Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

Page 2 m December 15, 1996 Z.B, Adult Entertainment -- Club owner challenges buffer zone requirement Vicary v. City of Corona, 935 F. Supp. 1083 (California) 1996 Vicary owned a combination sports bar/country and western bar called Angels on Sixth Street in the city of Corona, Calif. When she first bought the bar, the city restricted live adult entertainment to commercial areas and re- quired a conditional use permit. In 1993, the city passed a moratorium on new adult entertainment businesses. V/cary said Angels was losing money so she decided to offer topless adult entertainment. In 1994, she told the city of her plans to make Angels a topless bar. Apparently, the city indicated it disapproved. The next year, the city adopted new restrictions on adult entertainment, confining them to heavy manufacturin~ zones and requiring they be at least 750 feet from any residential zone, measured from lot line to lot line. The ordinance stated "crime rates appear to be higher" in residential are.as near sexually oriented businesses than in commercial or industrial areas near such businesses, and a buffer was.necessary to lessen the effect. However, the city did not determine whether the crime rate in Corona or nearby communities was affected by sexually oriented businesses or whether a buffer zone affected the rate. The city said Vicary's proposal did not meet the ordinance's 750-foot buffer requirement because two mobile home parks were within 750 feet of Angels' property line. One Park was on the other side of Sixth Street, 250 feet from Angels' building, and the other was 400 feet from Angels' property line on the same side of the street. Vicary pointed out Sixth Street was a well traveled four-lane highway with an 80-foot-wide median, neither mobile home park was directly acces- sible from Sixth Street, and both parks had walls around them. She also noted the first mobile home park was hidden from Sixth Street by trees and thick vegetation; the other was separated from Angels by a warehouse and a gar- bage truck storage yard. Vicary did not apply for a conditional use permit or variance. Instead, she went to court to get an order that would prevent the city from enforcing the buffer zone against her proposal. She claimed the city passed the ordinance to block her from offering topless dancing. In addition, she claimed the buffer- zone requirement did not leave her a reasonable opportunity to relocate the business in Corona. As a result, she said, the ordinance violated her First Amendment right to free speech. 'The city argued the buffer-zone requirement did not violate the First Amendment because it was a content-neutral time, place and manner regula- tion. The city said there were 27 available sites in Corona where Vicary could operate her proposed business in compliance with the ordinance. DECISION: Order granted. Though the buffer-zone requirement was constitutional, the city could not enforce it to block Vicary's proposed topless bar.