamp anything because I don’t know for sure. But what I’m suspecting, because they want to purchase— my building is, once the building is purchased, they will convert Lavish into a strip club.

[58:44] I feel this, and I know this in my gut and in my heart, because Lavish over the pandemic has dipped in business. And I know that the current owner wants to pass it along. And if it gets passed along with this license, it’s going to turn into a strip club. And it’s going to make the block into a red light district. I was a part of the downtown association for several years when I lived in London. And I do not want to see downtown London go in this direction. I actually— it was only about a week ago— wrote an email and disagreed to any selling of my building, because I do not want to turn it over to this person, because I know he will be the financier of my building.

[59:34] That means he will be the proprietor, or he’ll take over the entire building, and it will turn into whatever he chooses. And I also learned through Ethan as well, somebody from the city that, under this umbrella, they can really do whatever they want with this license, because it is an umbrella. To my knowledge, hearing from the current owner, he said he’s only going to do the mail reviews and the burlesque here and there as an addition. But I just do not trust knowing all this information. And this information was not given to me by the current owner.

[1:00:10] I had to receive it from outside sources. So I just learned all this information on who the investor was, putting that kitchen into lavish, renovating lavish, and where they want to take it. And I feel in my heart and soul that they’re going to take in a direction that I do not want. So I would love to lavish to thrive, but not with this license. And I do not want this license in my building, because I’m sure it’ll continue. And they can do whatever they want with it. So I disapprove.

[1:00:43] And it would break my heart to have the city passed us. Thank you for hearing me out. Thank you, Mr. Tony. Just want to— I haven’t given this warning yet. I think everything that everybody has said so far has been OK. But I just want to make sure, when we do these public participation meetings, not everybody agrees with everybody’s point of view. So I just want to make sure everybody is respectful in their comments. And having said that, I will go to the next person on my list, which is Orest Pizzio. And I apologize if I didn’t say that properly.

[1:01:16] Hey, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Orest Pizzio. I am the owner of the building at 244 Dundas. So just a couple of doors down from the proposed relocation of the parlor. I do not support the relocation. And frankly, I’ve got very serious concerns about what the relocation will do to the area that has recently been rejuvenated with very significant investment, both by the city of London, but also by the individual landlords who own properties on the street, who have invested significant sums of money into those properties in order to attract high quality landlords and, frankly, tenants.

[1:02:00] In addition, so the property I own is a mixed use residential commercial property. There are four residential units in the property, and all of those four units are occupied by single women. I go out of my way, and so does the property manager for the building, to create a safe and hospitable space for them, to make sure that the building is one, that they are comfortable calling their home. I do not see how adding an adult establishment like that, actually, two of them just down the street will make them feel any more safer in an area where they call home.

[1:02:36] So once again, to sum it all up, I am very much against the proposal, and I agree with everyone else here who has spoken out against the proposal to basically turn this area of down the street, the flex street, and to yet another red light district. Thank you, Mr. Pizzio. I will next move to Daria Kachan. Are you with us, Daria? I will loop back to see if Daria rejoins at some point, and I will jump to David Stambler.

[1:03:19] Do I have David Stambler online? Yes, but you have to start my video. Let’s see if we can get you on video. Yeah, the host stopped it. That’s one second, Mr. Stambler. I had my video on at the beginning, and then it says you can’t start your video because the host has stopped it. Okay, go ahead.

[1:03:55] I will give you the one-minute warning, and you have five minutes. Excellent, thank you. My name is David Stambler. I’m the owner of 234 Dundas Street. My grandfather, Mayor Epstein, owned and ran Mayor Epstein first for over 50 years, and then he sold the business to his manager, and it just closed down in 2017. The building went to my mother, and it went to me in 2016. I took out loans for more than half a million dollars to put in two apartments in the second and third floors, because I blew in one in the middle of the town core. I firmly and categorically reject having any more adult entertainment allowed to be in the Dundas Place core, so I’m firmly opposed to granting the adult live entertainment parlor relocation.

[1:04:43] I also believe that you cannot consider this separately from the other application, which just so you understand, I’m at 234 Dundas. You’ve got 238 here, and you’ve got 232 there, so basically I’m gonna be sandwiched in between a massage parlor and a strip club. So this affects me in a big way. It also affects my tenants. I have a single woman in the third floor, and a single woman also is the owner of the business on the main floor. She also employs a variety of women who need to come and go, and it would affect them.

[1:05:18] But here’s my main complaints. So, Dundas Place, the city has invested at least 16 million dollars so far. That’s not even including the salaries of all the city workers who’ve been involved. Millions of dollars put into Dundas Place to make it a family-friendly place where the road can be repurposed for street festivals and fairs and pedestrian use. Strip clubs and massage parlors are not family-friendly. They are not a way to continue revitalizing the core and encouraging investment that you’ve put in so far. Part of Dundas Place and the goal of the city is to revitalize the core and to develop it with businesses that are inclusive.

[1:05:58] Strip bars and massage parlors are not inclusive businesses. They will not bring in the quality business prospects that people need to keep this going. In fact, it will keep people away. And like I was saying, for the women that have to come to and fro their workplaces or get to their workplaces, it is intimidating to have to walk by these places that are on the whole misogynistic. I am not opposed to the business itself. If somebody wants to open that up, there are places in the city that are appropriate for this, Dundas Place is not appropriate venue for that.

[1:06:37] For the city, property values are dependent on location. Location is qualified by nearby businesses. Adult entertainment venues are not conducive to increased property values. And if property values go down, taxes go down, and so the city stands to lose out in a variety of ways. The domino effect, once you let in these types of businesses and they gain a foothold in the area, it will encourage other similar businesses to move in and will depress the overall quality and value of the street life we are all trying to improve. I was told by the owner of the Adult Entertainment that he was planning on a gay cabaret.

[1:07:16] I have no problem with that either. The problem is once the license is approved, it can be changed without permission from gay cabaret to female strippers to full-on 24-hour female strippers for the nights that maybe solid gold was closed or whatever. It’s so horrific in this slippery slope here. Strip bars are associated with excessive drinking and also linked to prostitution, which we heard from this first speaker. This is also a very valid risk. Although the ability that business is technically just stripping, technically just a massage, everybody knows all studies have shown there is a linkage to prostitution.

[1:07:59] I am concerned not only for the quality of the neighborhood being decreased, but also to the feeling of personal safety by all women who would walk that street. The women who have to walk by each of these places would feel uncomfortable and very likely not safe. The type of people that go to these places is not indicative of the type of people that the city of London is trying to attract a Dundas place. So you have to ask yourself, one, do you want to turn Dundas place into an Adult Entertainment Zone?

[1:08:33] 30 seconds. Two, prostitution and temple. Three, do you want to reduce your future tax base as a result of property values dropping? Four, do you want to protect women and men from misogyny and exploitation? And five, do you want to make Dundas place a safe and economically thriving place to live and work? All the downtown businesses depend on a safe and healthy environment there. An Adult Entertainment puts a lot of people off. It will push a lot of people away from actually coming to that block. And there is not a single positive thing that could result from this move.

[1:09:07] I urge you to vote against it. Thank you, Mr. Stambler. Next, I will go to Kelsey Morris. Do I have a Kelsey Morris? There you are. So I will give you the one minute warning and you have five minutes to address the committee. Go ahead. Sure, thank you. So I’m speaking on 3.2 as well. So I’m going to try my best to not be redundant here and focus specifically on the LGBTQ+ community. So we know that the demand for paid sexual services fuels the growth of trafficking and exploitation of our city’s most vulnerable population.

[1:09:48] While trafficking affects all demographics, traffickers frequently target individuals who lack strong social support networks or facing financial strain have experienced violence in the past or who are marginalized by society. Without adequate community support, youth who are LGBTQ+ may be at particular risk for sex trafficking. Many LGBTQ+ youth face challenges during their teenage years and into early adulthood. They also face higher rates of discrimination and violence. The homeless hub reports that LGBTQ+ youth are overrepresented in statistics on poverty with between 25 to 40% identifying as being in the LGBTQ community.

[1:10:31] LGBTQ+ youth experience homelessness at disproportionately higher rates as a result of oppression and discrimination in society and in their homes. In 2005, the Canadian Community Health Survey reported that bisexual individuals, particularly bisexual women were more likely to live in poverty. Prostitution has often been described as a choice made by those who have the least amount of choices. You know the risk factors. You know the vulnerabilities of certain marginalized groups. Then you should know that allowing this relocation to take place would be a mistake that has the capacity to disproportionately affect London’s most vulnerable members.

[1:11:11] Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Morris. Next on my list is Kate McCandles or McCandles. Sorry if I’m not saying your name right. Are you with us, Kate? Yes, hello, I’m sorry. I’m actually joining from out on the street following an appointment. But I just wanted to say that I lived downtown and I worked downtown and I walked this section of Dundas nearly every single day. And you know, I’ve attended events at lavish previously and I’ve attended events on the street section.

