City of Reno
Nevada

Staff Report
8276

Staff Report (For Possible Action): Presentation, update and potential direction to staff on the proposed adult business ordinance amendments. [6:00PM Time Certain]

Information

Department:Community DevelopmentSponsors:
Category:Presentation

Recommendation and Proposed Motion

Recommendation: In adopting the proposed adult business ordinance amendments, Council is relying on caselaw, secondary effects studies, scholarly literature, and expert testimony discussed and attached to this staff report. The enactment of the proposed amendments will seek to mitigate the identified secondary effects on the surrounding areas associated with the current location of adult businesses within the City of Reno. Accordingly, staff recommends Council accept the staff report and direct staff to move forward with the Staff #1 Recommendations as shown on the RMC Title 18 Chart Options, and the remaining proposed revisions within Titles 4, 5, 8 and 18 as described in the staff report.

 

Proposed Motion: I move to approve staff recommendation.

 

Staff Report Formal Body

Summary: Staff requests that Council accept the staff report and provide direction regarding staff proposed options on implementing revisions to adult business-related sections of the Reno Municipal Code.

 

Previous Council Action:

April 27, 2016 - Council adopted Resolution 8191, extending the 12-month moratorium on any approval of any adult business-related license, permit, or similar authorization until January 2017, to allow staff an opportunity to review all existing adult business-related code provisions, review existing studies concerning the secondary effects occurring in and around adult businesses, and hold public workshops and hearings to obtain testimony and gather evidence from the public regarding the number and location of all adult businesses. Currently, there is no moratorium in effect.

 

In addition to adopting the extension to the resolution and directing staff to continue its review and public outreach process, staff made a presentation and Council provided direction to staff to consider moving forward with the following policy proposals: (1) the elimination of alcohol use on-premises at non-conforming adult business locations within two years of the adoption of an ordinance; (2) separation of the issuance of an alcohol license and adult interactive cabaret license; and (3) limit exterior signs and displays at all adult businesses to static signs only where no pictures or other representations of products, entertainment services, or activity that takes place for sale or gift on premises may be visible from the sidewalk, street or any exterior portion of the building within six months of the adoption of an ordinance.  See Attachment 1, p. 15, Staff presentation.

 

July 22, 2015 - Council adopted Resolution 8081, which established a 12-month moratorium on the acceptance, processing and approving of any adult business-related license, permit, or similar authorization specifically provided for under the Reno Municipal Code to allow staff an opportunity to review all existing adult business-related code provisions, review existing studies concerning the secondary effects occurring in and around adult businesses, and hold public workshops and hearings to obtain testimony and gather evidence from the public regarding the number and location of all adult businesses.

 

April 15, 2015 - Councilmember Jardon requested that a future agenda item include the details of a moratorium on adult entertainment. Accordingly, it was directed that the City Manager utilize two or more hours of staff time to explore a moratorium on adult entertainment. It was moved by Councilmember Jardon and seconded by Councilmember Delgado, to direct staff to bring back a report on adult entertainment for discussion of what types of businesses the City wants in the downtown core.

 

Discussion: Staff was directed to continue conducting legal research, review secondary effects studies, and conduct public outreach regarding the proposed adult business ordinance modification. A description of the legal research and review of secondary effects studies and sources relied-upon are included below in the “Legal Implications” section of this staff report. This “Discussion” section addresses the public outreach conducted by staff and a review of the proposed adult business ordinance modifications. 

 

Public Outreach

Upon direction of council to conduct public outreach, in July 2016, staff held an adult business stakeholder meeting to receive initial feedback from the adult business industry. Upon receiving that feedback, staff conducted additional legal research and review of secondary effects studies and held meetings amongst the City Attorney’s Office and Community Development Department personnel.

 

More recently, the City published on its website under the Community Development Department page on May 4, 2017, a news article explaining the City’s exploration of changes to the adult business-related sections of Reno Municipal Code, including links to the proposed changes for each section of code and denoting the start of the public outreach process. See link: http://www.reno.gov/Home/Components/News/News/16297/87. A print screen of the webpage content is also included herein as Attachment 2. Staff received public comment via email and letter included herein both for and against the proposed adult business ordinance revisions. See Attachment 3 (supporting amendment) & Attachment 4 (against amendment). Attachments include all public comment received as of August 31, 2017.

 

Staff presented the proposed adult business code revisions to all five of the Neighborhood Advisory Boards (NABs) during the months of May and June 2017. In summary, the NABs were supportive of the proposed revisions and made general inquiries as to the proposed modifications to code. No official action was requested or taken by the NABs on the presentations made. The pertinent portions of the minutes for the NAB meetings are included under Attachment 5.  Please note that no minutes were available for the NAB meeting held June 20, 2017, for lack of quorum, however a presentation was still made.

