Prepared for:

Planning Committee of

the Los Angeles City Council

Prepared by:

Los Angeles City Planning Department

June, 1977

Summary and Recommendations.

I. Findings

II. Purpose and Scope

III. Methods Currently Used to Regulate Adult Entertainment Businesses

C. Other Regulations of Adult Entertainment in Los Angeles

IV. Methodology and Analysis

A. Changes in Assessed Valuation Between 1970-1976

B. Public Meetings

C. Questionnaires

D. U.S. Census and Related Data

V. Police Department Study of Hollywood

I. No. of Ordinances Regulating Adult Entertainment Uses

II. Ordinances Regulating Adult Entertainment Uses by Dispersal

III. City Council Files Relating to Adult Entertainment

IV. 1970-76 Changes in Assessed Valuation

VI. Reported Crimes and Arrests 1969-75 – Hollywood and City of Los Angeles

A. Assessment Data – 1970 and 1976

B. Form – General Questionnaire

C. Form – Appraiser Questionnaire

E. Data from U.S. Census – 1960 and 1970

Two methods of regulating adult entertainment business via land use regulations have developed in the United States. They are: 1) the concentration of such uses in a single area of the city as in Boston; and 2) the dispersal of such uses, as in the City of Detroit. The Detroit ordinance has been challenged and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (Young v. American Mini-Theaters, 96 S. Ct. 771, 1976).

There has been some indication that the concentration of "adult entertainment" uses results in increased crime and greater police enforcement problems. In the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department has found a link between the concentration of such businesses and increased crime in the Hollywood community. (The major portion of a Police Department report on this subject is herein contained.) While several major cities have adopted ordinances similar to the Detroit ordinance, no other major city has, to our knowledge, adopted a Boston-type ordinance.

Testimony received at two public meetings on this subject has revealed that there is serious public concern over the proliferation of adult entertainment businesses - particularly in the Hollywood area. Citizens have testified of being afraid to walk the streets; that some businesses have left the area or have modified their hours of operation; and that they are fearful of children being confronted by unsavory individuals or of being exposed to sexually explicit material. A representative of an adult theater chain testified in support of the manner in which this business was run and in support of the type of clientele which attend the theaters. The Planning Department staff is of the opinion that the degree of deleterious effects of adult entertainment businesses depend largely on the particular type of business and on how any such business is operated.

A mail survey questionnaire conducted by the Planning Department has tended to emphasize general public concern over the proliferation of sex-oriented businesses and has indicated further, that appraisers, realtors and representatives of lending institutions are generally of the opinion that concentration of adult entertainment businesses exerts a negative economic impact on both business and residential properties. They feel that the degree of negative impact depends upon the degree of concentration and on the specific type of adult entertainment business.

The 1970-76 change in the assessed value of residential and commercial properties containing concentrations of adult entertainment businesses was compared with other areas without such concentrations, and with the City as a whole. On the basis of this comparison, it cannot be concluded that properties containing concentrations of adult entertainment businesses have directly influenced the assessed valuations of such properties.

Data and analysis based on the U.S. Census of 1970 and certain trend data from the censuses of 1960 and 1970 as applied to areas of the City containing concentrations of adult entertainment businesses are included in the body of the report and in the Appendix.

The scope of "adult entertainment" ordinances encompasses a variety of adult activities. For example, the Los Angeles Study has considered "adult entertainment" establishments to include adult bookstores and theaters, massage parlors, nude modeling studios, adult motels, arcades, and certain similar businesses. Many other ordinances studied, however, are less broad in their coverage. The Detroit ordinance, for instance, does not regulate massage parlors or adult motels, nor does it provide for the closing of any such businesses by amortization, which would be necessitated by the retroactive application of such an ordinance. Table I on page 11 indicates the ordinances reviewed and the major categories of uses they regulate.

Effect of Ordinances Enacted by Other Jurisdictions: The U.S. Supreme Court in Young v. American Mini-Theaters pointed out, as one of the bases for upholding the Detroit ordinance, that the regulation did not limit the number of "adult entertainment" businesses. Our study has indicated that the practical effect of literal adoption of "Detroit" language without modification in the City of Los Angeles would be to limit the potential locations for such businesses rather severely. Due to the predominance of commercial zoning in "strips" along major and secondary streets, an ordinance preventing "adult entertainment" business from locating within 500 feet of residentially zoned property would, in effect, limit such businesses to those areas of the City where there is commercial zoning of greater than 500 feet in depth. Areas with such commercial frontage would include downtown Los Angeles, a small part of Hollywood, Westwood, and Century City. A few industrial areas would also afford a separation of this distance from residential properties. The limitation of 1,000 feet between establishments (as provided in the Detroit ordinance) would likely be inappropriate in the City of Los Angeles inasmuch as commercial zoning is located in a strip pattern along most of the City's approximate 1,400 miles of major and secondary highways. (It is estimated that approximately 400 miles of such "strip" commercial zoning exists in the City.)

1. If the City Council should find it advisable in light of the findings of this report to recommend the preparation of an ordinance to control adult entertainment businesses, such an ordinance should be of a dispersal type rather than a concentration type. (To build a planning policy basis for such regulation, the Council may also wish the Planning Department to consider the development of appropriate policies for incorporation within the Citywide Plan.)

2. If a dispersal type ordinance is recommended by the City Council the Planning Department is of the opinion that such an ordinance should be designed for specific application in the City of Los Angeles, rather than the direct adoption of the Detroit model. If such a dispersal type ordinance is recommended for enactment locally, it should consider:

1. If the City Council should find it advisable to recommend all of the types of "adult entertainment" businesses included in this study, it should consider whether all such uses should be in the same class and subject to the same regulations.

4. Should the City Council recommend the preparation of a zoning ordinance to regulate adult entertainment businesses, other sections of the Municipal Code relating to the subject, including police permit requirements, should also be amended in order to be consistent with the zoning regulations and to facilitate the administration and enforcement of such regulations.

5. The Planning Department recommends that it be instructed to review existing zoning regulations applying to the C4 zone which currently prohibits "strip tease shows" and that the Zoning Administrator, through interpretation, consider expanding the list of prohibited uses in said zone to include additional adult entertainment uses as herein identified.

6. To assist in the regulation of "adult entertainment" businesses, the City should continue to vigorously enforce all existing provisions of the Municipal Code relating to the subject, including Zoning regulations.

1. A Boston-type ordinance (concentration) to control adult entertainment businesses would not be acceptable nor desirable in the City of Los Angeles.

2. In the event legislation is enacted in the City of Los Angeles there is adequate basis for a Detroit-type ordinance (dispersion) which requires a distance of 1,000 feet between establishments and 500 feet from residential zones.

3. If dispersion is desired in Los Angeles, an ordinance should be designed specifically for the City. (Direct application of the Detroit ordinance would not be desirable or appropriate in Los Angeles and would, in part, tend to result in a concentration of such businesses.)

4. Statistics provided by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) indicate a proportionally larger increase in certain crimes in Hollywood from 1965-75, as compared with the City of Los Angeles as a whole. (Hollywood has the largest concentration of adult entertainment businesses in the City.)

5. Statistics provided by the LAPD indicate that there has been a large increase in adult entertainment enterprises since 1969, particularly in Hollywood. From December 1975 to December 1976, however, there has been a decrease in such establishments.

6. Testimony obtained at two public meetings on the Adult Entertainment study conducted on April 27 and 28, 1977 indicated that:

• Some businesses no longer remain open in the evenings and others have left the area allegedly directly or indirectly due to the establishment of adult entertainment businesses.

7. Responses to questionnaires of the City Planning Department have indicated that:

8. A review of the percentage changes in the assessed value of commercial and residential property between 1970 and 1976 for the study areas containing concentrations of adult entertainment businesses have indicated that:

9. There are various existing laws and regulations (other than zoning) available to effect proper regulation of adult entertainment businesses.

10. There is a high degree of turnover in individual adult entertainment businesses as evidenced on page 51 (Much of this change is probably due to Police enforcement.)

11. The Los Angeles City Council, both on its own initiative and at the urging of numerous citizens groups, has proposed a variety of approaches to limiting the possibly deleterious effects of "adult entertainment" business on neighborhoods.

12. At least 10 cities have adopted ordinances similar to the Detroit dispersal ordinance. Several other cities have enacted other forms of regulations.

13. The Detroit ordinance does not regulate massage parlors. Of the cities with regulations, three have included massage parlors within the purview of their zoning ordinance.

14. None of the cities surveyed call out or regulate adult motels as a part of their "adult entertainment" ordinance.

On January 12, 1977, the Los Angeles City Council instructed this Department, with the assistance of other City agencies, to conduct a Comprehensive Study to determine whether the concentration of so-called "adult entertainment" establishments has a blighting or degrading effect on nearby properties, and/or neighborhoods. The term "adult entertainment" is a general term utilized by the Planning staff to collectively refer to businesses which primarily engage in the sale of material depicting sex or in providing certain sexual services. These would include the following: adult bookstores; X-rated theaters; adult motels with X-rated entertainment; massage parlors; sexual therapy establishments (other than those operated by a licensed psychologist, psychiatrist, etc.); and nude, topless or bottomless bars and restaurants.

During the past few years, there has been increasing concern in Los Angeles over the proliferation of such sexually oriented businesses. The derivation of such concern is varied – religious, moral, sociological and economic. The positions advocated by the public range from a "laissez faire" attitude to outright moral indignation and demand for prohibition.

It should be noted at this time that the topic of newsracks, was not dealt with in this study. The primary reason for not considering newsracks is that, in addition to the absence of a specific Council request for this Department to deal with that. subject, this matter has been and continues to be a topic of litigation in our state courts. Additionally, other public agencies, including the City Attorney, Bureau of Street Maintenance, and Building and Safety, are presently pursuing assignments regarding newsracks, and it is premature to determine whether newsracks could feasibly be studied as "adult entertainment" businesses, from a practical or constitutional standpoint.