[1:11:47] And I absolutely opposed to this. I used to work for the London Public Library. I understand the kinds of things that happen on this strip. The city has just invested a ton of money into it. There is no sensible reason to grant these licensed transfers. I think that lavish is fully capable of hosting the events that they want to host without this. I don’t see a reason for it. And you know, frankly, in the past three weeks, I have been assaulted by someone on the street and I have witnessed someone overdose and I’ve had to call an ambulance.

[1:12:26] And I don’t think that this kind of activity is going to be valuable to the city in this area. I don’t think it’s going to be valuable to any of the people who live downtown. I don’t think it’s valuable to any of the people who work downtown. I just, I don’t think that this is beneficial whatsoever. And it’s certainly not going to make me, a young woman, feel comfortable walking past these businesses. That’s really all I have to say. And thank you so much for letting me speak. Thank you for your comments.

[1:13:02] I’m going to jump back to Daria Kachan. Daria, are you with us on Zoom? I’m going to move on. I’m just gonna double check to see anybody that has not spoken in the gallery. If they would like to speak, this is your last chance before we close the public participation part.

[1:13:46] So you just state your name, sir. I will give you the one minute warning and then you’ll have up to five minutes. All right, sorry, Madam Chair. I appear on the second matter for the adult body road parlor. Okay, we’re not there yet. We’re on 3.1, which is the relocation of from 2010 to 238. All right, thank you. I wasn’t sure, thank you. I will call, I will definitely call you on that one. Anyone else wish to speak to 3.1 on the agenda? And I’m not seeing any.

[1:14:21] So we’re going to close the public participation for this item. I’ll look for a motion for that. Moved by Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Hamou. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Sorry, can you explain what exactly that means?

[1:15:10] Sorry, everyone. Just getting some logistics figured out. We have closed the public participation part of the meeting and now the committee members and visiting Councillors and city staff will discuss this item, which is 3.1 on the agenda. The request to relocate a live entertainment parlor from 2010 Dundas to 238 Dundas. I’m going to go to Orscatolic, but before I do that, I’m going to allow Councillor Lewis to speak because he would like to speak and the current address is in his ward and he does have to leave this meeting.

[1:15:54] And he can’t stay till the end. So go ahead, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair Cassidy. And I really appreciate you accommodating me ‘cause I do have another meeting that I had committed to before the agenda for this meeting was even published. So I appreciate the lenience there. It’s really important for me to just share a few comments on this, both as the ward councillor for the address where the current license exists, as well as being the only LGBTQ plus member of this council currently. And we’ve heard it said, and it won’t be labored at the point, but it was only a couple of weeks ago during Pride Week that I actually attended a drag show at Lavish.

[1:16:35] It was great. It was very entertaining, the service was great. Lavish provides, does provide a great safe space for the LGBTQ plus community. And I do have no doubt that if Lavish was to proceed with some more burlesque type drag shows, it’d be done in a very professional way and the community would enjoy it. This is not a matter of LGBT inclusion. It’s been referenced by members of the public through their participation. Our licensing by-law speaks to an adult entertainment location and it is specific to a property.

[1:17:10] So the question to me is not how Lavish would manage this license. It is, would Lavish even continue to exist for very long? And if it were not to continue, what would the future of this building be? And I am concerned about what could come next. As I said, the license is currently applied to a property in my ward at 2010 Dundas Street. But that property is now home to a travel lodge franchisee who’s taken over the building, who actually worked with the city over the last winter to provide some hotel spaces for those experiencing homelessness through the social services relief funding that we got from the province.

[1:17:49] And he is working very hard to try and revitalize that site as a reputable hotel. He has no interest in running an adult entertainment operation from that property, which is why a motion to move the license or a request to move the license has come forward anyway. He doesn’t want it there. My question through you, and I know that Mr. Kotolik is gonna speak, but I was hoping to get this question and before I had to leave, could staff indicate why when one of these operations cease to exist for a period of time?

[1:18:22] And I believe it’s six months of operation when the license then becomes basically, it goes dormant and is no longer valid. Why do we not receive at that point an administrative recommendation to simply delete the license as no longer operational? Mr. Kotolik. Thank you for your question, Councillor Lewis and through the chair, that provision of the bylaw was removed when we did an omnibus review of the business licensing bylaw. And on several previous occasions, civic administration have recommended that schedules be amended to remove adult live entertainment location schedules from the business licensing bylaw.

[1:19:04] The advice I can provide committee is that council has the discretion to direct civic administration to do so for the current location. However, it would be prudent to hold a public participation meeting in that regard to provide for procedural fairness and also to afford the public to make submissions on any removal of the schedule. And I’d also like to highlight that as I was listening to the public participation meeting, the focus here is an amendment, a request for an amendment to a schedule in a business licensing bylaw.

[1:19:43] And the amendment goes specific to the property and not the leasey or current property owner. Thank you. Follow up, Councillor. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’m gonna be very brief. I think that’s very clear. I would encourage committee not only to not approve the move of the license, but to bring forward a motion to direct staff to prepare the necessary steps to delete the current location from the schedule entirely and remove this license from our inventory.

[1:20:21] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Any other Councillors wish to speak to this matter? Councillor Fai from the Law. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for inviting me to your meeting today. First, I wanna thank everyone from the public that came out to speak.

[1:20:56] I think that there are a lot of comments around this, but I think one of the things that we get to see from the community, and not only from the people here, but from the people who have contacted me, is there is no support from this. There’s no support from this through our residential community, and there’s no support for this through our business community. The gentleman at the beginning that talked about bringing the adult license to lavish, one of the statements that he made was on economic survival.

[1:21:36] And I have a little bit of a challenge with that, and I have a little bit of challenge with using that as a reason to bring an adult entertainment license to any facility. But I don’t find that compelling. We all know what’s going to happen in this space should this go through. There is no desire, in my opinion, for this to be used for what we’re being told.

[1:22:12] Ultimately, someone wants to park an adult entertainment license into a bricks and mortar establishment long term. We’ve been avoiding this for a long time. This license has been attempted to be parked at multiple locations over time. And I agree with Councillor Lewis at some point in time, we need to be able to put this to bed. But I also want to speak to one of our pillars.

[1:22:48] And one of the pillars in our strategic plan is a safe community for women and girls. We know full well that an adult entertainment license does the complete opposite of that. It feeds on vulnerable individuals, and that does not bold well for a community trying to rebuild in the downtown. I think one of the terms that a couple of people used was a family friendly atmosphere on Dundas, please.

[1:23:25] I think more so, a welcoming space for everyone. And this simply doesn’t give us what we want. That somebody’s tried to park this into an LGBTQ+ establishment. To me, it’s just a wolf in sheep’s clothing. They’re trying to hide really what the intent is here. I would urge this committee not to support this.

[1:24:02] And I would also ask that they really consider Councillor Lewis’s request to have this removed completely from the address that it’s at. I do not see this as beneficial for Dundas place. I do not see it beneficial for the downtown. But overall, it’s just simply not beneficial for the city as a whole. I think the last piece here that is really important, and I think we heard it loud and clear, we talk about a red light district.

[1:24:39] And in the city, let’s be honest, we have automobiles, and we’ve created automobiles. We don’t need Dundas place to become a strip mall. And that’s what I see this doing. I do not see it beneficial at all. And I would urge that this committee reject this application. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Hummon. And I’ll go to you next, Councillor Hillier. Thank you, Chair. I am listening to the neighbors.

[1:25:13] I’m listening to the business community. I’m listening to the Councillor of the ward. And I will definitely be rejecting this and voting no. So those are my two cents on this. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor, Councillor Hillier. Thank you, I too have been listening very closely, and I agree, I will not be supporting this, and I’ll be treating 3.1 and 3.2 as the same, because let’s be realistic, same owner. And I can see what it’ll do in our downtown. We have spent millions of dollars helping our downtown and trying to heal.

[1:25:45] And this is literally a kicking, and I will not do that. And what it will do to women in our downtown, it just frightens the hell out of me. I would like to know when I can move motion to remove the license from 2010 Dundas Street for an activity. Mr. Catolic, do you wanna give the committee some guidance on procedural issues here? Yes, thank you. And through the chair, for purposes of transparency and procedural fairness, we should hear from the city in this meeting.

[1:26:22] So I have Nicole Musico and Ethan Lang with me tonight. And Nicole or Ethan could link, could provide a high level summary of the application. And I wanna focus that we are here tonight because there is an application. And this is not something that civic administration is proposing, we’re simply just reporting out on it. And then the committee should make a decision on the application. And then after that, we would be welcome to answer any questions on any subsequent motions.

[1:26:59] And then we have another PPM, which although is of a very similar nature, it is different in terms of the business licensing bylaw. Thank you, Mr. Catolic. So yes, we are dealing with 3.1. And I would advise committee members and visiting counselors to restrict your comments to 3.1. And I will go to Mr. Lane. If you would like to give us some information on the application that’s before us. And thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[1:27:33] I don’t have a lot to add to this. It’s a pretty factual summary of what’s happened so far. The report speaks for itself, I believe. And as that report indicated, an application has been made to consider substituting a new adult live entertainment parlor location for an existing location. The new location being 238 Dundas Street, the old being 2010 Dundas Street. Some of the material necessary for committee and council’s consideration was received initially by email on November 11th of 2021. Staff circulated a notice of application on January 25th, 2022, received six formal comments from the public regarding this initial notice of application, all of which were summarized or included in the report.