 

A second adult business stakeholder meeting was held on June 22, 2017. Copies of the presentation materials, meeting notes, written public comment provided at that meeting are included under Attachment 6. The meeting was also streamed live and is maintained online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4izOo99mbWU&feature=youtu.be. Please note that due to technical difficulties, the audio from the meeting begins at 9 minutes and 40 seconds into the recording.

 

Staff also met and presented the proposed adult business ordinance amendments with Board members of The Chamber of Commerce Reno-Sparks-Northern Nevada (The Chamber) on May 17, 2017, and the Regional Alliance for Downtown (RAD) on June 8, 2017. On July 21, 2017, staff received an email communication from the RAD president that the “Board voted to officially support the proposed Adult Ordinance with some concerns for the unintended consequences which should not be underestimated.” No further official comment has been received as of the submission of this staff report from the RAD, or any official comment from The Chamber

 

Summarily, the general public outreach conducted by the City staff disclosed that aside from those adult business stakeholders and employees, much of the public comment and feedback received generally favored the City’s proposed adult business ordinance amendments.

 

Staff communicated to the NAB liaisons, the individuals who signed in at the adult business stakeholder meeting, and the presidents of The Chamber and RAD regarding City Council’s September 13, 2017 planned meeting to discuss the proposed adult business ordinance amendments, and should anyone like to attend and provide public comment or submit written public comment, to do so accordingly. Additionally, the Community Development Department website news page was updated on August 1, 2017, denoting that the Reno City Council is scheduled to hear a presentation regarding the proposed adult business ordinance revisions on Wednesday, September 13, 2017, at 6 PM at Reno City Hall.

 

Summary of Proposed Ordinance Changes

Below is a detailed summary of the proposed changes to Code:

 

Title 4: Business License Code - Proposed Amendments

§              Chapter 4.04

Ø              General Provisions; adding license application, issuance and appeal procedures specifically for Adult Interactive Cabaret Performers (AICP) and Adult Bookstores/Theaters

 

Title 5: Privileged License - Proposed Amendments

§              Chapter 5.05

Ø              Licenses Generally; adding AICP work card application, issuance and appeal procedures (formerly Chapter 8.21) 

§              Chapter 5.06

Ø              Adult Interactive Cabarets; amending and adding Adult Interactive Cabaret (AIC) license application, issuance and appeal procedures; amending and adding AIC operational regulations (formerly Chapter 8.21); clarifying the division and separate nature of AIC and alcohol licensed operations

 

§              Chapter 5.07

Ø              Alcoholic Beverages; clarifying the division and separate nature of AIC and alcohol licensed operations 

§              Chapter 5.10

Ø              Escort and Out Call Services; removing redundancy in Code for escort and out call services regulations (formerly Chapter 8.21)

 

Title 8: Public Peace, Safety and Morals - Proposed Amendments

§              Chapter 8.21

Ø              Adult Interactive Cabarets; Escort and Out Call Services; repealing chapter, moving regulations to respective business license Chapters 5.06 and 5.10

 

Title 18: Land Development Code - Proposed Amendments

There are many proposed modifications to Title 18 as shown in the draft ordinance posted on the City of Reno, Community Development Department website. Notable changes within the Title 18 adult business code that have been proposed by staff include, but are not limited to, revisions in the following subsections: the purpose and intent, adult business license exception requirements, locational spacing criteria, operational requirements, amortization regulations, and appeal and judicial review procedures. Significant changes are described in more detail below.

 

Liquor Sales

Adult businesses are permitted to be located within the Industrial Zoning District under certain spacing criteria. Adult businesses are prohibited within the Redevelopment District. Four of the five existing adult interactive cabarets are located in nonconforming locations within the Redevelopment Districts and currently hold active alcohol licenses. Redevelopment Districts are established to encourage reinvestment in an area, increase tourism, and provide residential opportunities.

The secondary effects of adult businesses work against the basic concepts of Redevelopment Districts. These secondary effects include decreased property values, illicit drug use, prostitution, lethargy of revitalization efforts, and more. Alcohol use does not cause, but further exacerbates these secondary effects. In order to reduce these secondary effects and support the redevelopment of the designated areas, staff recommends eliminating alcohol use at those nonconforming locations within six months of adoption of the proposed adult business code ordinance.

 

Signs

Staff proposes that within six months of adoption of the proposed adult business code ordinance, adult businesses located in nonconforming locations: (1) shall only be allowed one square foot of sign area per lineal foot of building frontage, (2) shall be limited to flat wall signs only, and (3) shall be prohibited from the use of electrically activated signs (including, but not limited to, digital signs). Please note that the proposed code revisions online do not reflect all these proposed sign regulation changes. Flashing/animated signs (such as digital) are not permitted under code in the Industrial-zoned districts where adult businesses are an allowable use. Attachment 7 is a slide show of pictures taken of current adult business signs as of June 2017.