In giving the Planning Department this assignment, the City Council essentially called for a fact-finding process to determine whether adult entertainment establishments, where they exist in concentration, cause blight and deterioration. When this question has been posed to the public, there have frequently been anguished retorts to the effect that "the answer is so obvious it is ridiculous to even ask the question," and "what is the City waiting for before it takes action to eliminate these scourges of society?"

On the other side of the spectrum, certain parties who are against the adoption of any regulations regarding "adult entertainment" question the legitimacy of the government's interest in the subject; and they have noted that magazines as "scurrilous" as those sold in adult bookstores are also available in the markets and drugstores where the likelihood of perusal by youngsters is obviously greater than within the confines of an adult bookstore (where no person under 18 years of age is allowed).

In completing this study, the Planning Department has made every effort to ensure a fair and unbiased analysis of "adult entertainment.'' The staff has been instructed to objectively review information of a factual nature; and, although the personal feelings of organized groups and the public at large were forcefully expressed at the two public meetings and in the study questionnaires, the staff has maintained independence from such strong emotions in evaluating the data gathered.

As noted above, the staff has specifically been given the charge to determine whether the concentration of "adult entertainment" establishments has any blighting or degrading effect on the neighborhoods in which they reside. We did not consider the specific nature or content of the materials or services rendered, advertised or promised, for this would have constituted a censor-like role for the Department which was neither desired nor requested by the Council.

This study has focused on the Hollywood community as well as portions of Studio City and North Hollywood as those areas of Los Angeles having the greatest concentration of "adult entertainment" establishments. In order to assess the effect of the concentration of "adult entertainment" establishments in these areas, the staff has analyzed such factors as changes in assessed property values, and reviewed various crime statistics as well as other demographic and related data as available from the U.S. Census. In addition, the Department has reviewed various established approaches to the regulation of "adult entertainment" business, including legislation already enacted by other jurisdictions, and earlier efforts of the City of Los Angeles to regulate such businesses.

By means of two public meetings on the subject conducted by representatives of the City Planning Commission, and through the use of a mail survey questionnaire, the Department has also attempted to provide additional documentation relative to the actual or perceived impact of adult entertainment businesses on the community. Current information on crime statistics has been provided in a separate report prepared by the Los Angeles Police Department, major portions of which are herein included.

A. APPROACHES TO THE REGULATION OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BY

Two primary methods of regulating "adult entertainment" businesses via land use regulations have developed in the United States: the concentration approach, as evidenced by the "Combat Zone" in Boston, and the dispersal approach, initially developed by Detroit.

In Boston the "Combat Zone" was officially established by designation of an overlay Adult Entertainment District in November of 1974. The purpose of the overlay district was to create an area in which additional special uses would be permitted in designated Commercial Zones which were not permitted in these zones on a citywide basis.

The "Combat Zone" had existed unofficially for many years in Boston, as the area in question contained a majority of the "adult entertainment" facilities in the City. The ordinance was adopted in response to concern over the spreading of such uses to neighborhoods where they were deemed to be inappropriate. Other considerations included facilitating the policing of such activities and allowing those persons who do not care to be subjected to such businesses to avoid them.

Under the Boston ordinance, adult bookstores and "commercial entertainment businesses" are considered conditional or forbidden uses except in the Business Entertainment District. Existing "adult entertainment" businesses are permitted to continue as non-conforming uses, but, if discontinued for a period of two years, may not be re-established. Establishment of uses in areas of the city other than the "Combat Zone" requires a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals.

The effectiveness and appropriateness of the Boston approach is a subject of controversy. There has been some indication that it has resulted in an increase in crime within the district and that there is an increased vacancy rate in the surrounding office buildings. Due to complaints of serious criminal incidents, law enforcement activities have been increased and a number of liquor licenses in the area have been revoked. Since the "Combat Zone" and most of the surrounding area are part of various redevelopment projects, however, the change in character of the area cannot be attributed solely to the existence of "adult entertainment" businesses.

In Los Angeles, the Police Department has investigated the effect of "adult entertainment" businesses in Hollywood and found a link between the clustering of these establishments and an increase in crime. (See Section V, pages 51 to 55). For this reason, and due to the enforcement problems created by such concentrations, the Police Department is not in favor of a concentration approach in the City of Los Angeles. Public testimony at hearings and through Planning Department questionnaires has indicated an overwhelming public disapproval of this approach for the City of Los Angeles.

The City of Detroit has developed a contrasting approach to the control of "adult entertainment" businesses. The Detroit Ordinance attempts to disperse adult bookstores and theaters by providing that such uses cannot, without special permission, be located within 1,000 feet of any other "regulated uses" or within 500 feet of a residentially zoned area.

This ordinance was an amendment to an existing anti-skid row ordinance which attempted to prevent further neighborhood deterioration by dispersing cabarets, motels, pawnshops, billiard halls, taxi dance halls and similar establishments rather than allowing them to concentrate.

The ordinance was immediately challenged and eventually was upheld by the United States Supreme Court. (Young v. American Mini Theaters 96 Supreme Ct. 771, 1976.)

In response to our request, data supplied by the City of Detroit Police Department indicates that the combination of the dispersal ordinance and a related ordinance prohibiting the promotion of pornography have been an effective tool in controlling adult businesses. To date, 18 adult bookstores and 6 adult theaters have been closed. There are 51 such businesses still in operation in Detroit and 38 pending court cases for various ordinance violations.

The success of the Detroit ordinance has spurred attempts by a number of other cities to adopt similar ordinances. The uses controlled and the types of controls established by these ordinances are summarized in Tables I and II, infra.

While the current study of the effect of "adult entertainment" businesses on neighborhoods in Los Angeles has encompassed all forms of "adult entertainment," the ordinances reviewed and the Detroit Ordinance specifically, are less encompassing in scope. Table I on the following page, lists and reviews a number of ordinances, which regulate various specified adult uses.

* (Numbers have incorporated-where appropriate-uses entitled "physical culture establishments" and "businesses to which persons under 18 could not be admitted.")

The Detroit dispersal ordinance does not regulate massage parlors, nor does it require any existing business to close by amortization. Many of the more recent ordinances include amortization provisions and several of these are currently in varying stages of litigation.

Perhaps the most comprehensive ordinance proposed to date (although not adopted) is that of New York City. The proposed ordinance creates five classes of controlled uses, one of which is entitled "physical culture establishments" and is defined as a general class including any establishment which offers massage or other physical contact by members of the opposite sex. The ordinance would also apply to clubs where the primary activity of such club constitutes one of the five defined classes of adult uses.

The ordinance also provides for a special permit exempting individual adult uses from amortization requirements when the Board of Standards and Appeals makes findings regarding:

1. The effect on adjacent property;

2. Distance to nearest residential district;

3. The concentration that may remain and its effect on the surrounding neighborhood;

4. That retention of the business will not interfere with any program of neighborhood preservation or renewal; or

5. In the case of an adult bookstore or motion picture theater, the Board finds that the harm created by the use is outweighed by its benefits.

Locally, the cities of Bellflower and Norwalk have enacted ordinances requiring adult bookstores and theaters to obtain a conditional use permit. As a part of their study, the City of Bellflower surveyed over 90 cities in Southern California to determine how other cities were controlling adult bookstores. Of the cities which responded to the

Bellflower survey, 12 require a conditional use permit for new bookstores. The conditions for obtaining such a permit generally include dispersal and distance requirements based upon the Detroit model. Bellflower also includes parking requirements and the screening of windows to prevent a view of the interior; it prohibits the use of loudspeakers or sound equipment which can be heard from public or semi-public areas.

Other cities impose such controls as design review, prohibition of obscene material on signs and required identification of the business as "adult." Such controls are a possible alternative or addition to regulation of adult uses by location.

Exterior controls affect the aspects of adult businesses which are most offensive to some citizens. The basis for such controls stems from the recognition of privacy as a

constitutional right and the right to be "left alone" as a part of that right. (See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slayton, 93 S. Ct. 2628 1973.)

Table II, following, provides a comparison and description of ordinances from various cities which are regulating "adult entertainment" businesses by dispersal.

REGULATION CURRENTLY AVAILABLE

UNDER STATE AND MUNICIPAL LAW

Red light abatement is a mechanism authorized by state law which allows local government to control criminal sexual behavior by controlling the places in which such behavior occurs.

Sec. 11225 of the California Penal Code generally provides that every building or place used for illegal gambling, lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, or where such acts occur, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented. There are three basic steps involved in the City's application of the Red Light Abatement Procedures:

Complaints may be filed by citizens, and Sec. 11228 of the Code provides that in Red Light Abatement Actions "evidence of the general reputation of a place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of a nuisance."

This method has been used successfully by the City to abate adult entertainment establishments in Hollywood along Western Avenue. Although Red Light Abatement is directed at regulating sites, a Red Light Abatement conviction can affect the ability of an owner or operator to obtain a permit for a similar business at another site (see permit requirements supra). Due to the requirement of a court proceeding, however, this method of control is both time consuming and expensive.

Section 103 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code provides for the regulation and control of a variety of businesses by permits issued by the Board of Police Commissioners. Permittees are subject to such additional requirements as may be imposed by law or by the rules and regulations of the Board.

Those businesses for which the City of Los Angeles requires a police permit and which may also be oriented towards adult entertainment include:

- Arcades (Sec. 103.101)

- Bath and Massage (103.205)

- Cafe Entertainment and Shows (103.102)

- Dancing Academies, Clubs, Halls (103.105, 106, 106.1)

- Motion Picture Shows (103.108)

In some cases, the specific regulations applied to a business, if enforced, preclude adult entertainment activities as a part of, the operation of the business, with revocation of the operating permit an available remedy for violation of the regulation.