[1:28:21] The notice of public meeting, the subsequent notice of public meeting was circulated on July 27th. Once the application materials were considered satisfactory to the license manager. Unfortunately, an error was found in the title of that notice, and a corrected notice was circulated five business days later, explaining the mistake. Staff, myself, erroneously referred to the application at 238 Dundas as an adult entertainment body rub parlor rather than what it actually is an adult live entertainment parlor in the title of that document.

[1:28:57] If there is still any confusion, let it be understood that this application, 238 Dundas, is to consider amending the business licensing by-law to allow the relocation of an adult live entertainment parlor to the building where lavish currently exists. Any comments that were submitted in response to the notice of public meeting are received by the clerk’s department directly as were requests to speak or participate at this afternoon’s meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lane. Are there any other comments from councilors who are online or counselors in the room?

[1:29:34] Seeing none. The, so what is before us is first we will have to, we will have to receive the report that is before us. And then if committee members wish to proceed further than that, could accept or refuse the application to amend the licensing by-law to allow the relocation of an adult entertainment, live adult entertainment parlor from 2010 Dundas to 238 Dundas.

[1:30:08] So I am looking for counselors to make a motion. Councilor Hamou, go ahead. I have a motion here. I’d like to motion to request the transfer, sorry, the request to transfer the adult entertainment license from 2010 Dundas Street to 238 Dundas Street be denied and that civic administration be directed to undertake the necessary steps to allow council to consider the deletion of the license from 2010 Dundas. So Councilor, let’s deal with the first matter first and also we need to receive the staff report.

[1:30:46] And then let’s make it clean and hear from, maybe perhaps hear from Mr. Catolic one more time before you proceed with your next motion. So Councilor Hamou is moving to receive the report and the clerk will have the exact wording in a nutshell, it is refused the application to amend the licensing by-law to allow the relocation from 2010 Dundas to 238 Dundas for an adult live entertainment parlor.

[1:31:19] Is that motion clear, Mr. Catolic, or do you have any concerns with this particular motion that’s on the floor right now? Through the chair, that is very clear, thank you. Do I have a seconder for that motion? Seconded by Councilor Hillier. Are there any comments or concerns or questions about the motion that’s on the floor? Councilor Helmer, go ahead. Thank you. I wanted to say a few things about the application and transfer a bit of a strange situation where you have a tenant who would like to bring the license over to the property, but then the owner of the building who’s opposed to that happening, it didn’t seem to have any interest in selling.

[1:32:09] That’s a very strange situation. That’s actually before us right now, the particular circumstances. On the general issue of transferring the licenses from one location to another, I would say, my approach is to take a harm reduction view on how we approach this particular kind of business. It’s not always obvious what the thing that’s gonna cause the least harm actually is. Some of these existing businesses are in not great locations that come with pros and cons and sometimes moving to a new looking could be overall better when we’re talking about relocation.

[1:32:54] We’re not talking about adding a new license or a new operation but moving existing location. And it’s similar to the approach I take with something like location like a casino. There’s better and worse locations for a casino. We know that there’s some negatives that come with the operation of certain kinds of businesses. And so for this, in this particular circumstance, I’m gonna support refusal of the transfer. Apparently because the building owner is not interested in having a license transferred to that location.

[1:33:29] Seems to me like you got a show stop or problem. And I just think it’s the end of the line for that idea. I do think a couple of other things, two other things are important to say. One is, things important to recognize who we’re not hearing from and we don’t have of the exception of one person who spoke earlier who identified in herself that she had been involved and I think she described this commercial sex work. We’re not hearing from existing dancers, people who are in this line of work and are weighing in about the pros and cons of moving locations.

[1:34:09] And I think as we’ve had in the past, we’ve had discussions about this. The public participation meeting has got lots of positives but it’s also got some negatives for people who may not feel comfortable coming on and talking about what they do for work and why they think moving is a moving location is a good or bad idea. That might be a very difficult thing for them to do. And I think we have to acknowledge that we’re not really hearing from those people right now. People, our customers, our lab issue, I go there. People who might want to see this kind of change happen.

[1:34:44] It’s a very awkward thing for many people to weigh in on the issue and I think we just need to recognize that and be very thoughtful in how we approach these issues. So I’m happy to support the refusal of the request to move it, I don’t think it makes a lot of sense. But I also want to caution committee members and also some of the public to not stigmatize people who work in this area and to make them feel like they’re not wanted in our city.

[1:35:21] And I know people have very strong opinions about this issue but I do think we need to really as much as we can try and put ourselves in the shoes of people who work in this area and treat them as if we would like to be treated ourselves. We have happened to work in that area and not to contribute to what is already a stigmatized and marginalized workforce. So yeah, I’m going to support the refusal.

[1:35:59] I think that’s all I have to say for now but I may have some more to say, Council. Thank you, Councilor Helmer. For what it’s worth, I didn’t hear anybody disparage individuals working in the industry but we’re worried about having this type of business nearby and the things that are attracted to the location of a building like this. So with that, there is a motion on the floor.

[1:36:35] It’s been moved and seconded and now we will call the vote. So can you let us know what the process is? How does this get voted on next? So what’s happening? I will discuss this when the vote is finished and I will let you know what happened. Chair Cassidy, the motion in front of us has got the direction about the current location and the current license.

[1:37:12] You might want to check that language. Thank you for pointing that out, Councilor Helmer. Councilor Hillier, closing the vote.

[1:38:31] The motion carries five to zero. PAP, what the committee just voted on was the request to relocate the license from 238 Dundas Street, or sorry, from 2010 Dundas Street to 238 Dundas Street. And the committee is recommending to City Council that that request be refused. The final vote will take place at the City Council meeting on September 6th.

[1:39:08] So what happens today is the committee voted. We voted to refuse the application to relocate the license, but the decision is not final until the entire City Council votes on the matter. This is a recommendation from this committee that goes forward to City Council and they make the final vote on September 6th. Councilor Hamu, did you, you wanted to make the other motion now? Pull it up. So I want to put forward a request to transfer the adult entertainment license.

[1:39:48] So we’ve already done that 20 times. Okay, to 20 Dundas Street to 238 Dundas Street be denied. So we’ve done that be directed to undertake the necessary steps to allow Council to consider the deletion of the license from 2010 Dundas. That would be the second part. Is there a seconder for that motion? Councilor Hillier. Mr. Katolik, would you like to comment on that motion that is on the floor? Yes, through the chair, my recommendation is if that is Council’s direction, it should be stated that a public participation meeting be held before this committee.

[1:40:31] And if this committee chooses, they can direct civic administration on timing as well. What are your thoughts on timing, Mr. Katolik? Through the chair, that’s up to the committee, whether they would like it in this Council session or future Council as we are getting close to near the end of this Council term.

[1:41:06] And I may defer to legal if there is any concerns with this being a lame duck time period. I see Mr. Belch in the room virtually. Do we need to talk to you about that? Mr. Belch, I’m wondering if there are concerns about holding a public participation meeting before the end of this Council term to decide on this matter?

[1:41:48] We’d wanna consider that my understanding is that the lame duck Council provision in the Ms. Black prevents Council from making recommendations to settle a file or cases that have a value of more than $50,000. But I mean, just sitting here, I don’t think that it prevents Council from continuing to make its decisions as it’s doing currently. So I’d be very surprised if it’s a problem, but I think I would have an abundance of caution. I would suggest that if that’s your direction that a report comes back in this Council’s term that we consider that is the legal department, considers that issue as part of the report back.

[1:42:34] Okay, thank you for that, Mr. Belch. We’re just conferring here, sorry. Mr. Catolek, do you, so Mr. Belch sort of recommended that we get an interim report back that would include a report from legal?

[1:43:44] Do you think that is an interim step that we should take before we proceed with the PPM and will we have time to do both of those steps? Through the Chair, I believe we could have time to do both of these as we on at least three previous occasions have held PPMs to remove locations from the business licensing by-law. So in terms of work for civic administration, the work is minimal in preparing for the PPM.

[1:44:56] So I wonder, Mr. Belch, since we have done this before and I’ve actually participated in this before in the last term of Council, if we could forego an extra step to have a full report back since Mr. Catolek doesn’t also feel a need that his staff need to report back. If there’s any advice or information that legal Council needs to give to us before we proceed with the PPM, perhaps we could receive that at our Council meeting on September 6th.

[1:45:35] Yeah, I think that’s fair enough. I certainly did not want to introduce a further step. I’m more mindful of the requirement here for a public participation meeting, which obviously the owner can bring forward that kind of argument and it may have to be addressed again, but I think we can provide an opinion at Council. And I’m quite certain actually that the opinion will be that there’s nothing about the lame duck provision that prevents you from dealing with that issue in your term.

