Ordinance No. 894 - Urgency Ordinance Continuing provisions of Ordinance 878 and 880 for additional period of 1 year to continue the moratorium on adult businessORDINANCE NO. 894
AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, CONTINUING THE PROVISIONS
OF ORDINANCE NO. 878 AND ORDINANCE NO. 880 FOR AN
ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR TO CONTINUE THE
MORATORIUM ON ADULT BUSINESSES IN THE CITY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. Based on information contained in the record, the City
Council makes the following findings:
A. At a duly noticed public meeting on June 30, 2009, and after hearing and
considering public testimony, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 878, an interim
urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on adult businesses in the City for a
period of 45 days pending a review of the City's current adult business ordinance,
adopted in 1995.
B. On August 11, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 880, an
interim urgency ordinance extending for a period of 10 months and 15 days the
moratorium established by Ordinance No. 878.
C. Government Code Section 65858(a) authorizes the City Council to
continue the effect of Ordinance No. 878 and Ordinance No. 880 for an additional
period of 1 year.
D. The findings made in Ordinance No. 878 and Ordinance No. 880 are
herby reaffirmed, readopted and incorporated by reference as though they were fully
restated herein.
E. The City adopted an ordinance regulating adult businesses (referred to in
the ordinance as "adult-oriented businesses") in 1995 ("Ordinance No. 753"). The
ordinance has not been updated since that time.
F. Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 753, there have been a number of
studies concerning the adverse secondary side effects of adult businesses in other cities
and a number of judicial decisions concerning adult business operations. These studies
and decisions supplement the studies and decisions on which the City relied in adopting
Ordinance No. 753. While City staff has begun a review of these studies, it was
determined that additional time is needed to reach a conclusion as to the changes that
are needed to Ordinance No. 753 in order for that ordinance to reflect the proper balance
between time, place, and manner regulations that address the adverse secondary
effects of adult businesses and the expressive activities protected by 'the First
Amendment of the United States and California Constitutions. In addition, City staff
needs time to craft an appropriate balance between the legal protections afforded adult
LA 44820-9887-7702 v l
businesses and the community's legitimate concerns about the secondary effects of
those businesses.
G. Prior to making any permanent amendments to the City's Municipal Code, it
is necessary and appropriate to retain the status quo in order to protect against the
potential adverse secondary effects of adult businesses.
SECTION 2. EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM. The City Council orders as follows:
In accordance with the authority granted the City of Rosemead under
Government Code § 65858(a), and pursuant to the 10-day report published by the City
regarding this moratorium and the findings stated in this ordinance, Ordinance No. 878
is hereby extended and the moratorium on adult businesses, as set forth fully in
Ordinance No. 878, shall remain in effect for an additional period of one year from the
date of adoption of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION.
Pursuant to Government Code § 65858(a) this Ordinance shall take effect
immediately but shall be of no further force and effect one year from its date of
adoption.
SECTION 4. PUBLICATION.
The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption
of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the
provisions of law in that regard and this Ordinance shall take effect immediately and
shall be in effect for a period of one year.
INTRODUCED at the regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council on May 11, 2010.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of May, 2010.
Gary lor, May
ATTEST:
loria Molleda, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jos ph M. Mo es, City Attorney
LA 84820-9887-7702 vl
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD 1
I, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. 894 was duly and regularly approved and adopted by the City
Council on the11 m of May, 2010 by the following vote to wit:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
A k) I-C, UAL
Uloria Molleda
City Clerk
10 DAY REPORT ON THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD'S
MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS
FOR ADULT BUSINESSES
BACKGROUND
On June 30, 2009, pursuant to Government Code section 65858, the Rosemead City
Council enacted Urgency Ordinance No. 878, which imposed a moratorium on the
approval of applications for land use entitlements for adult businesses for a period of 45
days (the "Initial Ordinance"). On August 11, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance
No. 880, which continued the moratorium for an additional period of 10 months and 15
days (the "First Extension"). The City Council is now considering a second extension of
the moratorium, this time for one year. This report is submitted in compliance with
subsection (d) of Government Code section 65858, which requires the issuance of "a
written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the
adoption of the ordinance."
UPDATE ON THE MEASURES TAKEN TO ALLEVIATE THE CONDITIONS THAT
LED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE INITIAL ORDINANCE
1. During the time allotted by the Initial Ordinance and First Extension, City staff has
compiled reports on and legal opinions concerning the substantial health and safety
issues involved in the approval of and location of adult businesses. At the same time,
staff has reviewed the legal protections afforded to adult businesses under the First
Amendment.
2. Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 753 (the existing adult business ordinance),
there have been a number of studies concerning the adverse secondary side effects of
adult businesses in other cities, including but not limited to: Alhambra, California (2007);
Industry, California (2004); Dallas, Texas (1997); Houston, Texas, (1997); and Newport
News, Virginia (1996). These studies supplement the studies on which the City relied in
1995. City staff and the City Attorney's office are completing their review of the content of
these studies and compare their conclusions with Ordinance No. 753.