The most detailed regulations are applied to cafe entertainment (Sec. 103.102 LAMC) and are summarized as follows:

The above provisions do not apply to a theatrical performance in a theater, concert hall or similar establishment which is primarily devoted to theatrical performances.

The permit may also be revoked for conviction of the permittee, his employee, agent or any person associated with permittee as partner, director, officer, stockholder, associate or manager of:

Massage businesses have traditionally been regulated by licensing. The latest changes in the massage regulations became effective in November of 1976. The application for a permit now requires:

Operating requirements for massage businesses include:

So-called "private" clubs or "consenting adult clubs" which have ostensibly been formed as an alternative to massage parlors had until recently been regulated via the requirement of a social club permit. In June 1977, however, the ordinance establishing such requirement was declared unconstitutional by a Los Angeles Municipal Court due to unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of association. To date, it is unknown whether the City will appeal the ruling or amend the ordinance.

Regulation of adult entertainment businesses has a long history in Los Angeles. In 1915 the "prevalence of sex evils arising out of massage parlors" caused the City Council then to enact Section 27.03 (L.A.M.C.) as "a safeguard against the deterioration of the social life of the community." The ordinance provided:

This provision remained in the Code, in one form or another, until a similar Los Angeles County ordinance was declared invalid in 1972 due to the preemption of the Criminal aspects of sexual activity by the State.

In reaching its conclusion, the court referred to the discussion of the Los Angeles City ordinance in In Re Maki. This 1943 case upheld the constitutional validity of the. ordinance, and, according to the court, established the primary purpose of such ordinance as the limiting of criminal sexual activity.

The late 1960s and early 1970's brought a proliferation of nude bars and sexual scam joints in the Los Angeles area. In 1969, the Cafe Entertainment regulations (Section 103.102 Los Angeles Business Code) was modified to include strict controls on nudity (see discussion infra).

A variety of Council motions were made to control other types of "adult entertainment" such as arcades, massage parlors, and newsracks. Many of these were initiated due to substantial citizen complaints, and some resulted in final ordinances. (See Table III pages 19a to 19d.)

Beginning in 1974, several Council motions were made generally calling for an investigation and preparation of an ordinance regulating adult theaters and bookstores. The advice of the City Attorney was sought, and at the suggestion of that Office, action was delayed pending the Supreme Court decision regarding the Detroit Ordinance. That decision was handed down in June of 1976. On July 13, 1976, a Council motion was introduced by Councilman Wilkinson requesting a study of concentrations of adult entertainment similar to that of Detroit.

Table III provides a generalized summary of the major Council files and actions relating to adult entertainment.

While not part of this study, a recently enacted ordinance controlling on-site sale of alcoholic beverages should be recognized as an attempt to control another adult-type use. Effective March 1, 1977, the Los Angeles Municipal Code was amended to require a conditional use permit for the on-site sale of alcoholic beverages. (Council File No. 70-200, City Plan Case No. 22878). Although aimed at the regulation of anti-social activities in all establishments serving alcoholic beverages, the subject ordinance would, of course, also have a "spillover" effect with regard to those businesses, which have adult entertainment as well as alcoholic beverages.

Generally, the ordinance would, in all cases, require issuance of a conditional use permit for any business selling alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption, rather than the previous practice of permitting them as a matter of right in certain zones. The advantage of the new procedure is that as a prerequisite of approval of an individual application, there must be a public hearing to determine whether the proposed use will have a detrimental effect upon nearby properties and the neighborhood in which it is being proposed. In the long run, the ordinance may prove to be an effective device to regulate uses (dispensing alcoholic beverages) which tend to have a deteriorating effect on an area, some of which may, coincidentally, also be adult entertainment businesses.

In complying with the City Council's instructions, the Department has utilized various available data sources, including property assessment data, U. S. Census data, and obtained other information germane to the subject in an effort to determine, on an empirical basis, the effects (if any) of adult entertainment facilities on surrounding business and other properties. The Department also reviewed sales data of commercial and residential property in areas containing concentrations of adult entertainment businesses and in "control areas" containing no such concentrations. The staff also attempted to secure information on the sales volume of commercial properties, but was unable to obtain this information.

It should be emphasized that, in conducting this study, every effort was made by the Department to preclude the introduction of subjective judgment or other bias, except where the opinions of other individuals or groups were specifically solicited. (Expert opinions were requested from realtors, realty boards, appraisers and lenders through letters and questionnaires. The Department also sent letters to local members of the American Sociological Association requesting their assistance in this study. Their replies were limited in number and not significant in terms of this study.) It was the Department's intent to base any conclusions entirely on relevant data and other factual information which became available during the course of conducting the study.

The procedure employed by the Department in conducting this study involved the following areas of emphasis:

1. The actual "last sales price" of commercial and residential properties in areas containing concentrations of "adult entertainment" businesses were compared with the assessed values of property in such areas. The results were then compared with "control areas" containing no concentration of such businesses. (It was found that the actual sales prices tended to parallel assessed values and that in other cases the comparison was inconclusive. No further discussion of this aspect of the study is contained herein.)
2. In attempt to determine any possible effects of "adult entertainment establishments" on business sales volume, the Department reviewed sales data from a Dun and Bradstreet computer tape file for the years 1970 and 1976. However, this source of data could not be used since it did not contain directly comparable information for the two years indicated. (A substantial change in the number of member firms listed apparently occurred after 1970.) In addition, the Department requested sales information from the City Clerk's Business License File. The City Clerk advised that the generation of the information requested would require 100 man-days of work; consequently their information could not be obtained within the time constraints for completion of the study.

Items 5, 6, and 7, above, are-the subject of Section III of this report, entitled "Methods Currently Used to Regulate Adult Entertainment Business." The Police Department's report is discussed herein as Section V. The Planning Department's analysis of topics 1 through 4 is described in detail, below.

In order to determine if there has been a significant change in assessed property values which may have been influenced by the proliferation of "adult entertainment" businesses, the Department has calculated the change in the assessed value of land and improvements for properties occupied by, and located within, a 1,000 to 1,800 foot radius of known concentrations of adult entertainment businesses. Five such areas were selected for analysis, as described below. The year 1970 was selected as the base period because of the availability of data for that year, and since that point in time corresponds approximately with the beginning of the proliferation of adult entertainment businesses in Los Angeles. The percentage change in the assessed "market" value of land and improvements for commercial and residential properties was calculated for the 1970 base year and for 1976.

Similar calculations covering the same time period were also prepared for "control areas" (containing no concentration of adult entertainment businesses) but which were similar, in terms of zoning and land use, or which were located in geographical proximity to the study area nodes. Four such control areas were selected.

On the basis of field investigations and other available data, the Department determined that there are five different areas within the City suitable for analysis, each containing a relatively high concentration of adult entertainment establishments. As shown in Exhibits "A" and "B" on the following pages, three of these concentrations (or "nodes" of activity) are located in Hollywood; one is in Studio City; and one is in North Hollywood. In each case, the focal point of the area selected for analysis was the intersection of two major streets, with the adult entertainment businesses located along the commercially zoned frontage of one or both of the streets forming the intersection. In four of the five areas selected, residentially zoned and developed properties are situated not farther than one-half block from the commercially-zoned frontage. (One node in Hollywood is entirely surrounded by commercial properties.)

Although Main Street in downtown Los Angeles contains a relatively high concentration of sex-oriented businesses (primarily theaters, arcades and bookstores), this area was not selected for analysis since no residential properties are located in proximity thereto. In addition, Main Street has traditionally contained burlesque theaters, arcades, bars and similar types of establishments, and there has been no significant change in this generalized pattern of land use during the past ten years.

In the Hollywood area, the focal points of concentration are at the following three intersections: Santa Monica Boulevard and Western Avenue (containing 12 such businesses); Hollywood Boulevard and Western Avenue (9 such businesses); and Selmna Avenue and Cahauenga Boulevard (containing 7 such businesses). In Studio City, the focal point is east of the main intersection of Tujunga Avenue and Vineland Avenue (at Eureka Drive) which contains six adult entertainment businesses; and in North Hollywood the focus of concentration is at Lankershim Boulevard and Vineland Avenue (containing 4 such businesses).

In the Hollywood area, property within an approximate 1,000-foot radius of the above named intersections was included for purposes of analysis. In Studio City it was appropriate to include those properties situated within an approximate 1,500 foot radius of the intersection of Eureka Drive; in North Hollywood, property within an approximate 1,500 foot radius of the intersection of Lankershim Boulevard and Vineland Avenue was selected for analysis.

As also shown in Exhibit "A," three separate "control areas" were established in Hollywood, each originating at the intersection of two major streets and also encompassing all property within an approximate 1,000-foot radius of the street intersection. Control areas were established at: Santa Monica Boulevard and Vermont Avenue; Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and Hollywood Boulevard and Gower Street. In the San Fernando Valley, Exhibit "B" indicates one control area, centered at the intersection of Lankershim Boulevard and Whipple Street, and encompassing property within a radius of approximately 1,500 feet of that intersection, relates to the two nodes of concentration in Studio City and North Hollywood. None of the control areas has adult entertainment businesses within its boundaries, with the exception of the area surrounding the intersection of Hollywood Boulevard and Gower Street which contains one such business.

Table IV, indicates the percentage change in assessed land and improvement value from July 1970 to July 1976 for the commercial and residential property encompassed by the applicable radius surrounding each of the five nodes of concentration, together with their corresponding control areas. For purposes of comparison, the same data is shown for the entire City and for the Community within which the study areas are located. Since concentrations of adult entertainment businesses could have a particular effect on the value of other business properties in an area a separate tabulation is also shown for only commercially zoned land within each study and control area. (Table IV-A.)