[1:46:14] Great, thank you. So can you read back the motion, Clerk? Mr. Catolek, if we were to proceed with this public participation on the September 13th, a meeting date of this committee, is that doable? Through the Chair, I think that might be a bit rushed given Council is on September 6th.

[1:46:53] Okay, then we will proceed with the motion. If the mover is good with that, then we’ll go with the following meeting after the September 13th meeting. So the clerk is working on the final wording of this. My apologies that this is taking so long, but this is what committee does. The motion is that the Civic Administration be directed to undertake the necessary steps to allow Council to consider the deletion of the license from 2010 Dundas Street and hold the public participation meeting at the October 4th, 2022 CAHPS meeting with respect to this matter.

[1:47:36] That has been moved by Councilor Hamouin, seconded by Councilor Hillier. Is there any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, I will call the question. Motion passes, five to zero. Public, there is an existing license that is associated with 2010 Dundas for an adult live entertainment parlor.

[1:48:15] It is a dormant license and that address is not currently operating an adult live entertainment parlor. So what this committee is further recommending to Council is that we hold an additional public participation meeting to have the public weigh in and allow Council to debate the possibility of deleting that license, which is not currently operating as an adult live entertainment parlor. That will happen most likely at the October meeting of this committee, but it would first have to be approved by all of City Council and that this matter will come before City Council on September 6th.

[1:49:00] So that is our 3.1 item on our agenda. We have dealt with that unless anyone has anything further to add. So I will move to 3.2. 3.2 is a public participation meeting concerning an adult entertainment body rub parlor and a relocation request from 802 Exeter Road to 232 Dundas Street. I will look for a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Haimu, seconded by Councillor Hillier.

[1:49:34] I will call the vote on that. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So now we are item on item 3.2. We have another public participating participation meeting. I will look to the gallery to see if there is any member of the public who would like to speak to this matter. It is concerning the relocation of the body rub parlor from 802 to Exeter to 232 Dundas.

[1:50:14] Anyone wish to speak to this matter? Come to the microphone, state your name. I will give you five minutes. I will give you the one minute warning with my yellow piece of paper, orange. And go ahead, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. My last name is Keyes, K-U-Y-E-S, first name is Stephen. I’m a licensed paralegal by the Lost Society of Ontario. And I have been retained by the applicant. 1781746 Ontario Incorporated, acting as it, operating as the ambient spot to speak with regards to the application before you today, pursuant to section 9.1 of the business licensing bylaw.

[1:50:54] Mr. Sutton, who is the principal of the company who is here, which is first that the committee know that there is no relationship between the numbered company and the previous application that you heard. It’s just coincidental. Further, just in my, as I make reference to certain things, I wanna make sure that there’s no confusion, that I may refer to the applicant, the license holder, the numbered company, or ambiance, they’re all one and the same.

[1:51:29] And I apologize for any confusion that may occur. This is not a new business. It’s been an operation for many, many years. It’s this current location on Exeter Road. Mr. Sutton, I believe it’s been the owner for about five years, but I think the business has been running for about at least 20. The proposed location that the applicant seeks, currently permits the personal service establishments, which is permitted in the Zoom variation, as confirmed by the city in its letter dated October 29th, 2021.

[1:52:05] Further, London Police Service Record checks have confirmed that no records were identified or associated with the operator, Sean Sutton. Sean Sutton, who has been the operator, continues to be licensed as good, reputable operator, having no violations. The business applicant has complied with the very, very stringent license requirements pursuant to the business licensing bylaw for the relocation. There’s probably no other businesses under the business license bylaw.

[1:52:38] In my view of the bylaw that are required to go through the strict licensing requirements or pay the high fees associated with the adult entertainment licensing. As you’re probably aware, adult entertainment establishments are closely monitored by law enforcement. As required under the bylaw, there is a register for all attendance staff and open for viewing by inspectors. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, bylaw officers were making monthly inspections of this business, of which the applicant fully cooperated with and continue to do so, however, less frequently now.

[1:53:22] Ambiance has never had any police involvement or interaction as a result of their business operations. Letters submitted with respect to the opposition of this application, although very understandable, are speculative and unfounded. London doesn’t need any more empty buildings or office space. The attendance employed here are mothers, daughters, wives, students, homeowners, voters, and live-body citizens. It is a legal and lawful business that complies with all laws.

[1:54:00] It pays and files as corporate taxes, as all good corporate citizens do. Ambiance has previously requested, or sorry, ambiance has, when previously requested, have fully cooperated law enforcement matters unrelated to the business, such as provided access to the closed circuit monitors located outside the building, and will continue to do so. At its current location, it’s in a hotel zone, and oftentimes there’s crimes or missing persons, and they fully cooperate. The customers and ambiance are both male and female, are quiet, polite, and well-behaved.

[1:54:39] As mentioned previously, there’s never been any contact with the police. The business runs a very strict no alcohol, no drug policy. It has a zero tolerance for staff and clients as such, and no alcohol is sold or permitted to be consumed on the property. The owner of 232 Dundas Street has confirmed, and that they permit the operation of the adult entertainment establishment by a reparler at that location. And I believe there’s a ladder with respect to that. 1781746 Ontario, Inc, has completed its due diligence and confirmed that the location of the body rub, or sorry, of the use of 232 Dundas Street, is not located on land-sewned residential, or within 100 meters of land-sewned exclusively residential.

[1:55:35] As mentioned previously, the applicant is a corporation in good standing. All its corporate documents and information has been submitted to the city, and we ask that you approve the application and permit the relocation. Okay. - Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this? Excuse me, Councillor, you’re inviting people from Zoom as well to speak at this time? Your name is probably on my list, so I will call you by name, but first we are, yeah, first people in the gallery. - Thank you.

[1:56:12] Yeah, thank you. Go ahead, sir. Hello, my name is Sean Centin, owner/operator at Ambiance, and I’d like to start off by reminding Council that I must maintain a clean criminal background in order to operate such establishment. I have been and continue to be a licensed owner/operator with known fashions or other disciplinary actions. The use is a permitted use and recognized as a lawful use by the city of London. No alcohol is being served or proposed to be served at the establishment.

[1:56:47] This means that the patrons are not loitering outside, we’re hanging around the entrance. Our patrons also want their anonymity and book their services come and depart immediately upon the service being completed. There is no area provided allowing any patrons to hang out at the establishment. No incidents with the city in terms of discipline have been documented while I’ve been the owner. No incidents with the police.

[1:57:20] We are a conscious business that provides a service that is recognized as a lawful use by the zoning law provisions. Our attendance, our mother’s daughters, neighbors, students, and we support, and this is how they support their families. We run a strict operation. Our attendance are required to comply with all our policies, which include zero tolerance policy for all our attendance. In terms of patrons, we also implement a zero tolerance policy as it is imperative to us at all times to ensure safety at our establishment.

[1:58:05] We have and will continue to comply with all applicable laws, including the city bylaws, licensing requirements and regulations. Again, the use of adult entertainment establishment body row parlor is a lawful and permitted use by the city’s zoning bylaw at Dundas Street location. Our attendance provide lawful service. The patrons are engaging in a service that is permitted. Well, many people have commentaries about the services provided they are mistaken.

[1:58:44] We do not serve alcohol. Our patrons do not stay beyond the time allotted for their services. Our attendance and patrons protect their identities. We are diligent in terms of how our establishment is run, which is evident by the lack of complaints and there being no violations or charges issued. Please take the statements into consideration when determining your decision. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, go ahead.

[1:59:20] My name is Sylvia Chodes and with all due respect, apples and oranges people, apples and oranges. I’m sure that a body red parlor on Exeter Road has drive in customers. So they’re not gonna hang around. They’re not walking by up and down. It’s not the same when you are on Dundas Street, apples and oranges. I would like my former speech applied to this. Do I need to say it all again? Or you can submit your written statement if you thought. Could I?

[1:59:56] Yep. Okay. I just wanna point out that we work Dundas place to be an uplifting place and all the arguments that we heard before apply here. And it doesn’t matter if your business apply at hires, mothers, sisters, daughters. It doesn’t matter. We have to be concerned about the appearance of Dundas Street and the effect. Thank you for laughing at me. I appreciate that.

[2:00:28] Okay. And the effect. Please direct your comments to me, okay? Oh, sorry. I don’t appreciate being laughed at when I’m trying to speak from the heart. A business may feel that it’s doing something proper, but the appearance of a body red parlor on Dundas Street is just simply not appropriate. And I will submit the rest of my notes to you directly. Thank you. You can actually even email those, Ms. Chilis. You can email those comments, Ms. Chilis.

[2:01:02] You can email your comments directly to the clerk. The email address is cpsc@london.ca. Go ahead. Thank you. There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors happening here right now. As a business owner, that starting her business and opening on the second of September, there’s so much to Dundas. Dundas used to be a place where there used to be a tram going through it. It used to be a place where women would do their high-end boutique shopping.