 

Location

In order to support the purpose of redevelopment and to reduce the secondary effects of adult businesses, staff recommends that any adult business that is nonconforming due to its location shall come into conformance within five years of the adoption of the proposed adult business code ordinance.

 

Financial Implications: None at this time. There are no proposed changes to any fees associated with an adult business-related license, permit, or similar authorization.

 

Legal Implications:  Legal review completed for compliance with City procedures and Nevada Law. For the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community, the City Council is authorized and empowered pursuant to NRS 278.020 to regulate and restrict the number and location of adult businesses. Under NRS 278.022 the Legislature asserts that the location of adult motion picture theaters and bookstores are of vital concern to society in regard to their location near areas where youth may learn, play, pass by, or would be exposed to their advertising, window displays, or the general atmosphere encompassing their operation.

 

The Supreme Court of the United States holds that regulation of adult businesses is permissible so long as the focus remains solely on regulating the secondary effects of adult businesses and not on censoring the content of such adult entertainment.  See Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, (1986).

 

In City of Renton, the United States Supreme Court held that the level of scrutiny used to determine whether restrictions on sexually oriented speech are constitutional depends on whether the statutory provisions at issue are considered content-based or content-neutral. Id. at 46-48. If restrictions on sexually oriented speech are content-neutral, they will be reviewed under an intermediate scrutiny standard. Id. Under an intermediate scrutiny standard, legislation is examined to determine whether: (1) it is aimed at the negative secondary effects associated with the restricted activity and not the content of the restricted speech; (2) it is a time, place and manner restriction and not a total ban on speech; and (3) it is designed to serve a substantial government interest and leaves open alternative avenues of communication. Id. at 50.

 

 

Legislation that is focused on reducing the secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses long has been considered “content-neutral.” This is because, although the legislation nominally looks at the content of the speech in the sense that it is aimed at sexually oriented conduct, it is nevertheless “content-neutral” if the “‘predominate concerns' motivating [it] ‘[are] with the secondary effects [caused by the speech], and not with the content of [the speech].’” City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425, 440-41 (2002) (quoting Renton, 475 U.S. at 47).

 

Adult businesses, as a category of commercial uses, are associated with a wide variety of adverse secondary effects, including but not limited to: person and property crimes, prostitution, potential spread of disease, lewdness, public indecency, obscenity, illicit drug use and drug trafficking, negative impacts on surrounding properties, businesses, and tourism, exposure of minors to adult business materials, lethargy of revitalization efforts, aesthetic impacts, and sexual assault and exploitation.

 

The United States Supreme Court has held that local governments have an “undeniably important” interest in combating the adverse secondary effects of adult businesses. City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 296 (2000). Furthermore, the Court stated that in considering a city’s justification for its regulation of adult businesses, “[t]he First Amendment does not require a city, before enacting such an ordinance, to conduct new studies or produce evidence independent of that already generated by other cities, so long as whatever evidence the city relies upon is reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem that the city addresses.” City of Renton, 475 U.S. at 51. Beyond the caselaw referenced in this staff report discussing the secondary effects doctrine and adult businesses, see Attachment 8.

 

 

 

 

 

Generally, there are five categories of sources for secondary effects evidence, which are:

§              Land Use Reports

Ø              Generally conducted by planning departments or private planning agencies

§              Crime Impact Reports

Ø              Police incident reports and other analyses of crime data

§              Judicial Opinions

Ø              The United States Supreme Court has stated that local governments may rely upon the documented secondary effects in prior judicial decisions

§              Expert Reports

Ø              Criminologist and statistician conducted analyses of crime data to document the ambient crime hazards associated with adult businesses

Ø              Real Estate Land Appraiser analyses of effects of land uses on market values

§              Anecdotal Data

Ø              Personal testimony collected in an informal, unscientific manner

Ø              Courts have stated that local governments may rely upon this type of information

 

 

City staff reviewed secondary effects studies conducted in other jurisdictions, the most relevant and recent of which are included in Attachment 9. Similarly, scholarly literature and expert testimony reviewed by City staff are included in Attachment 10. Generally, the expert findings noted in the caselaw, studies, literature, and testimony conclude that (1) the finding of secondary effects from adult businesses is scientifically robust, and being confirmed in a wide variety of data sources; (2) a governmental entity such as the City of Reno has a substantial governmental interest in regulating adult businesses to prevent the identified negative secondary effects; (3) adult business industry-led “studies” violate methodological rules, such as reliance on calls for service, which are weakly correlated to actual crimes; and (4) all subclasses of adult businesses, including retail-only stores, have secondary effects.

 

The proposed adult business code amendments regulating adult business signage, location, and alcohol useamong the other notable proposed revisions referenced in this staff report and included in the draft ordinancesare supported by the attached secondary effects studies, caselaw, scholarly literature, and expert testimony.