As indicated in Table IV, the 1970-76 percentage change in total assessed "market" valuation of commercially and residentially zoned property (land plus improvements) increased in all three areas in Hollywood containing concentrations of adult entertainment businesses. However, there was some variance in the magnitude of the increase. Changes in the three study area nodes were 2.79, 8.71, and 3.41 percent; compared with increases in the three corresponding control area of 12.53, 1.94, and 5.09 percent, respectively.

The study area node located at Santa Monica Boulevard and Western Avenue increased by 2.79 percent, compared with a substantially greater increase of 12.53 percent in the "control area" associated with that node. Total assessed value within the study area surrounding the intersection of Selma Avenue and Cahuenga Boulevard increased by 3.41 percent while the associated control area increased by the slightly greater amount of 5.09 percent. In direct contrast to this pattern, however, the Hollywood and Western node registered an 8.71 percent increase, while its corresponding control area increased by only 1.94 percent.

Property Within Approximate 1,000 to Percentage Change in Assessed

1,800 Foot Radius of Intersection of No. of Entertainment "Sites" Valuation 1970-76

Santa Monica Boulevard and Western 6 12 -0.22 5.81 2.79

Avenue (Hollywood)

Santa Monica Boulevard and Vermont N.A. 0 -4.84 32.66 12.53

Avenue (Hollywood Control Area)

Hollywood Boulevard and Western 6 9 3.51 13.21 8.71

Avenue (Hollywood)

Hollywood Boulevard and Highland N.A. 0 19.32 -7.83 1.94

Avenue (Hollywood Control Area)

Selma Avenue and Cahuenga 4 7 21.12 -12.54 3.41

Boulevard (Hollywood)

Hollywood Boulevard and Gower N.A. 1 17.76 -8.61 5.09

Street (Hollywood Control Area)

Hollywood Community N.A. 31 21.20 32.72 27.00

City of Los Angeles N.A. N.A. 35.08 38.92 37.15

Tujunga Avenue and Ventura 1 6 67.11 63.10 64.93

Boulevard (Studio City)

Lankershim Boulevard and Vineland 2 4 15.88 9.65 12.61

Avenue (North Hollywood)

Lankershim Boulevard and Whipple N.A. 0 62.28 27.66 42.76

Street (Valley Control Area)

Sherman Oaks-Studio City N.A. 10 69.25 60.44 64.33

Community

North Hollywood Community N.A. 5 28.59 33.15 31.07

City of Los Angeles N.A. 212 35.08 38.92 37.15

Property Within Approximate 1,000 to Percentage Change in Assessed

1,800 Foot Radius of Intersection of No. of Entertainment "Sites" Valuation 1970-76

Santa Monica Boulevard and Western 6 12 -0.47 8.53 3.40

Avenue (Hollywood)

Santa Monica Boulevard and Vermont N.A. 0 -12.53 4.13 -6.38

Avenue (Hollywood Control Area)

Hollywood Boulevard and Western 6 9 -2.52 -0.45 -1.77

Avenue (Hollywood)

Hollywood Boulevard and Highland N.A. 0 25.01 -11.19 4.06

Avenue (Hollywood Control Area)

Selma Avenue and Cahuenga 4 7 21.93 -18.79 0.54

Boulevard (Hollywood)

Hollywood Boulevard and Gower N.A. 0 17.07 -17.22 1.09

Street (Hollywood Control Area)

Hollywood Community N.A. 31 13.43 -1.51 6.70

City of Los Angeles N.A. 212 12.27 13.52 12.93

Tujunga Avenue and Ventura 1 6 19.24 25.83 21.90

Boulevard (Studio City)

Lankershim Boulevard and Vineland 2 4 -0.76 3.91 1.92

Avenue (North Hollywood)

Lankershim Boulevard and Whipple N.A. 0 82.28 -6.35 27.16

Street (Valley Control Area)

Sherman Oaks-Studio City N.A. 10 30.95 13.01 22.02

Community

North Hollywood Community N.A. 5 2.74 7.56 5.21

City of Los Angeles N.A. 212 12.27 13.52 12.93

Sources/Notes – Tables IV and IV-A:

Actual assessment data from which percentage changes in Tables IV and IV-A were derived is shown in Appendix A. Assessment data was obtained from the City's Land Use Planning and Management System (LUPAMS) computer file. Data is as of July 1 for years shown. "Entertainment Site" means adult theatre, arcade, massage parlor, nude dancing establishment or similar use. Number of "entertainment sites" for 1969-70 was obtained from L.A. Police Department; for June 1977 from L.A. Police Department and L.A. City Planning Department. N.A. means not available. Property included within areas described is shown in Exhibits A and B.

The percentage increase in assessed values within the three study areas, as well as the control areas, was considerably less in each case than percentage gains registered by the Hollywood Community or the City as a whole.

In the case of the study area nodes located in the San Fernando Valley, the pattern appears to be somewhat more spurious. The study area node containing adult entertainment businesses located in Studio City (centered east of the intersection of Tujunga Avenue and Ventura Boulevard) increased by 64.93 percent-the largest increase of any of the areas analyzed. In direct contrast, the "adult entertainment node" located at Lankershim Boulevard and Vineland Avenue increased by only 12.61 percent. The one "control area" associated with these two San Fernando Valley nodes increased by 42.76 percent-a substantially greater gain than the North Hollywood node, but 22 percent less than the Studio City node. (Whether the sharp percentage increase shown for the Studio City node was the direct result of a recent reassessment cannot be readily determined.)

The increase in assessed value within the Studio City study area was virtually the same as that of the entire Sherman Oaks-Studio City Community but almost twice the percentage gain for commercial and residential properties in the entire City. The North Hollywood study area increased by a considerably lower percentage than the North Hollywood Community and the City as a whole.

With regard to commercial properties considered separately, Table IV-A reveals that the percentage change in assessed values of land and improvements combined was generally lower in all study areas than in their corresponding control areas. One notable exception, however, is the Santa Monica Boulevard and Western Avenue node which increased by 3.4 percent, while its corresponding control area (Santa Monica and Vermont) decreased by 6.38 percent. In Hollywood the change in assessed values of all study and control areas was less than in the entire Hollywood Community. In the San Fernando Valley the two study areas both increased less than the entire communities within which they are situated.

On the basis of the foregoing, there would seem to be some basis to conclude that the assessed valuation of property within the study areas containing concentrations of adult entertainment businesses have generally tended to increase to a lesser degree than similar areas without such concentrations. However, in the staff's opinion, there would appear to be insufficient evidence to support the contention that concentrations of sex-oriented businesses have been the primary cause of these patterns of change in assessed valuations between 1970 and 1976. However, responses to the Department's mail questionnaires from real estate representatives and appraisers have indicated that in their opinion, concentrations of adult entertainment businesses have, in some cases, had a direct negative impact on property values.

B. PUBLIC MEETINGS

Two public meetings were conducted by representatives of the City Planning Commission in order to receive citizen input regarding the effects, if any, of concentrations of "adult entertainment" establishments on nearby properties and surrounding neighborhoods. Notice of the hearings was published in local newspapers, aired on radio, mailed to owners of commercial and multiple residential property within 500 ft. radius of the study areas and also to persons who had previously responded to the Department's questionnaire.

The first meeting was held in Hollywood on April 27, 1977 at Le Conte Junior High School. The second meeting was conducted in Northridge on April 28, 1977 at Northridge Junior High School. Both meetings were conducted by Planning Commission President Suzette Neiman and Planning Commissioner Daniel Garcia, with Deputy City Attorney Chris Funk also in attendance.

Questionnaires were available at the meetings for the convenience of those wishing to submit their comments in writing.

Attendance was approximately 200 persons at the Hollywood meeting and 300 persons at the Northridge meeting. A combined total of 60 persons addressed the Commission. The following is a summary of the comments received by the Commission. (Tape recordings of the hearings are available for review under City Plan Case Number 26475, in the Planning Commission Office, Room 561-K, Los Angeles, City Hall, telephone (213) 485-5071.)

The most prevalent type of comment at the Hollywood meeting was an expression of fear of walking in areas where "adult entertainment" and related business are concentrated. This concern was expressed both by parents, reluctant to allow their children to be exposed to offensive signs and wares, and by women and elderly persons who feared walking in the areas either in the day or evenings because of the incidence of crime in the area. Specific instances of solicitation and other crimes were recited. Some proprietors testified that they felt their businesses have suffered, due to fear on the part of their customers. Other common testaments concerned:

A representative of the "Pussycat Theaters" organization informed the Commission that a survey taken by the theater operators indicated that the majority of patrons were middle class, that most were registered voters, and that many were married and had college educations. It was stated that a large number of the patrons were found to reside within a few miles of their theaters. The representative of this theater chain expressed concern at the "lumping" of all adult entertainment businesses into one classification. He felt that in terms of aesthetics, clientele, and effect upon the neighborhood, the theaters were not in the same classification as some other types of adult businesses. (The Commission requested the written documentation of the survey; however, it has not been received to date.)

Several speakers at the Northridge meeting expressed concern that the City even felt it needed to request their opinion on such a subject. They felt that their displeasure over the distribution and display of pornographic materials should be obvious. Citizens also indicated how they had been responsible for the closing of certain establishments in the San Fernando Valley by picketing and other means. Some speakers indicated that they were disturbed by the availability and display of obscene material in drug stores and supermarkets.

The following is a summary listing of specific relevant comments from the two meetings:

• It was alleged that organized crime is in the sex service business and that this is a $64 million local business.

In summary, the overwhelming majority of speakers felt that the concentration of "adult entertainment" businesses in their neighborhood was detrimental, either physically by creating blight or economically by decreasing patronage of traditional businesses; or socially by attracting crime. As a result of increased crime, nearby residents have become fearful and have been forced to constrain their customary living habits in the community.

