CCP 11-16-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C-(o/~ I .' 1 This section first describes some of the legal considerations which communities ! rnust keep in mind in drafting zoning ordinances for sexually oriented businesses. . Then, some suggestions are provided, based on evidence reviewed by the Working - Group, of types of zoning which can be enacted to reduce the secondary effects of I sexually oriented businesses. I 1. Documentation to Support Zoninq Ordinances I Sexually oriented speech which is not obscene cannot be restricted on the basis of its content without running afoul of the First Amendment. The justification for regulating I - sexually oriented businesses is based on proof that the zoning is needed to reduce secondary effects of the businesses on the community. I ~ , u Since Renton, a number of adult entertainment zoning ordinances have been f invalidated for failure of the enacting bOdy to document the need for zoning regulations. I ~ Thus, one court invalidated a zoning ordinance because there was "very little, IT any, -I evidence of the secondary effects of adult bookstores. . . before the City Council. . . .. :: . r (Footnote 10 Continued from Previous Page) I I evidence suggesting neighborhood decline would result); Tollis, Inc. v. San b Bernadino Coun~, 827 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1987) (no evidence presented to . legislative body 0 secondary harmful effects); Ebel v. Corona, 767 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1985) (lack of effective alternative locations); 11126 Baltimore Boulevard, Inc. v. Prince Geor e's Co un of Ma land, 684 F. Supp. 884 (D. Md. 1988) I [ InSU IClent eVI ence 0 secon ary e ects presented to legislative body; special exception provisions grant excessive discretionary authority to zoning officials); and peo~les Taqs, Inc. V. Jackson County Leqislature, 636 F. Supp. 1345 rvv.D. I I Mo. 1986 (Improper legislative purpose to prevent continued operation of adult- entertainment establishment). Zoning ordinances were upheld in SDJ, Inc. V. Ci~ of Houston, 837 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir. 1988); FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 837 F.2 f 1298 (5th Cir. 1988); and S & G News Inc. V. City of South~ate, 638 F.Supp. 1060 I (E.D. Mich. 1986), aff'd without published opinion, 819 F.2 1142 (6th Cir. 1987). Remands were ordered In Chns V. Ci of Ann Arbor, 824 F.2d 489 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, U.S. ,108. t. 1013 1988 remand for determination I f of excessive restrictions); International Food & Bevera e S stems v. Ci of Fort Lauderdale, 794 F.2d 1520 11t Ir. 1986 reman or reconSI eratlon In Ig to Renton, ~upra; nude bar ordinance), and Walnut Pro erties Inc. V. Ci of Whittier, I 808 F.2 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (reman , In part, or etermmatlon 0 and I availabil ity). -. I -36- I I