 

 

 

 

*** See CHART OPTIONS below ***

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RMC Title 18 - Chart Options

Staff recommendations are denoted in gray shading

 

 

Alcohol

Signs

Location

Current Ordinance

Alcohol permitted in non-conforming locations

Digital signs permitted

No square footage limitations on signage

Non-conforming adult business use permitted downtown/RDA 1 & 2

2016 City Council Direction

Alcohol in conforming locations only  

 

2 year amortization in nonconforming locations

 

Digital prohibited  No depiction of adult use

 

6 month amortization

 

 

--

Staff #1 Recommendations

 

Proposed Regulations & Amortization Periods

Alcohol in conforming locations only

 

6 month amortization of alcohol use in nonconforming locations

Nonconforming locations only: (1) digital prohibited; (2) wall sign only; and (3) limited to one sq. ft. of sign area per lineal foot of bldg frontage

 

6 month amortization for nonconforming locations

 

Conforming Locations Only 

 

5 year amortization for nonconforming locations

Staff Alternative Recommendations

 

Proposed Regulation & Amortization Period

 

No alcohol

 

6 month amortization in all locations

Nonconforming locations only: (1) digital prohibited; (2) wall sign only; and (3) limited to one sq. ft. of sign area per lineal foot of bldg frontage

 

1 year amortization for nonconforming locations

 

Conforming Locations Only 

 

7 year amortization for nonconforming locations

 

Meeting History

Sep 13, 2017 12:00 PM Video Reno City Council Regular

THIS ITEM WAS HEARD AFTER ITEM M.1.

COUNCIL MEMBER BREKHUS ABSENT AT 7:04 P.M.

Chandeni Sendall, Deputy City Attorney, provided a detailed overview of the proposed adult business ordinance amendments, including information regarding the Secondary Effects doctrine.

COUNCIL MEMBER BREKHUS PRESENT AT 7:07 P.M.

Claudia Hanson, Community Development Planning Manager, provided a detailed overview of the public outreach and existing adult business locations portions of the staff report.

Ms. Sendall discussed the federal restrictions and case law; adult business secondary effects; related secondary effects (alcohol, signage, location and expert findings); and Washoe County, Reno and Sparks' adult business regulations. She also provided a detailed overview of the current adult business regulations.

Council Member Jardon and Ms. Sendall discussed relocation issues related to the Wild Orchid, the fact that the attorneys relied primarily on non-local case studies and local community input, and secondary effects issues related to adult businesses and marijuana facilities.

Council Member Jardon asked if the City has a uniform enforcement process and procedure related to the findings of any illegal or disallowed activities and the actions that the City can or will take when those activities are confirmed.

Jason Soto, Chief of Police, replied that the City does have a uniform enforcement process and procedure in place.

Michael Chaump, Business License Manager, said that the Business License Division also has a uniform process and procedure in place.

Mayor Schieve asked how it is that only one of the adult businesses in Reno is located in an industrial area, and Ms. Hanson replied that there were no schools in the area when the business was established.

Mayor Schieve and Chief Soto discussed calls for police service at local adult businesses. Chief Soto noted that one location has the same address as a hotel that is behind it.

Mayor Schieve and Ms. Hanson discussed existing signs, some of which are permitted and some of which are not. Ms. Hanson said that there is not yet a complete inventory of signs. Ms. Hanson noted that the freestanding sign at the Wild Orchid was permitted, and that no digital signs are allowed in the industrial zone.

Council Member Jardon and Ms. Hanson agreed that the City has an obligation to rectify any illegal activities that are occurring in any business in the City of Reno.

Mayor Schieve asked why alcohol in casinos is not regulated and Ms. Sendall explained that calls for service are weak in correlating crime, and the doctrine of secondary impacts only applies to adult businesses and not to casinos. The casino industry is regulated by the Gaming Control Board, which regulates both the gaming and non-gaming activities of casinos. There is nothing comparable for adult businesses.

Council Member Delgado asked if some of the current issues occur as a result of the location and would be resolved were the adult businesses to be moved into industrial areas.

Ms. Sendall said that the impact of the businesses on the surrounding area would be decreased were they properly zoned. She emphasized that what is being proposed here is a land use (i.e., zoning) change.

Council Member Delgado requested that staff identify when the charter school near Show Girls of Reno was established, and when Show Girls of Reno was established. He and Ms. Hanson discussed residential adjacency requirements, and Ms. Hanson noted that as non-profits charter schools are not required to obtain a business license or a building permit, so the City does not always know they are there.

Council Member Brekhus discussed the policy basis for the staff recommendations, and the investment framework the City is trying to develop in downtown Reno, as well as the community character issues such as what sort of blend we would like to see in this new redeveloped urban environment. Ms. Brekhus referred to slide 14 in the power point presentation and attachment 9 to the staff report. She said that one of the reports was specific to Nevada, and asked who commission the study. Ms. Sendall replied that she did not know who commissioned the study in question.