Although the testimony obtained at the public hearings would from a subjective point of view, substantiate the conclusion that "adult entertainment" businesses have a deleterious effect on the surrounding community, the staff is of the opinion that legitimate questions may have been posed by the Pussycat Theater representative regarding a single classification for all "adult entertainment" uses. There would appear to be some basis to support the contention that certain types of such uses are more "objectionable" than others, and that negative effects of a particular type of business might be minimized, depending on how the business is operated and advertised.

In order to determine additional factual data relating to the subject, and to seek the comments and opinions of property owners, businessmen, realtors, real estate boards, real estate appraisers, representatives of banks, Chambers of Commerce, and others, the Department conducted a mail survey. Two questionnaires were developed. One was designed primarily for businessmen and residential property owners and is hereinafter referred to as the General Questionnaire. The second was designed for realtors, real estate appraisers and lenders and is hereinafter referred to as the Appraiser Questionnaire. A copy of the two questionnaires is contained in the Appendix. The completed questionnaires, together with other letters relative to this subject, are on file in Room 510, Los Angeles City Hall.

The General Questionnaire was mailed to all property owners (of other than property in single-family use) within a 500-foot radius of each of the five study areas. The questionnaire was also distributed to various community groups (including local and area Chambers of Commerce) and at the public meeting in Hollywood and in Northridge.

The Appraiser Questionnaire was mailed to all members of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers having a Los Angeles City address and to members of the California Association of Realtors whose office is located in the vicinity of the study areas.

Each of the two questionnaires contained spaces for a respondent to check answers to a series of questions relating to the overall effect (if any) of adult entertainment establishments on nearby properties. It should be emphasized that the Department intentionally structured the "objective response" portion of the questionnaires so as to reduce "bias" and to solicit the maximum range of responses to any specific question. For example, a respondent could check "positive," "negative" or "no effect" in response to the question..."What overall effect do you feel that adult entertainment establishments have on a neighborhood?"

In addition to the direct response portion of the questionnaire, information of a more subjective nature was also solicited. For example, after each question, space was provided for a respondent to list any comments or examples which might pertain to a specific question. The beginning of each questionnaire also invited the respondent to write comments in the space provided or on a separate sheet.

Between February 10 and April 30, 1977, a total of approximately 4,000 questionnaires were mailed (with return envelopes provided) or otherwise distributed to businessmen, real estate appraisers, realtors, representatives of banks and savings and loan institutions, the owners of multiple-unit residential property, and others. Of this number, 694 questionnaires were completed and returned to the Department (an overall 17.4 percent rate of return).

In addition, the Department received 197 non-solicited, completed questionnaires from property owners in Studio City. These questionnaires were distributed in a private mailing by a private individual. The subject mailing included a replica of the Department's appraiser questionnaire, together with written material alleging City intent to create an adult entertainment zone in Studio City (copy included as Appendix D-2). According to the subject individual's testimony at the public hearing on April 27, 1977, 11,000 replica questionnaires were mailed. Due to the prejudicial nature of the mailing, these questionnaires are not included in the study. However, the staff did tabulate the subject responses and the tabulation and summary are included in Appendix D-3. All persons responding to the above mailing were sent a memo from the Department, correcting the misinformation (copy included in Appendix D-1).

A tabulation of the responses to the specific questions solicited in the objective portion in each of the two types of questionnaires is presented below. A summary of the comments follows:

GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE

RESPONSES

1. What overall effect do you feel that adult entertainment establishments have had on a neighborhood:

 

Positive Negative No effect

 

Effect on the business condition

(sales & profits) in the area: 43 (7.4%) 492 (84.7%) 36 (6.2%)

 

Effect on homes (value & appearance)

in the area immediately adjacent to

adult entertainment businesses: 37 (6.9%) 472 (81.2%) 26 (4.5%)

 

Effect on homes (value & appearance)

in the area located 500 feet or more

from adult entertainment businesses: 35 (6.0%) 446 (76.8%) 19 (3.3%)

 

2. Do you believe the establishment of adult entertainment facilities in the vicinity of your business has had any of the following effects? (Please check all those effects which you feel have occurred.)

 

26 (4.5%) no effect 305 (52.5%) decreased property values

 

206 (35.5%) lower rents 13 (2.2%) increased property values

 

275 (47.3%) vacant businesses 16 (2.8%) lower taxes

 

288 (49.6%) tenants moving out 98 (16.9%) higher taxes

 

224 (38.6%) complaints from customers 489 (84.2%) decreased business activity

 

3 ( - ) less crime 8 (1.4%) increased business

 

370 (63.7%) more crime 312 (53.7%) more litter

 

1 ( - ) improved neighborhood 8 (1.4%) other (please specify)

appearance

 

416 (71.6%) deteriorated neighborhood appearance

 

3. (Not applicable for tally.)

4. Have you seriously considered moving your business elsewhere because of nearby concentrations of adult entertainment businesses?

167 (28.7%) Yes 165 (28.4%) No

5. Would you consider expanding in your current location?

6. What types of adult entertainment establishments are there in your area? (Please check appropriate boxes.)

entertainment

How far from your business is the nearest adult entertainment establishment?

(Not tabulated due to limited response.)

Responses to the foregoing questions reveal that adult businesses are perceived by the majority of respondents as exerting a negative impact on surrounding businesses and residential properties.

Whether or not such negative impacts have actually occurred, or only perceived to have occurred, cannot be readily determined, empirically, on the basis of this survey. However, in terms of the attitudes of the respondents toward such businesses, the conclusion must be drawn that the overall effect on surrounding properties is considered to be negative.

Among the adverse effects of adult entertainment establishments cited by businessmen are:

• Difficulty in renting office space.

- Difficulty in keeping desirable tenants.

- Difficulty in recruiting employees.

- Limits hours of operation (evening hours).

• Deters patronage from women and families; general reduced patronage.

Of those businessmen indicating that they have not seriously considered moving because of nearby concentrations of adult entertainment bushiness, the most frequent response was that they had been in the area a great many years, and to establish elsewhere wold be too risky and/or that their investment was too great to move. A few respondents indicated that it is the adult entertainment businesses that should move, not they.

The few businessmen commenting that they would not consider expanding in their current location indicated that their business did not warrant expansion.

Several businessmen indicated that their businesses are relatively unaffected by nearby adult entertainment establishments. Among the businesses cited are a commercial art studio; a building trades contractor; a mail order business; a telephone answering service and a wholesaler.

Among the few positive effects cited by businessmen is the increase in business for certain non-adult entertainment businesses such as tourist-serving businesses (e.g. car rental agencies). "The bad effect it might have is cancelled out by the business it does attract; X-rated theaters attract tourists."

Many respondents commented on the crimes associated with adult entertainment establishments: prostitution, dope, theft, robbery, etc. A high percentage of respondents report they do not feel safe in such areas.

A high percentage of respondents commented on their concern for the effects of adult entertainment environment on the morals and safety of children.

A high percentage of respondents commented on the aesthetics of adult entertainment establishments: garish, sleazy, shabby, blighted, tasteless, etc. Also, many commented on the increased incidence of litter and graffiti.

APPRAISER QUESTIONNAIRE

RESPONSES

1. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the market value of business property (land, structures, fixtures, etc.) located in the vicinity of such establishments?

2. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the rental value of business property located in the vicinity of such establishments?

3. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the rentability/salability of business property located in the vicinity (length of time required to rent or sell property; rate of lessee/buyer turnover; conditions of sale or lease, etc.)?

4. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the annual income of businesses located in the vicinity of such establishments?

5. Have any business owners or proprietors considered relocating or not expanding their businesses because of the nearby concentration of adult entertainment establishments?

23 (28.4%) yes

4 (4.9%) no

28 (34.6%) not known

6. In recent years, has the commercial vitality (sales, profits, etc.) of any area in the City of Los Angeles been affected in any way by the nearby concentration of adult entertainment establishments?

45 (55.6%) yes

29 (35.8%) no

0 ( - ) not known

7. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the market value of private residences located within the following distances from such establishments?

Increase Decrease No effect Total

Less than 500 feet 2 (3.8%) 48 (90.6%) 3 (5.7%) 53

500 – 1000 feet 2 (3.6%) 51 (91.1%) 3 (5.4%) 56

More than 1000 feet 1 (3.0%) 29 (87.9%) 3 (9.1%) 33

8. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the rental value of residential income property located within the following distances from such establishments?

Increase Decrease No effect Total

Less than 500 feet 2 (3.4%) 51 (87.9%) 5 (8.6%) 58

500 – 1000 feet 1 (2.6%) 33 (86.8%) 4 (10.5%) 38

More than 1000 feet 1 (2.8%) 27 (75.0%) 8 (22.2%) 36

9. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the rentability/salability of residential property located within the following distances from such establishments?

