Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Z.B. <br /> <br />September 10, 1997 - Page 3 <br /> <br />.... ,.. <br />, <br /> <br />~, <br /> <br />Adult Entertainment - Business claims city's zoning ordinances totally <br />ban adult entertainment <br />C.R. of Rialto Inc. v. City of Rialto, 964 F.Supp. 1401 (California) 1997 <br />C.R. of Rialto Inc. was an adult entertainment business that provided "erotic <br />performances" in the city of Rialto, Calif. <br />The city had several zoning ordinances regulating adult entertainment <br />businesses. One ordinance required an adult business to get a conditional <br />development permit. Another prohibited such businesses from operating within <br />1,000 feet of residential zones or other specified uses. A third zoning ordinance <br />allowed adult entertainment only in general commercial and commercial manu- <br />facturing districts. The company's business was not located in either of these <br />zones. <br />The city enforced the permit ordinance against the company. The company <br />sued the city, asking the court for a temporary order preventingthecity from <br />enforcing the ordinance and allowing it to return to business in its present <br />location. The court denied the temporary order but later issued a permanent <br />order preventing the city from requiring a conditional development permit from <br />adult businesses. The court decided this requirement was unconstitutional. <br />The company then asked the court to issue a permanent order prohibiting <br />the city from enforcing the other zoning and related regulations on adult enter- <br />tainment anywhere in the city, including the company's present location. <br />According to the company, the city violated its First Amendment free speech <br />rights by applying the combined zoning ordinances in such a way that no property <br />in the city was available for an adult business. <br />The city argued its regulations were designed to protect against the adverse <br />secondaryveffects caused by adult businesses by allowing them only in <br />appropriate zones. The city also claimed the company did not have the right to <br />sue because it operated its business in an area not zoned to allow adult enter- <br />tainment businesses. - . <br />The court held a hearing on the company's request for a permanent order. <br />The company had a zoning expert testify there was no land in the city zoned <br />general commercial or commercial manufacturing that was not also within 1,000 <br />feet of a residential zone. The expert said he found no city location where an <br />adult business could be legally operated. The city presented nothing to contradict <br />the zoning expert's testimony. <br />DECISION: Court stated its intention to issue a permanent order against <br />the city. <br />The court stated its intent to issue an order permanently prohibiting the city <br />from enforcing its zoning regulations against adult entertainment businesses. It <br />ordered the company to submit a proposed order within 15 days. <br />, The zoning ordinances, as applied together, unreasonably limited the ability <br />of adult entertainment businesses to-,QP~r,ate within the city and violated the <br />company's First Amendment rights. The city could ootJenact zoning regulations <br />resulting in a total ban of adult businesses or make it practically impossible for <br />