Council Member Brekhus disclosed that when she was briefed by legal staff she was informed that staff had commissioned a private investigator to go into the licensed businesses and observe activities there. She questioned whether that report was included in the 522-page attachment, noting that she did not get a copy of the report; she was just informed of it.

Ms. Sendall stated that the report was commissioned under an attorney/client privilege basis in anticipation of litigation.

Council Member Brekhus said, so it is not part of the public record, it is an attorney/client document. She said she thought it was primary research the City had conducted because we are relying on Texas and New York City's research. She asked if it is a land use report, a crime impact report, expert's report or anecdotal data. I got from it that there were observations made, not at an evidence level but at an observation level, of a lot of these secondary effects we are talking about. Perhaps victimization of patrons, victimization of employees, and activity rising to a criminal level. I do not know if that is a topic we are discussing here tonight, but to me that briefing was important, it is background information and is important to me in this discussion.

Karl Hall, City Attorney, said that the report is privileged and is not part of the public record. The presentation that was made tonight is based on secondary effects and Council direction. In preparation for litigation, we did some further investigation.

Council Member Brekhus apologized for divulging the information, and asked if the information was anecdotal or expert surveillance information.

Mr. Hall said that the information was based on observations.

Council Member Brekhus asked if the information in the report is specific enough to build secondary effects specific to establishments, and Mr. Hall replied that the information on the record supports secondary effects. Any action that the Council would entertain in terms of zoning or other recommendations has been provided as options.

Council Member Brekhus and Ms. Hanson discussed the types of signs that are allowed in the Industrial District, and the possibility of placing a cap on the number of adult businesses. Ms. Hanson said that placing a cap would be problematic.

Council Member Bobzien discussed the recent study conducted in Reno by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), their recommendations, and the degree of community engagement in the process. He said that he considered the anecdotal information contained in the report as valuable to this discussion.

Bill Thomas, Assistant City Manager, said that the city-funded ULI study was specifically to have nationally known experts examine the issue of connecting the University of Nevada to the Convention Center, and ULI's recommendations were specific to Virginia Street. The nature and characteristics of the businesses in Midtown today as opposed to 20 years ago are what is driving the conversation. Land use is fluid and a community changes over time.

Mayor Schieve questioned whether women would be allowed to go fully nude if a club's right to service alcohol is removed.

Ms. Sendall said that Clark County code currently allows two types of strip clubs -- juice bars that allow no alcohol and are fully nude, and those that allow semi-nudity and alcohol. Taking away the alcohol does not give one the right to change the nude or semi-nude nature of the business. It is a policy question and is not in any federal or state law.

Ms. Hanson said that the issue regarding alcohol was clarified numerous times at the stakeholders' meetings.

Council Member Jardon and Ms. Sendall agreed that the relocation issue must be a global directive and not a site-specific directive, and Ms. Hanson stated that one cannot write an ordinance that is specific to one parcel; it would be spot zoning. The issue must be addressed citywide and is based on what is best for the entire community. Ms. Sendall said that all of the non-conforming locations in are Redevelopment Areas 1 and 2 (RDA1 and RDA2).

Council Member McKenzie and Ms. Sendall discussed staff recommendations regarding distance requirements between performers and patrons, video surveillance, etc., and agreed that moving the businesses to another location will not address the secondary effects of these businesses.

Council Member Duerr discussed the various state liquor and smoking laws, and how the community drives the conversation on how to move forward. We should not have adult businesses attached to hotels, or allow adult businesses to have private rooms that help circumvent our laws. We need to ensure that the rules can be monitored and regulated. We can rely on case law, and staff has provided that for us.

Council Member Brekhus discussed the importance of advancing First Amendment protective rights, and she and Jonathan Shipman, Assistant City Attorney, discussed whether the City has any obligation to any property owner or license holder under the Reno Transportation Rail Access Corridor (ReTRAC) relocation agreement (e.g., the Men's Club of Reno).

Mayor Schieve called for public comment.

Bob Cashell, former Mayor of Reno, provided a brief history of the land trades the City had to make to get baseball in Reno, including an agreement with the owner of the property on which the Men's Club of Reno is currently located.

The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed ordinance amendments: 1) Mike Kazmierski, kazmierski@edawn.org, online public comment; 2) Jeff Gorelick, 655 Juniper Hill Road; 3) Kelly Roper, 6454 Brookview Circle; 4) Derrick Johnson, 1970 Applegate Road; 5) Jana L. Johnson, 1970 Applegate Road; 6) Melody Holland, 5861 Royal Vista Court; 7) Kasia Klaus, 1648 Lone Oak Trail; 8) Marissa Crock, 45 Killington Court; 9) Melissa Holland, no address provided; 10) Kim Marsh Guinasso, 11210 Vincent Lane; 11) Ken Krater, 901 Dartmouth Drive; and 12) John Schroeder, 17900 Mockingbird Drive.