Increase Decrease No effect Total

Less than 500 feet 1 (2.5%) 37 (92.5%) 2 (5.0%) 40

500 – 1000 feet 1 (2.6%) 35 (89.7%) 3 (7.7%) 39

More than 1000 feet 1 (2.8%) 28 (77.8%) 7 (19.1%) 36

10. In regard to the questions set forth above, please describe the effects which you believe the concentration of adult entertainment business has on each of the following:

Property values of surrounding:

Decrease No response No effect Increase

Commercial property 46 (56.8%) 32 (39.5%) 1 2 (2.5%)

Residential property 42 (51.9%) 38 (46.9%) -- 1

General 16 (19.8%) 65 (80.2%) -- --

Rental values of surrounding:

Decrease No response No effect Increase

Commercial property 39 (48.1%) 42 (51.9%) -- --

Residential property 37 (45.7%) 44 (54.3%) -- --

General 12 (14.8%) 69 (85.2%) -- --

Vacancies:

Decrease No response No effect Increase

Number 1 56 (69.1%) 1- 23 (28.4%)

Length 1 72 (88.9%) 2 (2.5%) 6 (7.4%)

Rate of tenant turnover -- 49 (60.5%) 1 31 (38.3%)

Annual business income 24 (29.6%) 53 (65.4%) 2 (2.5%) 2 (2.5%)

Complaints from customers

and residents due to

concentration – Yes 24 (29.6%) 57 (70.4%)

Neighborhood appearance 24 (29.6%) 3 (3.7%)

Crime 1 1 -- 48 (59.3%)

Litter -- 1 1 44 (54.3%)

Other (please specify)

GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE

REALTOR RESPONSES

Total no. of responses = 32

NOTE: Due to distribution, certain realtors received the General Questionnaire rather than the Appraiser Questionnaire. For analysis purposes, the subject responses were tabulated separately and analyzed together with the responses to the Appraiser Questionnaire.

1. What overall effect do you feel that adult entertainment establishments have had on a neighborhood:

Effect on the business condition

(sales & profits) in the area: -- 31 (97.0%) 1

Effect on homes (value & appearance)

in the area immediately adjacent to

adult entertainment businesses: -- 31 (97.0%) 1

Effect on homes (value & appearance)

in the area located 500 feet or more

from adult entertainment businesses: -- 29 (91.0%) 2

2. Do you believe the establishment of adult entertainment facilities in the vicinity of your business has had any of the following effects? (Please check all those effects which you feel have occurred.)

0 ( - ) improved neighborhood 0 ( - ) other (please specify)

30 (94.0%) deteriorated neighborhood appearance

3. (Not applicable for tally.)

4. Have you seriously considered moving your business elsewhere because of nearby concentrations of adult entertainment businesses?

10 (31.3%) Yes 15 (46.9%) No

5. Would you consider expanding in your current location?

6. What types of adult entertainment establishments are there in your area? (Please check appropriate boxes.)

entertainment

How far from your business is the nearest adult entertainment establishment?

(Not tabulated due to limited response.)

D. U.S. CENSUS AND RELATED DATA

The last U.S. Decennial Census was conducted on April 1, 1970. With the proliferation of adult entertainment business it would seem appropriate to include as background information a description of the socio-economic and physical characteristics of the areas under study, as revealed by census data. Such a description may provide insight as to the underlying factors contributing to the concentration of sex-oriented business in the areas under study.

An excellent available source providing such a description is a 1974 report prepared by the City's Community Analysis Bureau (CAB) concerning the "State of the City". (The State of the City-A Cluster Analysis of Los Angeles – City of Los Angeles Community Analysis Bureau, June 1974. In this document, the CAB has utilized a statistical technique known as "cluster analysis" to identify specific areas within the City which have common characteristics, as revealed by census data. In conducting this study, the CAB made use of 66 census data items (or variables) which were selected from the entire spectrum of socio-economic and physically descriptive data items available for all census tracts in the City.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports data on numerous geographical levels, the "census tract" being the smallest geographical area for which data is maintained and reported on a regular-basis. There are 750 such census tract areas in the City, each containing a population of slightly fewer than 4,000 persons, on the average. The five study area nodes and four control areas under study herein are contained within portions of 25 census tracts.

The particular variables which most accurately describe a particular census tract were used by the Community Analysis Bureau in such a manner as to combine those areas which have the most similar characteristics. As a result of this procedure, thirty cluster groups were established throughout the City, each such cluster consisting of one or more census tracts, each census tract within a particular cluster being more similar to other parts of that cluster than to any other geographical section of the City.

There are four census tracts which comprise the Studio City study area; two such tracts in North Hollywood; and three census tracts representing the "control area" for the San Fernando Valley. (One of the "control area" tracts also forms part of the Studio City study area.)

The CAB's cluster analysis reveals that these eight different census tracts are all quite dissimilar, inasmuch as the seven tracts are contained within six different "clusters." A detailed description of each of these six clusters would not be practical for purposes of this study. However, a summary of certain key variables attributable to the two study areas in Studio City and North Hollywood, and the one corresponding control area might be instructive, and is therefore presented in Table V following. For purposes of comparison, the data is also shown for the City as a whole.

VARIABLES AREAS AND VALUES

Studio City North Hollywood Control

(Tujunga & (Lankershim & (Lankershim Entire

Population Ventura Vineland & Whipple City

Population per sq. mile 5,742 8,265 5,893 6,041

% Persons 0-17 18.4 18.2 16.7 30.2

% Persons 65+ 10.6 17.9 15.2 10.1

% White (non-Spanish) 92.0 85.3 90.7 60.3

% Black 0 0 0 17.2

% Spanish-American 6.5 13.7 7.7 18.4

% Families w/female head 10.6 16.4 16.4 16.2

% High School dropouts,

25 & older 22.1 38.6 25.3 38.1

% 25+ who have finished

4+ years college 22.0 10.2 18.3 13.9

Approximate median family

income $15,672 $9,471 $12,575 $10,535

% White collar employed 80.4 60.6 77.3 57.4

% Unemployed 7.8 6.1 9.1 7.0

% Families in poverty 3.7 10.0 6.6 9.9

% Families receiving welfare 4.3 7.6 4.7 9.9

% 1-unit structures 50.6 48.9 34.2 51.7

Approximate median value,

owner occupied units $39,141 $25,335 $35,530 $26,700

Approximate median monthly

rent, renter occupied units $135 $123 $129 $107

% of owner occupied, 1 unit,

structures built before 1940 24.1 52.4 52.2 28.5

% of renter occupied, 2+ unit

structures built before 1940 10.9 13.9 21.8 30.7

Assaults per 100 population .465 .374 .478 .857

Robberies per 100 population .172 .267 .170 .464

Burglary per 100 improved

parcels 13.86 10.94 13.50 14.96

Total Arrests per 100

population 4.23 4.26 4.10 8.26

Narcotic Arrests per 100

population aged 14-44 2.66 1.39 1.60 2.04

On the basis of the foregoing 1970 Census data, it is possible to develop a general description of the two study area modes containing adult entertainment businesses in the Valley. As indicated above, such a description must necessarily be based on data applying to entire census tracts, even through the study areas may encompass only portions of tracts.

Residents of the Studio City study area node in 1970 were predominantly an upper middle income group, with a relatively high percentage of college graduates. High school dropouts were considerably below the citywide norm. Eight out of ten employed persons were in "white collar" jobs. The percentage of families receiving welfare or in poverty status was considerably below the citywide percentage. The unemployment rate was slightly higher than that of the entire city.

The median value of owner occupied homes in the Studio City area was more than $12,400 higher than the City median. About one-half of the housing units were one-unit structures. Apartment rental rates were also higher than the city as a whole. The percentage of one-unit, owner occupied housing units built before 1940 (24.1 percent) approached the citywide median of 28.5 percent.

With regard to crime statistics (as of 1970), robberies per 100 population in the Studio City area were below the rate for the city as a whole (.172 and .454, respectively), although the number of burglaries per 100 improved parcels (13.86) was close to the citywide rate of 14.96. Total arrests per 100 population (4.23) were about one-half of the 8.26 rate which prevailed citywide.

The North Hollywood study area contrasts rather sharply with the above described Studio City area. In North Hollywood, median family income was $9,471 in 1970-lower than the citywide median of $10,535-and considerably lower than the $15,672 median income of residents in the Studio City study area. Sixty-one percent of employed persons were in "white collar" jobs in North Hollywood, compared with 80 percent in Studio City and 57 percent in the entire city. The percentage of families in a poverty status in North Hollywood was considerably higher than in Studio City (10.0 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively). The percent of families in North Hollywood receiving welfare was higher than in Studio City, but lower than in the entire city. Unemployment rates, however, were lower in North Hollywood than in Studio City and the entire city.

Housing values were considerably lower in North Hollywood than in Studio City, and slightly lower than average values throughout the entire city. Median monthly rents were lower in North Hollywood than in Studio City but higher than in all of Los Angeles. Of all owner-occupied one-unit structures, 52.4 percent were built prior to 1940 in the North Hollywood study area, compared with only 28.5 percent in the entire city. Single-family homes in North Hollywood are older than in Studio City.

As revealed in Table V, 1970 crimes rates for the seven variables tabulated were lower in North Hollywood than in the city as a whole. Except for "robberies per 100 population" and "total arrests per 100 population" all other rates in North Hollywood were lower than in the Studio City study area.

Time series (trend) data can often be of value in identifying underlying socio-economic or physical characteristics which may have contributed to the change in an area. During the course of this study, the staff prepared a tabulation of the 1960-70 change in selected socio-economic variables as reported in the U.S. Census, covering the five study areas, the four "control" areas, and the City as a whole. This was done in order to determine if changes in the study area nodes were significantly different than the "control areas," or from citywide norms.

A tabulation of this data is contained in Appendix E. A review of this data revealed that the 1960-70 trends in the variables selected (relating to population, economics and housing) were not significantly different for the study areas than for the "control areas." In general, numerical or percentage changes in the data were also similar to citywide trends and no firm conclusions of particular relevance to the study could be developed.

V. POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY OF HOLLYWOOD

This section of the report considers the number and percentages of adult entertainment businesses in the City, changes in these businesses since 1975, and more specifically, crime rates in the Hollywood area as compared to crime rates, citywide.

The following information was compiled by the Los Angeles Police Department and shows the incidence of certain adult entertainment establishments as of two different time periods-November of 1975 and December 31, 1976. The statistics show a decrease in massage parlors, bookstores, arcades and theaters and a slight rise in adult motels. This was during the same period of time that there was stepped-up surveillance and deployment of officers in areas where concentrations of adult entertainment establishments existed. (The Hollywood community is within the West Bureau.)