[2:01:36] We have worked so hard to bring that back. And I’m not in the same category as the rest of these people who have seen it all and have done it all and have sacrificed so much for it. The problem is that hasn’t been addressed as the same owner or partner that’s been wanting to get the license at $238. My building is the same owner that owns $232 Dundas Street. And that needs to be addressed. A rubbing tug parlor is a rubbing tug parlor. These industries have their own districts.

[2:02:11] Like I’ve mentioned before, Amsterdam. My husband and I have visited Amsterdam. It’s interesting enough that Amsterdam’s government is actually banning the red light district because of the exploitation of women, men, and children. Dundas is not a red light district. Dundas is a place where $22 million has been invested to the beautification of the city. It is a place that for so many years has been damaged, has had a bad reputation.

[2:02:46] We ask you, members of council, to please consider this. Look at Dundas Street and all the money that the taxpayers have put into it. The business owners have sacrificed to make it what it is. Listen to us, hear us, understand us. We have our own stories to tell. We have our own sacrifices that we have put into this. We do not want a red light district in the core of the city. We want families to gather. I want to be able to feel safe grabbing my favorite breakfast sandwich and going to the library.

[2:03:23] Certain businesses like this have their districts for a reason. It brings crime. It brings this record. We have Elizabeth Noelle that deals with teenage girls graduating from high school and moving over to the next stage in life, university. We have women like me, young executives. I want to be able to feel safe. I don’t want to feel like I’m being attacked or that these certain businesses bring crime. We don’t need any more crime. The police force in London is already overworked on Dundas Street.

[2:03:59] We see emergency response people constantly having to deal with the people that are ODing. Just recently, I hired Manning Kiltz to clean my second story windows while someone was having a manic episode wanting to slay a dragon. And unfortunately, that dragon was Manning Kiltz upon a ladder. This is the kind of thing that we want to avoid. We, as a business community, already have— we already see so much, as I mentioned earlier.

[2:04:32] I was attacked today. Needless to say, the woman who attacked me didn’t realize that I’d be fighting back. These districts have their own areas for reasons. It does not belong in the core of the city. Dundas deserves better. Dundas needs better. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Moriarty. OK, Mr. Gray. Go ahead. My name is Marvin Post, and I run Attic Books.

[2:05:08] And I’d like to address the— My apologies. I called you the wrong name. Go ahead. I’ll let you start your five minutes again. I’d like to address the residential aspect of the application, which is that there are no residents within 100 meters. There are above Elizabeth Noel to 26 to 230 Dundas Street. There are over 30 geared to income, primarily geared to income apartments, mostly occupied by single women. Their back entrance is within 20 feet of the back entrance of the proposed Rub and Tug.

[2:05:56] This is going to be a big slap in the face to all of the tenants there. The city has also put up capital costs to build the geared to income and continues to support people in that building with their rent needs. This is not an appropriate neighbor for tenants. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Post. Go ahead.

[2:06:31] In 2005, I moved from the gallery as part of the— where I was part of the commerce culture and community development. I moved on to Dundas Street, particularly choosing the block between Clarence and Wellington, because that was the block that I saw as being the equivalent, looking at it microcosmically as the mink mile in Toronto. It is near to our entertainment district. It is near to our banking district. And it is near to our office buildings. When I moved on to Dundas Street, the majority of the block was empty.

[2:07:03] Since then, and there was nothing going on on the second and third floors along the entire block. Now, most of that is luxury apartments in a number of the buildings across the road where there was the pinball wizard, which was empty. Marvin bought that. It’s now a wonderful restaurant called Shea. The development of Dundas Place, the inclusion of Dundas Place, and the evolution of Dundas Street between Talbot and Wellington is essentially the gateway to our entertainment district, which is, of course, the Budweiser Gardens, the market, and everything, including actually being a venue for hosting events.

[2:07:46] It is inappropriate to allow a Robin Tug parlor to take up residence in an area that we are attempting to develop commercially and viable as a community space. And it is interesting in the block between Wellington and Waterloo. There’s an RMT. There’s obviously there is no confusion about a registered massage therapist. Never even heard that when that went in. It’s also interesting when the two gentlemen that spoke first talk about the viability of their business.

[2:08:24] They’re talking about the— oh, no alcohol, no drugs. We can police this. If you have to brag about your business by saying what it isn’t, there is a problem. And the reality is, is that two businesses that the first speakers said are connected, are not connected, and then everybody knows are connected unless lightning has struck twice on Dundas Street. I firmly oppose the application for this license. And regardless of what you said to me and to listen to the first speaker— Oh, no, sir, sir, sir.

[2:08:58] OK, please address me. I was told when the first speaker got up to listen to what he says and then change my mind. I haven’t changed my mind. I’m still against the license. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. You could state your name, and you’ll have five minutes. I’m concerned of being close to this microphone. With the COVID, maybe they should clean it. My name’s Dolores Lansky.

[2:09:33] My background, as I came to this place, my dad was a developer across Ontario. He owned a franchise. I understand your concerns, but the people that are online can’t hear you and in our audio feed, you can’t be heard. It’s just that it needs to be cleaned. There’s one up higher if you’d go up a few steps and nobody has spoken on that one today. My name’s Dolores Lansky.

[2:10:12] The history of me coming there was because my father, who owned a franchise across Ontario and developed buildings, had passed away. I need to finance lawyers, give them money, to take court, to contest the will. The only way I could do it, I see an online decide for ambience. I have been there ever since. And a lot of this stuff that’s been saying is horrible and it does not happen in this place.

[2:10:49] It is a safe place and there are nine to five. The people are nice. There’s also, like, I have to provide for my children who have went to university because I’ve been there for medical and my one might continue to be a doctor. My other son went through IT and this is from the help of the people that come there. I got a huge amount of clientele and they’re not just average people.

[2:11:24] They’re people with lots of money, people poorer. There’s all sorts of people there. And I feel very discriminated by all these false comments I’ve been hearing. People have not bothered to come in. They’re too busy judging us and it’s not the truth. The place there, I’ve never been fined. I don’t know where that came from. I’ve never been trafficked.

[2:12:00] Our boss is very nice. Everyone seems to be so. All the girls are working for a purpose. All of us, we want to get ahead and support our families. So I’m hoping that you listen to us. Where someone wants to give us money to support our families. This is the way it goes. I mean, we try our best and all the girls do. We’re together, no one really leaves the building. Plants come in.

[2:12:35] They don’t hang outside. They come in, they leave. That’s what goes on there. So anyhow, I wanted you to know that. And I just feel there’s a lot of fake comments here. It’s just horrible to hear how people think what they know what’s going on. And think that we’re going to affect the downtown. We are not affecting the downtown. I mean, obviously, they’re having the problems now.

[2:13:08] We are bringing people to the downtown. And that’s what we’re doing. And I appreciate you listening to me. Thank you very much for listening. Thanks. Thank you for your comments. And I’m sorry if you felt disrespected. And this is what Councillor Helmer mentioned earlier. It’s not our job here today to make you feel disrespected or stigmatized. So as anyone else in the gallery willing to speak, go ahead, you state your name and you have five minutes.

[2:13:46] Jessica? So first of all, I’m reading on behalf of two workers, but I just want to state my own comments quickly. Dundas Street will never be the same. Any of us want it. I want it to be beautiful. I want it to be great. $22 million you guys spent on metal trees and maybe some bike paths that people don’t use. The homelessness and the drug addicts and stuff, that needs to be addressed before people have issues with this stuff. So I’ll start with this. This letter is to discuss the relation of the body parlor to London’s downtown Coron Dundas Street.

[2:14:20] I write this to you not to disregard the concerns of the new location, but to open up discussion further for a firsthand perspective of someone who works in the industry. I feel confident new folks are weighing this option with an open mind and heart in order to find a resolution that works for everyone. Remembering that the people that work in these establishments are proud residents of London. We contribute to building our community and our economy. This is our livelihood and this is our home. People’s comments paid a picture as if ambiance was to move downtown, our city will begin to look like the Red Lake District or Amsterdam or are pushing for sex tourism.

[2:14:53] But why must it be seen this way? The location could look just like any other storefront by being discreet, tasteful, secure for adults only. It doesn’t need to be flashier obvious. People who come for our services are actively looking for us. We don’t need to be on display trying to attract people from all the streets, nor that is our intention. In contrast, I’ve seen a sex shop downtown displaying vulgar in your face, hardcore sex material, and yet this is considered decent and normative to our downtown for children to walk by? No. If the location is not approved ambiance will close, and what does that mean for the workers?

[2:15:27] Where will they go? What will happen to them? Is this not a concern? Is it your belief it’s better to cast a false light on our society and the city to attract tourists and families downtown than to care for the actual residents to the city? Is the goal to push good, hardworking people into the dark to fend for themselves? If your action is to look away and remain loyal to an idea, simply to preserve London’s marketing appearance, rather than genuinely caring for London natives, then what does that say? I’m in my early 30s. I was born and raised in London.