The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance amendments: 1) Norm Robins, nlhwizard@cs.com; 2) Mark Thierman, 7287 Lakeside Drive, representing the Keshmiri Group; 3) Candy Greene, 5090 Eldorado; 4) James Gast, 4700 Hyde Park Court, representing the Men's Club of Reno; 5) Dave Matzen, 6062 Bankside Way; 6) Mark Wray, 608 Lander Street, attorney representing the Men's Club of Reno; 7) Gregory Rocke, 9727 Northrup Drive; 8) Brian Lee, no address provided; 9) Jim Gallaway, 50 North Sierra Street #1011; 10) Nick Vander Poel, 1575 Delucchi Lane, Suite 115, attorney representing the Keshmiri Group; 11) Deidra Enlo, 4650 Sierra Madre, representing Fantasy Girls; 12) Khalid Ali, 1435 East 4th Street; 13) David E. Jackson, 4900 Ellis Street; 14) Aquila Nelson, 549 Casazza Drive; 15) Ann Silver, 449 South Virginia Street, representing the Chamber of Commerce; 16) Kieran Hill, 4621 West Hidden Valley; and 17) Doc Easterday, 235 Lake Street, Room 22.

Emily Loftus, 1542 Wyoming Court, said that the needs of the dancers should be considered.

The following individuals presented Public Comment Forms in favor of the proposed ordinance amendments, but did not wish to speak: 1) Catherine Leon, 2885 Watervale Drive, Sparks; 2) Joshua Hartzog, 2885 Watervale Drive, Sparks; 3) Kristie Sheltra, 1825 Dove Mountain Court; 4) Allison Gorelick, 655 Juniper Hill Road; and 5) Brandi Anderson, 600 Paso Fino Court.

Stephen Mollath, 6560 SW McCarran Boulevard, attorney representing The Freight House District LLC, presented a Public Comment Form in opposition to the proposed ordinance amendments, but did not wish to speak.

In addition to those included in the staff report, email and letters in support of the ordinance amendments were received from: 1) Pam Matteoni, matteoni@edawn.org, representing the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada (EDAWN); 2) Gino P. Scala, gino@greatfullgardens, com, representing Great Full Gardens, Inc.; 3) Melissa Holland, mholland@awakenreno.org; 4) Mark Trujillo, mark@hubcoffeeroasters.com, owner of Hub Coffee Roasters; 5) David Spillers, david@digiprintcorporation.com, President of digiprint; 6) Blake Smith, Blake@s3devco.com, representing S3 Development Company; 7) Allison and Jeff Gorelick, allison@gorelickrentals.com, representing Gorelick Real Estate Advisors LLC; 8) Danny Read, comstock1953@gmail.com; 9) Dana Dean, deandan@kellyservices.com, District Manager of Kelly Services; 10) Becky Stidham, BStidham@clarkandassoc.com, President of Clark & Associates of Nevada, Inc.; 11) Christopher Garrison, chris@oldworldcoffee.co, owner of Old World Coffee Lab; 12) Alexandra Wise, mrsdavidwise@gmail.com; 13) Maryanna Petre, mpandmp@sbcglobal.net; 14) Linda Bucciachio, cardiokickfit@outlook.com; 15) Par Tolles, par@tdcnv.com, Principal of Tolles Development Company; 16) Joe Lawrence, joe@signsreno.com, representing SilverBlu Signs & Media; 17) Alishia Wolcott, alishiawolcott@gmail.com; 18) Eric Raydon, eraydon@marmotproperties.com, Managing Member of Marmot Properties LLC; 19) Darrell Clifton, DClifton@circusreno.com, President, Regional Alliance for Downtown; and 20) Craig Parish, representing Living Stones Church Reno, info@lschurches.com.

In addition to those included in the staff report, emails and letters in opposition to the ordinance amendments were received from: 1) Ken Bell, kenbell80@att.net, Manager of the Wild Orchid; and 2) a position letter of concern from the Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce.

Council Member Jardon discussed the importance of the revitalization of downtown Reno and of applying equal application of the law to all. She stated that, as with any other business, if the adult businesses are doing anything illegal, the issue(s) should be addressed by Code Enforcement, the Reno Police Department and the City Council. She noted her hesitation to head down this road without local data to support it, and mentioned the opposition to the changes voiced by the Reno Sparks Chamber of Commerce. If this gives them pause, it gives me great pause as well.

Council Member Jardon suggested moving forward with the staff recommendation with the exception of the relocation piece, and asked if that motion would be too broad for staff.

Ms. Hanson said that staff could move forward with that direction. We can go through any portion of the options; most are in Title 18. The Reno City Planning Commission will then examine the ordinance and make recommendations to the Council.

Mayor Schieve suggested that all employees of the adult businesses be required to take an alcohol awareness class.