This information and that which follows involving the incidence of crime in the Hollywood area provides what may be a positive correlation between crime and the presence of adult entertainment facilities.

TYPE OF ACTIVITY Nov. 1975 Dec. 1976 of Change

Adult Motels 37 38 +2%

Massage Parlors 147 80 -45%

Bookstores/Arcade 57 45 -21%

Theaters 47 44 -6%

TOTAL 288 207 -28%

TYPE OF ACTIVITY BUREAU BUREAU BUREAU BUREAU

Adult Motels 5 (13%) 23 (60%) 5 (13%) 5 (13%)

Massage Parlors 6 (7%) 4 (5%) 42 (53%) 28 (35%)

Bookstores/Arcades 6 (20%) 1 (2%) 24 (53%) 11 (24%)

Theaters 7 (16%) 1 (2%) 28 (64%) 8 (18%)

TOTAL 27 (23%) 29 (14%) 99 (48%) 52 (25%)

The information in this section is an extract from a report to the Planning Department on "The Impact of Sex Oriented Businesses on the Police Problems in the City of Los Angeles," (the complete report prepared by the Los Angeles City Police Department is available for review in the official files under City Plan Case No. 21475 in the Los Angeles City Planning Department), prepared by the Los Angeles City Police Department. The City Council in instructing the Planning Department to conduct the Adult Entertainment study has also instructed other City agencies to cooperate with and contribute as necessary to the report process. In accordance with such instructions, the Police Department conducted an analysis of the relationship between the concentration of adult entertainment establishments and criminal activity in the Hollywood area as compared to the citywide crime rates for the period beginning 1969 and ending 1975. This period of comparison covers the years during which adult entertainment establishments appeared and proliferated in the Hollywood area.

Part I crimes are those criminal acts which most severely effect their victims; they include homicide, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, larceny, and vehicle theft. During the period of 1969 through 1975, reported incidents of Part I crimes in the Hollywood Area increased 7.6 percent while the City showed a 4.2 percent increase. Thus, Hollywood's Part I crimes increased at nearly twice the rate of the City's increase. In conformance to the overall trend, every Part I crime committed against a person, not against property, increased at a higher rate in the Hollywood Area than in the citywide total. Street robberies and 484 purse snatches, wherein the victim was directly accosted by their assailant, increased by 93.7 percent and 51.4 percent, respectively; the citywide increase was 25.6 percent and 36.8 percent.

Suspects arrested for Part I criminal acts in Hollywood Area increased 16.2 percent while the City dropped by 5.3 percent. This reveals that the Hollywood Area was 21.5 percent over the City's total in the apprehension of serious criminals during the seven year period.

Equally alarming as the increase in Part I arrests, is the increase in Part II arrests (described on Table VI, pages 53-54) in the Hollywood Area as opposed to the rest of the City. Hollywood increased in this category by 45.5 percent while the City rose but 3.4 percent.

Prostitution arrests in the Hollywood Area increased at a rate 15 times greater than the city average. While the City showed a 24.5 percent hike, Hollywood bounded to a 372.3 percent increase in prostitution arrests.

Similarly, pandering arrests in the Hollywood Area increased by 475.0 percent, 3-1/2 times the city increase of 133.3 percent. (See note p. 54.)

Hollywood Area Citywide

Part I Offenses 1969 1975 % Change 1969 1975 % Change

Homicide 19 37 +94.7 377 574 +52.3

Rape 214 199 -7.0 2115 1794 -15.2

Aggravated Assault 605 886 +46.5 14798 14994 +1.3

Robbery 905 1591 +75.8 11909 14667 +23.2

Burglary 5695 5551 -2.5 65546 69489 +6.0

Larceny 7852 8396 +6.9 89862 93478 +4.0

Auto Theft 2621 2608 -0.5 32149 30861 -4.0

TOTAL 17911 19268 +7.6 216756 225857 +4.2

St. Robberies 381 738 +93.7 5321 6684 +25.6

484 Purse Snatches 185 280 +51.4 1951 2668 +36.8

ARRESTS

Hollywood Area Citywide

Part I Offenses 1969 1975 % Change 1969 1975 % Change

Homicide 21 26 +23.8 475 573 +20.6

Rape 67 47 -29.9 858 552 -35.7

Aggravated Assault 239 348 +45.6 6250 3163 -49.4

Robbery 368 285 -22.6 4855 5132 +5.7

Burglary 864 514 -40.5 7823 6032 -22.9

Larceny 546 1371 +151.1 6877 11706 +70.2

Auto Theft 319 226 -29.2 4820 3121 -5.3

TOTAL 2424 2817 +16.2 31958 30279 -5.3

Hollywood Area Citywide

*Part II Offenses 1969 1975 % Change 1969 1975 % Change

TOTAL 10660 15503 +45.4 179233 185417 +3.4

*(Part II arrests include: other assaults, forgery and counterfeiting, embezzlement and fraud, stolen property, prostitution, narcotics, liquor laws, gambling, and other miscellaneous misdemeanors.)

Prostitution Arrests 1969 1975 % Change

Hollywood Area 433 2045 +372.3

Citywide 2864 3564 +24.5

Pandering Arrests 1969 1975 % Change

Hollywood Area 8 46 +475.0

Citywide 42 98 +133.3

NOTE: (The prostitution arrests made in the Hollywood Area in 1975 represents 57.3 percent of all arrests for prostitution made in the city. The pandering arrests made in the Hollywood Area in 1975 represents 46.9 percent of all pandering arrests made in Los Angeles during that year.)

DEPLOYMENT

Hollywood Area 1969 1975 % Change

Patrol 197 255 +29.4

Investigators 45 61 +35.6

TOTAL 242 316 +30.6

Citywide 6194 7506 +21.1

ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS

HOLLYWOOD AREA

1969 through 1975

1969 1975

1 Hard-core motel 3 Hard-core motel

2 Bookstores 18 Bookstores

7 Theaters 29 Theaters

1 Massage parlor/scam joint 38 Massage parlors/scam joints

11 Locations (Total) 88 Locations (Total)

During the period included in this report, the citywide deployment of police personnel rose by 21.2 percent. However, with the surge of crime in the Hollywood Area, deployment there increased by 30.6 percent, 9.4 percent higher than the rest of the city. Included in this figure is a 29.4 percent hike in uniformed officers and 35.6 percent rise in investigators to cope with the criminal elements.

This survey reflects a seven-year span during which time the Adult Entertainment Establishment in the Hollywood Area proliferated from a mere 11 establishments to an astonishing number of 88 such locations. The overall deleterious effect to the entire community is evident in the statistics provided. The overwhelming increase in prostitution, robberies, assaults, thefts; and the proportionate growth in police personnel deployed throughout Hollywood, are all representative of blighting results that the clustering of Adult Entertainment Establishments has on the entire community. These adverse social effects not only infect the environs immediately adjacent to the parlors but creates a malignant atmosphere in which crime spreads to epidemic proportions.

The remaining sections of the Police Department report are letters and signature petitions from concerned businessmen, clergy, merchants, citizens and police officers and are in the file and available for inspection upon request. The following paragraph summarizes this section of the Police Department report.

The police officer reports can be summarized as follows: all officers felt the sex-oriented businesses either contributed to or were directly responsible for the crime problems in the Hollywood area. The officers felt the sex shops were an open invitation to undesirables and thereby directly caused the deterioration of neighborhoods. Also, it was suggested that these businesses purposely cluster in order to establish a "strength in numbers" type effect, once they establish a foothold in a neighborhood they drive the legitimate businesses out.

The letters from the businessmen, clubs, churches and concerned citizens were all in support of police efforts to close adult entertainment facilities. The letters all expressed the feeling that the sex shops attracted homosexuals, perverts, prostitutes and other undesirables and directly contributed to the decline of the Hollywood area.

Calvin S. Hamilton, Director

Frank P. Lombardi, Executive Officer

Glenn F. Blossom, City Planning Officer

Glenn O. Johnson, Division Head

Jack C. Sedwick, Senior City Planner

Robert Janovici, City Planner

Charles S. Rozzelle, City Planner

Marcia Scully, Planning Assistant, Project Coordinator

Evelyn Garfinkle, City Planning Associate

Fred Hand, City Planning Associate

Ronald Lewis, City Planning Associate (former project staff member)

Charles Zeman, City Planning Associate

Donald S. Jacobs, Data Analysis

Fred Ige, Planning Assistant

Joyce Odell, Cartographer

Gilbert Castro, Cartographer

Barbara Reilly, Typist

Corrine Gluck, Typist

Mary Volz, Typist

Mewland Watanabe, Typist

Jeanne Crain, Typist

Audrey Jones, Typist

Mason Dooley, Photographer

Assessed "Market" Values

Areas of Concentration Land Improvements Total

Santa Monica & Western 12,955,100 12,926,800 12,945,620 13,697,620 25,900,900 26,624,420

Control Area-Santa Monica &

Vermont 11,549,300 10,990,500 9,971,400 13,227,900 21,520,700 24,218,400

Hollywood & Western 17,618,700 18,237,710 20,361,040 23,015,660 37,979,740 41,289,370

Control Area-Hollywood &

Highland 21,956,500 26,197,880 39,051,920 35,992,140 61,008,420 62,190,020

Selma & Cahuenga 28,720,280 34,785,080 31,852,740 27,856,660 60,573,020 62,641,740

Control Area-Hollywood &

Gower 14,502,880 17,078,900 13,411,880 12,256,520 27,914,760 29,335,420

Tujunga & Ventura (Studio City) 7,115,460 11,890,900 8,493,260 13,852,800 15,608,720 25,743,700

Lankershim & Vineland 13,789,200 15,979,300 15,287,340 16,763,160 29,076,540 32,742,460

(North Hollywood)

Control Area-Lankershim &

Whipple 11,168,200 18,169,000 14,744,280 18,823,200 25,912,480 36,992,200

City of Los Angeles 8,303,456,720 11,216,558,900 9,692,014,680 13,464,660,940 17,995,471,400 24,681,219,840

March 14, 1977

The Los Angeles City Council has recently requested the Department of City Planning, in cooperation with the Police Department and other City agencies, to conduct a study concerning "adult entertainment" businesses.