[2:15:59] I’m an active member of the community. I volunteer with food banks, charity events. Personally, do my part to keep London clean by picking up garbage in or around my neighborhood. I don’t drink. I don’t do illegal drugs. I don’t lie, steal or cheat. I’ve consistently held two or more jobs at the same time since I was 15. I’ve always had to support myself and pride myself on being strong and independent. I’m college educated. I’ve worked and still do work for quality companies and employers such as Sean. I’ve achieved my many accolades in my professional life, but it’s never been enough to advance my quality of life. As hard as I much work and try to save, I found it unattainable to have a savings account and prepare for the future.

[2:16:39] A few years ago, I made the thoughtful, responsible, and brave decision to enter the world of adult entertainment. It has provided me control over my life and allowed me to improve not only on me, but my family as well. One of the hardest things about this decision was feeling ashamed by my community for providing myself and family. Yet, what is more shameful, domestic abuse, violent and unsafe drug use on our streets, sexual harassment from superiors at any workplace? I myself have been a victim of sexual abuse and not from this job.

[2:17:12] The irony I experienced through those traumas outside the adult entertainment business. For example, my career as a travel agent to being assaulted by the person sitting beside me in the park, it has been my experience that I lived in a world where men especially in power treat me like property and garbage. Now, on the other hand, I have never experienced that at my job working here. I’m safe, I’m confident, I’m in control. If you choose to condemn this line of work, you are putting people at risk of being exploited and harmed. The real root issues we have is not with the adult entertainment. It’s poverty, drug addiction, homelessness, family neglect and abuse.

[2:17:48] Another letter I’m reading, “There have been many personal opinions of the well-being of a safe community for women and girls. Fife Miller, CTV News, Red Light District, Feared a strip club in Massage, Parley moved to same block of Dundas, published on August 17th, 2022. However, in the five years I’ve been at ambiance, there have always been procedures and conducts that directly address these concerns. It should be noted there has never been an incident that has made me question my health or safety during my duration of employment.

[2:18:22] Ambiance has gone above and beyond to make sure things are running smoothly. The management staff are always on call. Any new concerns, policy or procedures are communicated in a group chat, connect team at face-to-face group meetings or posted on the communications board. For the safety and staff at ambiance, there are panic buttons located in each room that will set off alarms throughout the facility and notifies the management team. Plan of action policy, followed by all staff members’ presence, are well informed. Although the panic button has never been needed to be used within the last five years I’ve been employed, nevertheless, they’re tested by management.

[2:18:57] I just want to say they’ve always conducted a great business. These are people out there working. We need to get our economy going. London’s downtown is crap. No offense, it’s crap. And this isn’t going to make it any worse. We need to get the drug addicts, the homeless people out of there, and you need to let this business do what it has to do. Thank you. If you, anyone who has written comments, you can, you can leave them with us or you can even email them to us. And they’ll go on the record.

[2:19:29] Hi, Megan. Hi, Sarah. I want to start off by saying I’m not an employee of ambiance, but I am the owner of Hourglass Business Spa, which is located adjacent to ambiance. I’m writing this letter in support of relocating ambiance for these reasons. For the three years that we have been located beside them, we have never had any issues arise, or problems with employees or patrons of this establishment, from both myself or any of my clients. Ambiance is not only discrete, but respectful as well. I do not feel moving this business to the downtown core, will cause any problems to arise, as I have never witnessed any problems at its current location.

[2:20:06] So I feel this discrete and professional conduct will continue wherever they are located. I find it hypocritical on the city’s behalf to have the location be one of the only zone for an establishment like this, yet fight against allowing these businesses to open here, if not here, then where? With solid golds being already on the block, I do not see the issue with adding a similar business to the area. These businesses are not the issue downtown. The real issues that should be addressed are the homelessness, mental health, and addiction that riddled the downtown core, making it already not a family safe place. Many spaces sit empty, and I can only see positivity in adding a revenue generating tax paying business into one of these vacant spots.

[2:20:44] I’m going to read on behalf of one of the employees at Ambiance. Hello, I am a post-secondary graduate, a young adult living on my own in the city, and taking care of two elderly parents with my mom having had cancer. Working in this industry, it’s given me more financial stability and more flexibility with my time, making it possible to tackle all the requirements to facilitate the caregiving of my parents. Without having this building to work from, it will make my life difficult and uncertain. Especially after going through COVID, it’s been difficult recovering and getting back to normal.

[2:21:17] If we don’t have this building, it limits the options for a safe workplace for myself and all the other workers who depend on this job and location. It’s been documented countless times that pushing adult entertainment work underground makes it more dangerous for us. Massage scholars provide vital services to those who don’t have the resources to work independently, giving them space for more safety. By declining this application for the new building, you will be depriving the workers of the right to the security of the person by obstructing or prohibiting where and how they can work, thereby exposing them to increased physical and psychological harm.

[2:21:50] I want a safe place in London to continue working from. I hope that you will take this into serious consideration with your decision. Thank you. Thank you. I had state your name and you have five minutes. My name is Michael. I’m a resident of London, Ontario. Let me come down. I’m a resident of London, Ontario. I’m here on behalf of Ambient Spa. After viewing the article and the free press, I came to the conclusion that I think we should allow the spa to be located, relocated for the following reasons.

[2:22:26] Number one, Ambient has maintained a safe, clean, and respectable establishment as past all inspections, as well as keeping within the COVID guidelines when COVID had guidelines and mandates directed by the federal and provincial government. Number two, Ambient has fully cooperated with law enforcement by giving access to cameras for investigation purposes surrounding establishments when crime was happening around the area. There is a strip club in that’s been operating in the zoned area for decades now.

[2:22:59] I don’t think that’s going to affect the patronage by coming into the area. Number four, there are no other areas of the city zoned for personal services that would give them an option. We found out this location is zoned for personal services and not zoned for just strictly residential. So this would be the zoned area that they would be in. When I take a walk myself in the downtown core, I see that there are a lot of addicts and vagrants and homeless too.

[2:23:31] I’ve seen people using drugs right on the stoops, steps of vacant buildings. I’ve had my children with me and have had to explain what’s going on sometimes because they’re very inquisitive. And I just think it’s unfair. I think that their business owners, they are licensed and it’s completely legal and they’re trying to relocate to the zoned area that they have knowledge that they’re allowed to be. So I think that it’s totally unfair and it’s maybe a little bit of prejudice involved there that they’re going to bring some sort of trouble to the area.

[2:24:09] I think that as long as ambience operates safely and meets all the requirements that are set forth by the city, then they should be allowed to exist without prejudice in the area, zoned for the licenses. I think it’s unfair, like I said, to offer that. Say, hey, you can have this license, pay us for it. We have a zoned area, but you’re not allowed to be there. I mean, it’s just tight hands, right? That’s it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the gallery would like to speak?

[2:24:45] Pay I will go back to Zoom and there are a number of people that spoke on the first matter and are also registered to speak for this, so I will go through your names. And if you don’t want to speak again, just let me know. So the first name on my list for this item is Orest Pizzio. Yes, good afternoon, everyone. Again, Orest Pizzio. I am the owner of the building at 244 down the street. Listen, I will reiterate my earlier position, which is I am very much against the move.

[2:25:23] Now, clearly over the past, I guess, 25 minutes or so, we have seen lots of very scripted remarks by evidently a very close group of individuals who are related in some way, shape or form by two ambience. We’ve had one in particular by someone who claims that ambience is a fantastic neighbor, but is still somehow in support of them moving away to a new location, which I found surprising, to be honest. Listen, that being said, my position does not change. Having an adult body reparler in this location is not consistent with the massive investment the city of London has made into the Dundas Flex Street Initiative.

[2:26:04] It is not consistent with the investment that all of the individual landlords have made into the properties they own in the area. And most importantly, it is not consistent with the core of the matter here, which is the safety and the well-being of all people in the downtown core area, in particular, the women and the girls who reside in the area. So once again, I’ve got four women who reside in my building. I am very focused on making sure that they can view that building as a safe space where they can reside long-term and supporting or having this by your up parlor or whatever you want to call it, moving to the location is not conducive to that in any way, shape or form.

[2:26:50] So once again, I reiterate my earlier position and I am very much against the proposal here. Thank you. I’m going to go next to David Stambler. Hi there. Here we are again. Again, David Stambler, I’m the owner of 234 Dundas Street and I would also like to register my very firm opposition to this. I will be submitting my previous presentation as suggested, which I would like to be considered for both of these.

[2:27:29] It seems obvious that there is some connection between the businesses that are trying to open the massage parlor and also the adult entertainment strip club. Although, obviously, it seems to be somewhat untested, but it seems there’s some connection. I’m firmly posed to the adult body of business being in this location. I would also like to counter what so far has seemed to be a very effective campaign by ambiance to pull together the lawyer, the owner, workers, neighbors, and friends.

[2:28:04] Like one of the previous people had said, seems somewhat scripted. I would think that if it had more of a spontaneous element to it, but these are obvious people who are all invested in the business. And I think one of their main complaints has been that there should be seen as legitimate workers supporting their families legitimately. And that is absolutely true. I have no problem with the business itself. It’s the location. That’s what we’re all talking about. And again, this is a matter of transforming what hopefully is a family-friendly place.