3. Additionally, subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance No. 753, there have been
numerous legal decisions that are being reviewed regarding local regulation of adult
businesses, so that the City is certain that its adult business ordinance complies with all
applicable law. These decisions include but are not limited to: City of Los Angeles v.
Alameda Books, 535 U.S. 425, 122 S. Ct. 1728 (2002); City of Erie v. Pap's A.M.
("Kandyland'), 529 U.S. 277, 120 S.Ct. 1382 (2000); Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395
F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2005); Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.
2004); Diamond v. City of Taft, 215 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied 531 U.S.
1072 (2001); Isbell v. City of San Diego, 258 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2001); Young v. City of
Simi Valley, 216 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied 531 U.S. 1104 (2001); Lim v. City
of Long Beach, 217 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied 121 S.Ct. 1189 (2001);
Alameda Books v. City of Los Angeles, 222 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. granted 121
S.Ct. 1223 (2001); Baby Tam & Co., Inc. v. City of Las Vegas ("Baby Tam 1), 154 F.3d
1097 (9th Cir. 1998); Baby Tam & Co., Inc. v. City of Las Vegas ("Baby Tam 11 199
EXHIBIT D
Report on Adult Business Moratorium
Page 2 of 2
F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2000); Baby Tam & Co., Inc. v. City of Las Vegas ("Baby Tam 111'),
247 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2001); 4805 Convoy, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 183 F.3d 1108
(9th Cir. 1999); Colacurcio v. City of Kent, 163 F.3d 545 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied
529 U.S. 1053 (2000); Krontz v. City of San Diego, 136 Cal.AppAth 1126 (2006);
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board
of California ("Vicary'), 99 Cal.App.4th 880 (2002); and Tily B., Inc. v. City of Newport
Beach, 69 Cal.App.4th 1 (1998).
4. Regulation of adult businesses is necessary to ensure that their adverse
secondary effects will not contribute to an increase in crime rates or to the deterioration of
the areas in which they are located or surrounding areas. The need for such special
regulations is based upon 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 to sensitive uses
such as residences, parks, schools and churches, thereby having a deleterious effect
upon the adjacent areas. One of the purposes and intents of these special regulations is
to prevent the concentration of adult businesses and thereby prevent such adverse
secondary effects. In addition, there is substantial evidence that an increase in crime
tends to accompany, concentrate around, and be aggravated by adult businesses,
including but not limited to an increase in the crimes of narcotics distribution and use,
prostitution, pandering, and violence against persons and property. City staff is
currently working on determining the appropriate means by which to balance the
negative effects that come from concentrations of adult businesses with the protections
afforded to those businesses.
5. City staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, will finalize their review of
the studies and judicial decisions discussed above and will then bring to the City
Council a revision to Ordinance No. 753 that will meet the City's needs and comply with
current legal requirements. Until that analysis is complete and a determination is made
as to what changes, if any, are needed to bring the adult business ordinance into
compliance with current legal standards, staff has determined that approval of any adult
business applications would represent an immediate threat to the safety and health of
the residences and business which would be located close to adult businesses.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to staffs on-going review of applicable studies and legal decisions and to the
health and safety concerns noted in this report, staff recommends adoption of the
Extension Ordinance. If adopted by the City Council, the Extension Ordinance would
extend the moratorium on the approval of applications for land use entitlements for adult
businesses for an additional period of one year to May 10, 2011.
EXHIBIT D
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER
DATE: MAY 11, 2010
SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 880 TO PROHIBIT
APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR ADULT BUSINESSES
SUMMARY
On June 30, 2009, pursuant to Government Code section 65858, the Rosemead City
Council enacted Urgency Ordinance No. 878 (Exhibit A), which imposed a moratorium
on the approval of applications for land use entitlements for adult businesses for a
period of 45 days. On August 11, 2009, the City Council adopted Interim Urgency
Ordinance No. 880 (Exhibit B) to extend Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 878 for a
period of ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days. Ordinance No. 880 is set to expire on
June 25, 2010.
During the one year moratorium period, staff began to compile and study the substantial
health and safety issues involved in the approval of such businesses. Since the
adoption of the City's current adult business ordinance (Ordinance No. 753), there have
been a number of studies concerning the adverse secondary effects of adult businesses
in other Cities, as well as legal decisions regarding local regulation that must be
reviewed. This period of time has not provided a sufficient amount of time to fully
address the effectiveness and adequacy of Ordinance No. 753 and to complete an
Ordinance to replace Ordinance No. 753. Therefore, such factors warrant the City
Council's consideration of adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 894 (Exhibit C) to
extend the moratorium for a period of one (1) year to May 10, 2011.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and conduct the first reading (by title
only) of a City Council Ordinance in Exhibit C, and adopt, as an urgency measure
pursuant to California Government Code section 65858 (b) Ordinance No. 894 entitled
"An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California,
continuing the provisions of Ordinance No. 878 and Ordinance No. 880 for an additional
period of one (1) year to continue the moratorium on adult businesses in the City."
ANALYSIS
Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 753, there have been a number of studies
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: Item No. 17