It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to provide for the reasonable and uniform regulation of adult businesses in the city. It is recognized that adult businesses have a serious deleterious effect upon adjacent areas, as well as the areas in which they are located. It is therefore the purpose of this chapter to establish criteria and standards for the establishment and conduct of adult businesses which will protect the public health, safety, and welfare, preserve locally recognized values of community appearance, minimize the potential for nuisances related to the operation of adult businesses, and maintain local property values. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to establish proper regulations and to provide for a reasonable number of approximately located sites for adult businesses within the city, based upon the following findings:
(A) The City Council has reviewed the detailed studies, reports and letters prepared by other jurisdictions and its own staff with respect to the detrimental social, health, and economic effects on persons and properties surrounding adult businesses. These studies included Upland, California (1992); Garden Grove, California (1991); Tucson, Arizona (1990); Seattle, Washington (1989); Austin, Texas (1986); Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (1986); Indianapolis, Indiana (1984); Houston, Texas (1983); Beaumont, Texas (1982); Minneapolis, Minnesota (1980); Phoenix, Arizona (1979); Whittier, California (1978); Amarillo, Texas (1977); Cleveland, Ohio (1977); Los Angeles, California (1977); State of Minnesota, Attorney General Report (1989); Newport News, Virginia (1996); St. Paul, Minnesota (1987); Corpus Christi, Texas (1995); and National Law Center (1995) (collectively "Studies"). The Studies, a summary of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A,” substantiate the adverse, secondary effects of adult businesses.
(B) Based on the foregoing Studies and the other evidence presented, the City Council finds that:
(1) Adult businesses are linked to increases in the crime rates of those areas in which they are located and that surround them; and
(2) Both the proximity of adult businesses to sensitive land uses and the concentration of adult businesses tend to result in the blighting and downgrading of the areas in which they are located.
(C) The Studies conducted in various communities in other jurisdictions have demonstrated that the proximity and concentration of adult businesses adjacent to residential, recreational, religious, educational or other adult businesses can cause other businesses and residents to move elsewhere.
(D) The Studies conducted in various communities in other jurisdictions have demonstrated that adult businesses are linked to increases in the crime rates and blighting of those areas in which they are located and that surround them.
(E) The special regulation of adult businesses is necessary to ensure that their adverse secondary effects will not contribute to an increase in the crime rates or the blighting or downgrading of the areas in which they are located or surrounding areas. The need for the special regulation is based on the recognition that adult businesses have serious objectionable operational characteristics, particularly when several of them are concentrated under certain circumstances or located in direct proximity with sensitive uses such as residential zones and uses, parks, schools, churches or day care centers, thereby having a deleterious effect upon the adjacent areas.
(F) It is the purpose and intent of these special regulations to prevent the concentration or location of adult businesses in a manner that would create such adverse secondary effects. Thus, in order to protect and preserve the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry, especially including minors, the special regulation of the time, place, and manner of the location and operation of adult businesses is necessary.
(G) The protection and preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare require that certain distances be maintained between adult businesses and residential uses and zones, churches, schools, day care centers, parks, and other adult businesses.
(H) The need to regulate the proximity of adult businesses to sensitive land uses such as residential, religious, educational, recreational, and other adult businesses are documented in Studies conducted by other jurisdictions as listed elsewhere in this section.
(I) The report of the state of Minnesota Attorney General's Working Group on the regulation of sexually oriented businesses dated June 6, 1986, indicated that:
(1) Community impacts of sexually oriented businesses are primarily a function of two variables, proximity to residential areas and concentration. Property values are directly affected within a small radius, typically one block, of the location of a sexually oriented business. Concentration may compound depression of property values and may lead to an increase of crime sufficient to change the quality of life and perceived desirability of property in a neighborhood; and
(2) The impacts of sexually oriented businesses are exacerbated when they are located near each other. When sexually oriented businesses have multiple uses (such as theater, bookstore, nude dancing, peep booths), one building can have the impact of several separate businesses.
(J) In consideration of the findings of the report of the state of Minnesota Attorney General's Working Group on the regulation of sexually oriented businesses dated June 6, 1986, it is appropriate to prohibit the concentration of multiple adult businesses within one building in order to mitigate the compounded adverse secondary effects associated with such concentrations as described above.
(K) The provisions of this chapter have neither the purpose nor effect of imposing a limitation or restriction on the content of any communicative materials, including sexually-oriented materials, that are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the relevant provisions of the California State Constitution.
(L) The proposed parking standards are necessary in the interests of the public health, safety, and welfare to provide for an appropriate amount of off-street parking.