In response to The Chamber's concerns, Council Member McKenzie said that these are businesses that are already nonconforming, and the idea that we are going to change zoning codes and try to relocate other businesses that we might not like is a bit of a stretch. The community has been vocal in their view of the effects these businesses have on the surrounding area. Our zoning ordinances stipulate that adult businesses have to be in industrial areas. There are more things that have to be done -- and staff has been diligent in outlining those things -- to ensure that these clubs conform to current code regardless of where they are located. No violations of the law should be allowed to occur. I believe we should move forward with the amendments to address the nonconformance of these businesses as proposed by staff, and we should move forward with changing the ordinance to ensure that there is better conformance to current code.

Council Member Brekhus said that she also supports the staff recommendation. We are here tonight to discuss if we want to set new policy. Administration of the code, administration of other laws, is not here before us tonight. Secondary effects may have tipped the scale, but our manager is in charge of that. That is an administrative duty we have to task her with. We need to focus on whether we want to adopt these policies and have them come back in ordinance form or not. I am comfortable with moving in that direction. It is a way to implement some of the policy bases that we have begun. I appreciate the concern that this may be heavy-handed involvement, and it is pulling out a big tool, but it is a tool that we feel we have a legal basis to use and one that is used very infrequently. However, this is the time and the place to do that. I am supportive of a motion that would accept the staff recommendation.

Council Member Bobzien stated that this was one of the best staff reports he had ever seen. It is a very complicated topic and what was laid out certainly supports much of what Council Member Brekhus just said. This is a policy decision that is well within our means to move forward with. The case law is there. This is a very unique situation because of the First Amendment piece of this and the associated secondary impacts doctrine. As much as we wanted to in our questioning and the discussion to say 'What about this and that?' and point at all these different industries, this is a very unique area we are examining. I have great respect for The Chamber in coming forward and raising some very important issues, and I imagine it was a very fascinating conversation within the business community when you look at EDAWN's perspective on this and The Chamber's perspective on this. However, I will say that the slippery slope that is certainly a natural one for people to point out has some pretty serious limits here based on what we heard from staff, and certainly as Mr. McKenzie pointed out with the nonconforming use. I think it is important to understand what the possible action is here. This is a multi-step process. The staff recommendation in our packet is to accept the report and direct staff to prepare the ordinances. Nothing happens tonight. This is moving the process forward. I do think there were some very interesting dynamics related to one particular business that we need to examine, and that is the Men's Club situation. We definitely have some things we have to figure out, and we need answers on that particular issue. That is a business contractual right that we need to address. But other than that, while I would like to hear more from Council Member Jardon, I am at this point comfortable with the staff recommendation.

Council Member Delgado said that the City has a process for approving alcohol licenses and a process for revoking them if the conditions of approval are not being met. The signage issue addressed in the staff report has opened up a larger issue within the community, and we have to deal with that. What staff presented today is something to move forward with and, since our Vice Mayor initiated this conversation, I am looking to her to see where she sees this going from this point forward.

Council Member Duerr stated that it is a new day in Reno. I am supportive of the staff recommendation, and I am very interested in bringing the businesses into conformance. I am also interested in making specific changes in the building code. It is almost more important to me than where the businesses live that they are following the regulations that have been set forth. That to me is extremely important. Anything we can do to that end -- to lay out what the standards are and what is to be expected and that we enforce those standards -- is super important to me. The devil is in the details of something like this, and I would just say that I do believe that six months is too short to effect a change of this magnitude. When staff comes back with wherever we end up, I think we should be looking at a longer time frame. It is like turning on a dime; it is too quick. I am not sure about making people move. First, I think it is more important to bring them into compliance. We have the sign ordinance. I am pleased that the Wild Orchid, un-requested here today, announced that they are taking down their sign, but I wonder if that is for right now or if that is an inducement. It [the sign] is dark now and I hope it stays dark tomorrow, regardless of what we do here today. I will support wherever Vice Mayor Jardon leads us on this, but when we get into the details of what our staff is going to bring to what and us we will have to have some debate about the how, how long.

Council Member Jardon said that where all this started was by putting a moratorium on adult entertainment just like we put a moratorium on other businesses. Do we want more of something or do we want less of it? How do we freeze something so we can study it? That is what I envisioned this all being. How are we collecting data to evaluation the situation? I don't know that I am fully comfortable here tonight that we, on a local basis, collected enough data for me to say 'move them out' and that somehow that is going to keep anything that is going on internally from happening. I am not there tonight. What I would like to see staff come back with a full report on all activities that are occurring, what processes are applicable here, and how we can institute that -- how we are moving forward and how all that lays out. Wherever this resides, we have to understand that adult entertainment is legal in the state. How do we curb any illegal or unauthorized behaviors if they are found to exist? How are we putting in place a business-operation improvement plan wherever this ultimately does or does not reside? I do not feel that was answered here tonight.