[2:28:40] They’re talking about, you know, it all being very discreet and anonymous, people coming in and out, going in and out. Well, it sounds a little bit further than me. I’d like to refer to myself as a counselor. So one of the pillars in your strategic plan is making a safe place for women and girls. I do not think that an adult body rub location does that, not in any way. And I would like to reinforce what one of the women who works there says, well, our place is great.

[2:29:13] We’ve got panic buttons in each room. Hmm, you know what? I’ve got to be honest with you. I do not want a business next door to my building that requires panic buttons in order to operate. There’s just something not right about that. And there’s not something about justifying its existence as being that, well, we have them, but we haven’t had to use them recently. One of the other things that Jesse Helmer counselor said, not sure what the path of causing the least harm would be, saying that sometimes it can be clear that any business that threatens the integrity of Dundas place would be causing harm.

[2:30:01] Also, somebody putting forward, well, it’s not going to succeed if it doesn’t move here. The financial argument that city needs to help a business financially succeed by moving it to the location where it doesn’t belong is also not a good argument. Also, this idea about where are the women around here? Very next door, third floor in my building, single woman, couple of single men. This is about maximizing your investment in Dundas place. And I will close simply by repeating my five main questions.

[2:30:42] Do you want to turn Dundas place into an adult entertainment zone? Although it is a valid business, although it is a legitimate business, it’s all a fellowship. There has to be somewhere else. And I’m not trying to do a nimby, not in my own backyard approach. It’s simply from a logistical and investment and London business perspective. Do you want to increase prostitution in the downtown core? Because although this business may be safe, it is connected and often is connected to prostitution more than any other business that could come in.

[2:31:21] Do you want to reduce your future tax base? Again, property values are going to drop depending on the type of businesses there. And do you want to protect women and men from misogyny exploitation? We have heard from some of the workers there saying there is no exploitation. That is not the case across the majority of the adult rub business. If this is a standout business that somehow is an outlier, I think that’s great. Unfortunately, the idea of moving business means that it becomes an ongoing thing.

[2:32:00] And do you want them to place a safe and economically thriving place to live and work? That is what you need to ask. And it’s for the maximum number of businesses and people, an adult rub location, services, a minority. And I’m sorry, I do not think it is supported by the majority of businesses and owners in the downtown core. I do not support it. I do not want to be beside it. If it’s somewhere in the city, I think that’s great. I do not think it should be on Dundas Street in the middle of Dundas place, which you worked so hard to improve.

[2:32:41] Thank you. Thank you. I’m going to go to Kelsey Morris. Kelsey, are you still with us? Yes. Hi. So hello, my name is Kelsey Morris, and I am an advocate counselor at London Abuse Women’s Center. I’m here today to speak against this application. Since 2015, London Abuse Women’s Center has supported over 2,800 women and girls who have been trafficked, and over 1,800 women and girls who are at risk of being trafficked.

[2:33:17] With long-term, trauma-informed, woman-centered counseling, advocacy, and support, these numbers include at least 68 girls who report that they were under the age of 18 years old. Sex trafficking is a form of sexual exploitation that can include recruiting, obtaining, or providing a person for the purpose of sex. In Ontario, sex trafficking is the most reported form of human trafficking. The demand for paid sexual services fuels the growth of trafficking and exploitation of our most vulnerable populations.

[2:33:52] Victims of sex trafficking are often lured or coerced into the commercial sex industry. Two-thirds of all trafficking in Canada originates in Ontario. London, Ontario is a hub for sex trafficking because it is the first large city located between Windsor and Toronto with easy access from Highway 401 into hotels and motels. While trafficking affects all demographics, traffickers frequently target individuals who lack strong support networks are facing financial strain, have experienced violence in the past, or who are marginalized by society.

[2:34:30] London Abused Women’s Centre follows the equality model of prostitution, which is a three-pronged approach. The first, to decriminalize those selling sexual services. The second, to criminalize sex purchasers. And the third, to provide support and resources for those exploited. A major pillar of the equality model is to change social norms surrounding the sexual exploitation of women and girls by highlighting the normative effect that legislation has on public discourse.

[2:35:02] In other words, what is legalized by our government becomes accepted by society. The idea of allowing three sexually exploitative establishments within a one-block radius of each other would normalize the exploitation of women and girls. And it’s therefore counterintuitive of our current legislation. The average that girls are lured into sex trafficking is 12 years old. That age lowers to 11 years old for indigenous girls. There are at least three high schools in or near the downtown core, as well as the London Public Library, which is directly across the street from the proposed site.

[2:35:41] This relocation would create a hot bed for sexual exploitation. As pimps, traffickers, and sex buyers become concentrated in our downtown core. A London Free Press article released on August 18th states that downtown London has informally surveyed members of the public via email. And 84% of respondents were opposed to this application. Those are your statistics, London. The public is very aware of the risks of allowing this relocation to take place. I’d like to use the last of my time to acknowledge the counter argument that these establishments provide a safer place for women in the sex trade.

[2:36:19] Let me make this clear. There is no safe way for a woman to be involved in the sex trade. Women are still being harassed, stalked, assaulted, and murdered while working in these establishments. The experience of a couple does not represent the experience of the whole. The bottom line is this, as long as we continue to live and survive in a patriarchal society that sexually objectifies and commodifies the bodies of women and girls, men will continue to feel an entitlement to our bodies. This entitlement will always be a risk to us.

[2:36:55] If City Hall approves this relocation, you would not only be complicit in the exploitation of our community’s most vulnerable women and girls. You will be an active agent in it. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you. Next, I’ll go to Kate McAnlis. Hello, thank you for allowing me to speak. I would like to be very clear that I do respect that this is a profession and that this does afford a lot of financial stability for women who may be in vulnerable positions.

[2:37:33] And I completely understand that. I do not understand why this is the location for this business. As I stated with the previous matter, I used to work for the London Public Library and I used to work in the children’s department of the London Public Library. This is the only children’s library within the city. And I think that it’s kind of inappropriate to have these businesses in a block that promotes itself as being a space for families and a place for children. I would also like to say that I walk along this block nearly every day to get to my place of work in 275 Dundas.

[2:38:11] And, you know, there are a lot of children and families out on the street. There are also a lot of elderly people and there are a lot of vulnerable people. And I don’t feel that this location is appropriate for this business. The Harrison Pencil Building has been sold to Western. We are going to be having far more community services available, like dental clinics and legal aid counseling. So I’m not sure why this business fits within this model of being a place Dundas Street as a whole and downtown as a whole as being a place for community, as being a place for inclusion, for social events, so on and so forth.

[2:38:50] The city has invested a ton of money into this street. I think it’s wonderful. I personally can see it on the up. Yes, there is a huge homeless crisis. Yes, there is a huge drug addiction crisis. As I stated earlier, I was assaulted three weeks ago by a homeless person, and I witnessed an overdose and assisted with calling ambulance for an overdose just on Sunday. You know, moving this business to this location is not going to aid in that. It is not going to help in that. That’s a larger issue that the city needs to address.

[2:39:25] But in terms of this business being at this location, I don’t think it makes sense. We have a chrome dress store right next door. I don’t personally think that teenage girls are going to want to be shopping at a location next to a business such as this. And I understand that it is a well established business. They’re respectful in the way that they conduct their business. And I think that’s fabulous, but I don’t think this is the right location. We have a lot of women who live in this area who may have honestly come from abusive situations. I don’t know their backgrounds, but as the business part of me, building owner has stated, he doesn’t think his tenants are going to be comfortable with this.

[2:40:07] And I’m concerned about that. I want to feel comfortable going to work. I think that the women who work at this business should feel comfortable going to work with their patrons, but I don’t think this is the right location for it. I can understand that it should be a little more central in London perhaps, but this particular block on this revitalized street that the city is really working to upkeep. It’s not right. You know, what’s going to happen to the salsa dancing class that happens there outside. That’s what I’m concerned about. I want to see this city and this street become a proper destination for folks.

[2:40:46] And I don’t think that this business is going to lend to that. And I understand the struggle of finding a proper location for it, but I don’t think this is it. I think that’s all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. I see your hand, Mr. Tony, and I don’t have anyone else on my list, so you can go ahead. Thank you. Eddie Tony Pimperchin here, owner of 238 Dundas Street, and the previous owner of Lavish.

[2:41:18] And I would like to oppose the relocation of this license for the body rub parlor. Again, who are we trying to attract? There’s already a strip club, solid golds on that block. So the same clientele coming there are now going to go to the new body rub parlor if it does get approved. And then what’s next? It’s going to attract more sex workers on that block, perhaps standing on that block, which is going to attract the people who want this service. It’s going to attract the wrong crowd when the direction of downtown London is family friendly outdoor festivals somewhere for men and women to feel safe walking around.

[2:42:01] Imagine now that block gets a reputation for strip clubs and body rub parlors and sex traffickers. What about the women living there? Just walking down the street. I can already foresee men looking for these services, cat calling. Who knows? But we are attracting the wrong crowd downtown. There’s already one establishment that’s attracting this crowd. And another one will start to create this district, this reputation that Dundas place or this block is a place for the consumers and for the workers to gather.