(M) The City Council takes legislative notice of the Penal Code provisions authorizing local governments to regulate matter that is harmful to minors (such as Penal Code Section 313 et seq.) The City Council further takes legislative notice of cases that recognize that protection of minors from sexually explicit materials is a compelling government interest including, but not limited to, Crawford v. Lungren (9th Cir., 1996) 96 F.3d 380, cert.denied 520 U.S. 1117 (1997) and Berry v. City of Santa Barbara (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1075.
(N) In adopting these regulations, the City Council is mindful of legal principles relating to regulation of adult businesses and does not intend to suppress or infringe upon any expressive activities protected by the First Amendments of the United States and California Constitutions, but instead desires to enact reasonable time, place, and manner regulations that address the adverse secondary effects of adult businesses. The City Council has considered decisions of the United States Supreme Court regarding adverse secondary effects and the local regulation of adult businesses including, but not limited to: Young v. American Mini Theaters. Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976) (Reh. denied 429 U.S. 873); Renton v. Playtime Theaters, 475 U.S. 41 (1986) (Reh. denied 475 U.S. 1132); FW/PBS. Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990); Barnes v. Glenn Theater, 501 U.S. 560 (1991), and City of Erie v. Paps A.M. (2000) 529 U.S. 277 (2000 Daily Journal DAR 3255), United States Court of Appeals 9th Circuit decisions including, but not limited to: Topanga Press, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, 989 F.2d 1524 (1993); Kev. Inc. v. Kitsap County, 793 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir. 1986); Colacurcio v. City of Kent, 163 F.3d 545 (9th Cir. 1998), pet. for cert. filed (1999); several California cases including, but not limited to: Tily B. v. City of Newport Beach, 69 Cal.App.4th 1 (1998); City of National City v. Wiener, 3 Cal.4th 832 (1993); People v. Superior Court (Lucero) 49 Cal.3d 14 (1989); and City of Vallejo v. Adult Books, et al., 167 Cal.App.3d 1169 (1985); and other federal cases including Lakeland Lounge v. City of Jacksonville (5th Cir. 1992) 973 F.2d 1255, Hang On, Inc. v. Arlington (5th Cir. 1995) 65 F.3d 1248, Mitchell v. Commission on Adult Entertainment (3rd Cir. 1993) 10 F.3d 123, International Eateries v. Broward County (11th Cir. 1991) 941 F.2d 1157, and Star Satellite v. City of Biloxi (5th Cir. 1986) 779 F.2d 1074.
(O) The city has conducted its own study of its land use districts and planning areas and has determined that the establishment of adult business in the M-3 zone designation is appropriate, subject to locational and distance requirements that promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. The city also evaluated the locational and distance regulations in this chapter for separating adult businesses from sensitive land uses, and other adult businesses, and determined the location and distance requirements are appropriate to promote the health, safety,+ and general welfare of the public.
(P) The locational requirements do not unreasonably restrict the establishment or operation of constitutionally protected speech in the city and a sufficient reasonable number of appropriate locations for adult businesses are provided.
(Q) The City Council recognizes that the standards and regulations in this chapter do not preclude reasonable alternative avenues of communication. The City Council takes note of the proximity of at least 12 adult businesses within 30 minutes (drive time) of the city, and the presence of “Angels Gentlemen’s Club” at 1650 East Sixth Street in Corona, in determining that the proposed standards do not preclude reasonable alternative avenues of communication.
(R) The City Council recognizes that a sufficient number of appropriate locations for establishing an adult business in the city are provided considering the city's predominant residential character (more than 60% of land within Corona is zoned for residential land use), the fact that there is already one adult business sited in the city (“Angels Gentlemen’s Club”) and the fact that no formal requests to establish an adult business have been received by planning department staff.
(S) Finally, the City Council also takes note of the proliferation of adult material on the Internet and its availability as an alternative avenue of communication. The City Council also considers and relies on published decisions examining the proliferation of communications on the Internet. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) 521 U.S. 844 (the principal channel through which many Americans now transmit and receive sexually explicit communication is the Internet); see also: Anheuser-Busch v. Schmoke, 101 F.3d 325, 329 (4th. Cir. 1996)(rejecting First Amendment challenge to Baltimore ordinance restricting alcohol advertisements on billboards and acknowledging that the Internet is an available channel of communication); U.S. v. Hockings, 129 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 1997); and U.S. v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996)(cert denied 519 U.S. 820). The emergence of the Internet provides a virtually unlimited additional source of adult oriented sexual material available to persons without regard to geographic boundaries. An adult business no longer needs to be actually physically located within a city to be available to the community.
(Ord. 2708 § 4, 2004.)