Council Member Jardon asked what happens when, for instance a bar continues to serve alcohol to minors. How are we enforcing that? What is the criteria for enforcement when it comes to their license? If you continually serve alcohol to a minor, what ultimately happens?

Joe Henry, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, said that when we get reports of a bar selling alcohol to minors, the Reno Police Department conducts a sting whereby an undercover person attempts to buy alcohol at the bar. If the bar sells alcohol to the undercover person, the owner is cited. The first instance results in a fine and the second offense could result in license revocation. No matter where these businesses go, we are going to have to look at cleaning them up. Under Nevada Revised Statutes there are 16 different items that address the basic operational standards of adult businesses, adult interactive cabarets. It does not really affect the other adult businesses. Staff has recommended changes for those. When we bring that forward we would need to have a process to address enforcement whether it be a one-strike rule where you immediately lose the license or whether it is the independent contractor that loses their license. We will bring that forward when we bring forward the ordinance.

Council Member Jardon stated that she would like staff to provide more information on the process across the board with all businesses and, in particular, for adult businesses. What is the criteria? What do we do and do we need to define that more clearly? What is our process when we determine that an adult business is conducting some activity that requires corrective action? What do we do next?

Mayor Schieve said that all of the bad actors need to be identified, including payday lenders.

Ms. Hanson stated that staff would address any business activities according to their associated regulations. Our process on any nonconformity is to refer it to the appropriate enforcement group. If it is a building code violation we get a building official involved. If it is a code or nuisance issue, we get Code Enforcement involved. If it involves criminal activity, we will bring in the Police Department. They will act according to the set process for enforcement on those issues.

Council Member Jardon said that is done on the basis of location, but how does that reconcile with a 'move them all out' or 'keep them all in' policy? That is where I am struggling. With the whole location that is then global.

Ms. Hanson responded by saying, 'That is a zoning issue.' Those are two different issues. We are going to enforce equally for any business anywhere in the City. We will enforce no matter what the business is, and we will enforce the appropriate regulations. Where they move is a zoning issue. Two completely different issues. It has been proven that it is best practice to have adult businesses in industrial districts, and the recommendation is to move forward on that.

Council Member Jardon said that maybe this is what staff can bring back. Did Las Vegas have existing clubs on the strip before they were not on the strip, and how was that facilitated? That was not answered here tonight.

City Manager Newby said that from a staff perspective, as Ms. Hanson said, these are two separate issues. There is a land use issue, which is before you now, and there is an enforcement issue, which must also be present at all times. These businesses must be up to code and they must abide by the law no matter where they are located. Chief Soto and I have had this conversation, and I have had this conversation with staff. We are presently, and will in the future, enforce those codes and those laws wherever these businesses may be located. I understand the need for information on that and we can certainly bring that back to you. Having grown up in Las Vegas I can tell you that there are only a couple of adult businesses that are not located within the industrial area. Clark County and Las Vegas have put them there. There are a couple of notable exceptions that I think were grandfathered in, and we can get more information on that.

Council Member Brekhus said that she was ready to make a motion to accept the staff recommendation with special attention to the questions asked at the table.

Mayor Schieve said that there was already a motion on the table from Vice Mayor Jardon, and Council Member Brekhus said that she heard a request for a lot more information, but did not hear a motion.

It was moved by Council Member Jardon, seconded by Mayor Schieve, to ask staff to bring back all of the ordinances related to adult businesses except the relocation piece.

No vote was taken on the motion.

Ms. Hanson requested clarification that the motion was to move forward with everything except the relocation within five or seven years. In other words, we would move everything else forward through the standard process and bring back the relocation concept and relocation information you have requested as a separate item for council direction.

Council Member Jardon stated that Ms. Hanson's interpretation of the motion was correct because she does believe they are two separate things.

Ms. Sendall requested further clarification that the secondary effects doctrine will be used to regulate the signage and elimination of alcohol use in nonconforming areas, and Council Member Jardon said that they would still rely on the case law and the secondary effects doctrine for the signage and alcohol use limitations, whether or not you are relocating.

Council Member Delgado noted that there are some family-oriented businesses in the Industrial District, and asked if the motion could include bringing back information on any potential impacts on those as well. He asked Council Member Jardon if she is in favor of the staff recommendation to annul an alcohol license after six months of a nonconforming use.

Council Member Jardon stated that she is in favor of moving forward with the sign piece and the alcohol piece, but not the location piece. Let us go through the sign ordinance. Clarify for me; do we have the capacity through the secondary effects argument to impose new augmentations to our code on the signs?

Ms. Hanson replied that it would be possible to do that separate and apart from the location.

It was moved by Council Member Jardon, seconded by Council Member Delgado, to move forward with the staff recommendation regarding the signs with the six-month stipulation.

Motion carried.

RESULT:APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
AYES:Hillary Schieve, Jenny Brekhus, Naomi Duerr, Oscar Delgado, Paul McKenzie, Neoma Jardon, David Bobzien