[2:42:43] And I highly oppose this being the owner of 238 Dundas Street. Recognizing that we need to keep Dundas in the direction. It is a positive direction a lot of people are that have heard in this panel saying downtown has a ways to go. It does. But I started on the board about two decades ago and I’ve seen the progression. And it is very, very positive. And I would like to keep it in this direction. That’s all.

[2:43:15] Thank you. Thank you. So I have Daria on my list too. But I think Daria was Daria, the young lady that spoke before. Is that a different Daria? I can speak again if you want. No, it’s okay. I just check online on Zoom to see if there is a Daria waiting to speak. And I see and hear from nobody. So that’s fine. Anyone in the gallery who has not spoken yet on this matter? I’m sorry, counselor, but you’re viewed it for Zoom.

[2:43:50] Okay. They’ve fixed to me. It wasn’t my fault. I do it enough from home. So I just checked one last time to see if there’s anyone in the gallery who has not spoken yet to this matter, and there’s nobody who is putting up their hand wishing to speak. I’ll check on Zoom to see one more time if there is a Daria in Zoom. And I’m not hearing yes from anyone. So what I need now is a motion to close the public participation meeting. Moved by counselor Hamoon, seconded by counselor Hillier.

[2:44:26] So we will vote on that. Using the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Means the time for public comments has ended and now it will be staff and counselors who will discuss this matter. I’ll go to you first, Mr. Catolic, if you would like to provide us with some comments. Yes, thank you.

[2:44:59] And similar to the previous application, Mr. Lane will provide a high-level summary. Go ahead, Mr. Lane. Madam Chair, as the summary report that was received or has been submitted to committee indicates an application has been made — sorry, I had the microphone out of place there. I’ll start over. As the summary report indicates, an application has been made to consider substituting a new adult entertainment body/rub parlor location for an existing location. Some of the material necessary for committee and council’s consideration was received by email on February 4, 2022.

[2:45:37] A notice of application was circulated April 4, 2022. Staff received 15 formal comments from the public regarding this initial notice, all of which were summarized or included in the report. The notice of public meeting was circulated July 27, 2022, once the application materials were considered satisfactory by the license manager. And any comments that were submitted in response to the notice of public meeting have been received by the clerk’s department directly, as have requests to speak or participate at this evening’s meeting.

[2:46:09] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lane. Any comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors? Councillor Fai from Lark, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for letting me speak first. First, I want to make clear my comments are based on the interactions that I’ve had with the residents and the businesses in Ward 13. And I think it was acknowledged that the survey that went out from the LWA was very, very clear, 85% of members weren’t in favor, 0% were in favor and 15% were neutral.

[2:46:54] I can tell you the interactions that I’ve had with residents in the downtown, the support has been the same. So those are fairly accurate numbers. I listened to a lot of the comments here and a lot of comments from the applicants. And I’ll be honest. What I’m really struggling with. I’m really struggling with the business model right now. I’ve heard anonymity. I’ve heard discrete.

[2:47:31] I’m looking at that. And then I’m saying that the location we’ve chosen is on our flex street, which at times is our busiest street in the downtown. So I’m struggling looking at the two pieces and trying to put them together and figuring out how I’m getting that balance of how we feel that a business like this would remotely be successful in the downtown.

[2:48:05] Let’s be honest. This is definitely a destination location. I just don’t see that the model that’s here fits the location that it’s going to. So I bring it back to what do we know about our downtown? One of the things that we all know full well right now, we have vulnerable women in our downtown. Vulnerable women that I think can become at times extremely easy targets for businesses and for the wrong businesses.

[2:48:46] I think the other thing that I want to acknowledge and one of the things we do know and we’ve seen in the past in London, these businesses don’t play well together. I know that there were comments that were made that if I go to solid gold, do I use the other businesses? I’m not as concerned about that. I just find that these businesses just don’t seem to play well in the sandbox together. And I’m concerned that we would even be creating an environment that becomes extremely hostile, extremely quickly.

[2:49:23] So for these reasons alone, I don’t support this move. I just don’t think it’s a logical space for this business to be. The one thing I will acknowledge, and I know there were a lot of comments made on it, I think the challenges right now in the downtown, we have to be careful. The challenges that are going on in the downtown are not the fault of this business. This business isn’t bringing forward those challenges. But I also think that if we want to address those challenges, we have to address them through businesses that are extremely welcoming to the community that will bring people downtown.

[2:50:01] So those are my comments, and I thank you very much. I would ask that this committee not support this move though. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Hillier. Thank you very much. Yes, I know my ward would love to lose this. I know by all the complaints I received from the hotel, from the parents visiting with the hockey teams, and looking over and seeing that sign. But am I willing to transport it and move it to downtown after all the work we’ve done? No, I’m not.

[2:50:34] I’m sorry, this is not a location for this. This, I hate saying where is a good location for this. But if I had to, in an industrial area, away from residential, hotels, everyone. Okay, Councillor Hamilton, I just want to caution the committee that we should please be respectful as well and temper our comments. Thank you, Chair. So I’ve heard the comments, I’ve heard the City Council for the area, and I just wanted to thank everyone for speaking up as I know.

[2:51:11] It can be challenging for some, and I also want to state that none of us up here are judging people who work in those institutions or those organizations. I also want to commend the Body Web Parlor for having such a good work environment that you have, your employees coming to defend you, that’s actually quite commendable. But I am going to be rejecting this application because of the money that we have invested in Dundas Place, and I also think it will create an unsafe place for girls and women, and it’s not something that fits into the family friendly vision for the course.

[2:51:49] So I’m sorry, I will be rejecting this application. Thank you. Any other comments from committee members online? Not seeing any. All right, I just want to make a couple of comments. First of all, thanks to everybody who came out and spoke. This can be an issue we’ve dealt with the business licensing bylaw in the past, in the past term of council, when we separated the two forms of adult entertainment.

[2:52:27] There used to be under one business licensing bylaw. So I know that this can be an emotional issue and that it is important not to stigmatize people that work, however they choose to work. That’s their right and that’s their business and nobody deserves to be judged or stigmatized for that. I will say, I shared some of Councillor Fife-Milar’s confusion about the desire for clients and workers to have a certain level of anonymity.

[2:53:03] And I am concerned that anonymity would be lost on Dundas Street. It is a very busy street, especially when there are festivals and events going on downtown which hopefully we will see more and more and more of. So there will be crowds on Dundas Place and that could harm your business if that’s where the location is. I also know whenever this Council or the Planning Committee and the City Council considers an application for a brand new building to be built, especially in downtown.

[2:53:39] Oftentimes one of the requirements that we put in place for the applicant who wants to build a brand new building downtown is that there should be street activation which means that building interacts with the street. Often we say sufficient glazing which just basically means lots of windows. We want a new building that’s going to be built downtown to be windows and glass so that people on the street can see inside that building and people in the building can see outside to the street.

[2:54:15] It’s that interaction between the building and the people on the street. And so I see this business being located right there in the middle of Dundas Place as sort of counterintuitive to that philosophy and that desire that we have for the downtown core, that interaction so that the street feels alive whether you’re inside a building or outside of a building. So those are my comments. I am the chair. I don’t make motions.

[2:54:46] I look to my committee. The recommendation from staff having heard from the public, having heard from people on Zoom and from the applicants themselves, the report itself is recommending that we receive this information and so I look to a committee to make that motion. And if there is another motion that somebody would like to make, please make it. Councillor Hillier, what’s your motion? I will make motion to receive to start this off and then we’ll go from there. Okay, the motion to receive is moved by Councillor Hillier and seconded by Councillor Hamou.

[2:55:25] We can vote on that. Do you wish to speak again, Councillor Hillier? We need to report out the vote first. I was just waiting. I was just waiting. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Hamou.

[2:56:12] There’s a motion on the floor. Are there comments or questions about this motion? Seeing none, I will call the vote. I’m using the vote. The motion carries four to one. Recommendation from this committee. It goes to a vote of full council on September 6th. The recommendation from this committee is to deny the relocation application, but this is not the final decision that happens on September 6th.

[2:56:50] Thank you again for everyone for coming out, and that concludes that portion. And we move now to our deferred matters list. We have a conflict on the first item on our deferred matters list. So if we could move the first item first, somebody would like to move the first item on the deferred matters list, moved by Councillor Hamou. And I’ll second that, and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero with one abstain. Motion now for the remainder of the deferred matters list.

[2:57:36] Moved by Councillor Hillier. Seconded by Councillor Hamou. Any questions or comments on the deferred matters list? I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. That concludes our agenda. There are no unless somebody has additional business, and I’m seeing none. And there are no confidential items, so I just need a motion to adjourn.

[2:58:14] Moved by Councillor Hillier. Seconded by Councillor Hamou. We can do a hand vote on that. All those in favor, and that motion carries. Thanks everybody. Have a good afternoon. Thank you.