Because of your particular knowledge of the businesses in the vicinity of your address, we are requesting that you answer the questions on the attached questionnaire. These questions relate to the effect of adult entertainment establishments on other businesses and neighborhoods in the surrounding area. The results of the questionnaire will be of great value to us in conducting this study.

Please return your completed questionnaire in the stamped envelope provided before April 1, 1977.

If you have any questions about the study or wish to discuss this matter with Planning Department staff members, please call 485-3508.

We greatly appreciate your cooperation in assisting us in this survey.

CALVIN S. HAMILTON

Director of Planning

CSH:CSR:cd

0417B/0029A

ADULT ENTERTAINMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Los Angeles City Planning Department

May 9, 1977

Please answer the seven questions below by checking the appropriate spaces. Feel free to write comments in the space provided or on a separate sheet.

For the purposes of this study, an adult entertainment establishment includes businesses such as: adult bookstores; nude or topless dancing establishments; massage parlors; adult theatres showing X-rated movies; "peep shows;" so-called adult motels, and bars with X-rated entertainment.

1. What overall effect do you feel that adult entertainment establishments have on a neighborhood:

Effect on the businesses condition (sales & profits) in the area:

positive __________ negative __________ no effect __________

Comments/Examples:

positive __________ negative __________ no effect __________

positive __________ negative __________ no effect __________

Comments/Examples:

2. Do you feel the establishment of adult entertainment facilities in the vicinity of your business has had any of the following effects? (Please check all those effects which you feel have occurred.)

_____ lower rents _____ increased property values

_____ tenants moving out _____ higher taxes

_____ complaints from customers _____ decreased business activity

_____ more crime _____ more litter

_____ improved neighborhood _____ other (please specify)

appearance __________________________

_____ deteriorated neighborhood

Please list specific examples relating to any box checked, immediately above.

3. What are the hours of operation of your business? _______________________

4. Have you seriously considered moving your business elsewhere because of nearby concentrations of adult entertainment businesses?

__________ yes _________ no

Why?

5. Would you consider expanding in your current location?

__________ yes __________ no; if not: why?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

6. What types of adult entertainment establishments are there in your area? (Please check all appropriate boxes.)

_____ adult bookstores _____ nude or topless dancing

_____ massage parlors _____ adult theatres

_____ peep shows _____ adult motels

_____ bars with X-rated entertainment

How far from your business is the nearest adult entertainment establishment?

________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your cooperation. Please return this questionnaire to:

___________________________________________________________

March 14, 1977

The Los Angeles City Council has recently requested the Department of City Planning, in cooperation with the Police Department and other City agencies, to conduct a study concerning "adult entertainment" businesses.

Because of your particular knowledge of the businesses in the vicinity of your address, we are requesting that you answer the questions on the attached questionnaire. These questions relate to the effect of adult entertainment establishments on other businesses and neighborhoods in the surrounding area. The results of the questionnaire will be of great value to us in conducting this study.

Please return your completed questionnaire in the stamped envelope provided before April 1, 1977.

If you have any questions about the study or wish to discuss this matter with Planning Department staff members, please call 485-3508.

We greatly appreciate your cooperation in assisting us in this survey.

CALVIN S. HAMILTON

Director of Planning

CSH:CSR:lmc

ADULT ENTERTAINMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Los Angeles City Planning Department

March 14, 1977

Please give your opinion regarding questions set forth below by checking the appropriate spaces and providing comments in the space provided or on a separate sheet.

For the purposes of this study, "adult entertainment establishments" includes businesses such as: adult bookstores; nude or topless dancing establishments; massage parlors; adult theatres showing X-rated movies; "peep shows;" so-called adult motels, and bars with X-rated entertainment.

1. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the market value of business property (land, structures, fixtures, etc.) located in the vicinity of such establishments?

increase in value _____ decrease in value _____ no effect _____

Comments/Examples: (Please cite specific examples, including available data.)

2. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the rental value of business property located in the vicinity of such establishments?

increase in value _____ decrease in value _____ no effect _____

Comments/Examples: (Please cite specific examples, including available data.)

3. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the rentability/salability of business property located in the vicinity (length of time required to rent or sell property; rate of lessee/buyer turnover; types of businesses of prospective lessees/buyers; conditions of sale or lease, etc.)?

increase in rentability/salability ______________________________________

decrease in rentability/salability _____________________________________

no effect ________________________________________________________

Comments/Examples: (Please cite specific examples, including available data.)

4. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the annual income of businesses located in the vicinity of such establishments?

increased income _____ decreased income _____ no effect _____

Comments/Examples: (Please cite specific examples, including available data.)

5. Have any business owners or proprietors considered relocating or not expanding their businesses because of the nearby concentration of adult entertainment establishments?

yes __________ no __________ not known __________

If yes, please indicate the specific reason, if known.

6. In recent years, has the commercial vitality (sales, profits, etc.) of any area in the City of Los Angeles been affected in any way by the nearby concentration of adult entertainment establishments?

yes __________ no __________ not known __________

If yes, which areas?

Comments/Examples: (Please cite effects and provide available data.)

7. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the market value of private residences located within the following distances from such establishments?

Increase Decrease No Effect

Less than 500 feet _______ ________ ________

500 – 1000 feet _______ ________ ________

More than 1000 feet _______ ________ ________

Comments/Examples: (Please cite effects and provide available data.)

8. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the rental value of residential income property located within the following distances from such establishments?

Increase Decrease No Effect

Less than 500 feet _______ ________ ________

500 – 1000 feet _______ ________ ________

More than 1000 feet _______ ________ ________

Comments/Examples: (Please cite effects and provide available data.)

9. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the rentability/salability of residential property located within the following distances from such establishments?

Increase Decrease No Effect

Less than 500 feet _______ ________ ________

500 – 1000 feet _______ ________ ________

More than 1000 feet _______ ________ ________

Comments/Examples: (Please cite effects and provide available data.)

10. In regard to the questions set forth above, please describe the effects which you believe the concentration of adult entertainment businesses has on each of the following:

Property values of surrounding:

Commercial property _________________________________________

Residential property __________________________________________

Rental values of surrounding:

Commercial property _________________________________________

Residential property __________________________________________

Vacancies:

Number ___________________________________________________

Length ____________________________________________________

Rate of tenant turnover _____________________________________________

Annual business income ____________________________________________

Complaints from customers and residents due to concentration _____________

________________________________________________________________

Neighborhood appearance __________________________________________

Crime __________________________________________________________

Litter ___________________________________________________________

Other (please specify) ______________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your cooperation. Please return this questionnaire to:

___________________________________________________________

Do you wish to be notified of the public hearing on this matter?

yes __________ no __________

May 3, 1977

Concerned Members of the Public

We wish to thank you for your interest in the above matter. Recently, residents of the Studio City area have received erroneous information regarding the activities of this Department. Specifically, they have been informed that it is our intent to create an "adult entertainment zone" on Ventura Boulevard. This information is not correct.

In January of this year, the Los Angeles City Council instructed the Planning Department to conduct a study to determine whether so-called "adult entertainment" establishments, where they exist in concentration, tend to have a deteriorating or blighting effect on adjacent properties and areas. Since that time, the Department staff has been evaluating data from the public and governmental agencies to determine whether evidence of such effects exists.

Within the next two months, the analysis of the information gathered will be presented to the Los Angeles City Council which will make a decision as to whether adoption of regulations is appropriate.

We regret that you were sent alarming erroneous information; if you have any further questions, please call my staff at 485-3508 or 485-3868.

(Original signed by)

CALVIN S. HAMILTON

Director of Planning

CSH:RJ:mw

PRIVATELY DISTRIBUTED QUESTIONNAIRE

(Note: Not a portion of Planning Department Study)

RESPONSES

Total no. of responses = 197

1. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the market value of business property (land, structures, fixtures, etc.) located in the vicinity of such establishments?

2. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the rental value of business property located in the vicinity of such establishments?

3. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the rentability/salability of business property located in the vicinity (length of time required to rent or sell property; rate of lessee/buyer turnover; conditions of sale or lease, etc.)?

4. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the annual income of businesses located in the vicinity of such establishments?

5. Have any business owners or proprietors considered relocating or not expanding their businesses because of the nearby concentration of adult entertainment establishments?

71 (36.9%) yes

4 (4.9%) no

96 (48.7%) not known

6. In recent years, has the commercial vitality (sales, profits, etc.) of any area in the City of Los Angeles been affected in any way by the nearby concentration of adult entertainment establishments?

100 (50.8%) yes

57 (28.9%) no

(35.8%) not known

7. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the market value of private residences located within the following distances from such establishments?

Increase Decrease No effect Total

Less than 500 feet -- 148 (100.0%) -- 148

500 – 1000 feet -- 145 (100.0%) -- 145

More than 1000 feet -- 142 (95.9%) -- 148

8. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the rental value of residential income property located within the following distances from such establishments?

Increase Decrease No effect Total

Less than 500 feet -- 143 (99.3%) 1 ( - ) 144

500 – 1000 feet -- 138 (98.6%) 2 (1.4%) 140

More than 1000 feet -- 133 (95.0%) 7 (50.0%) 140

9. What effect does the concentration of adult entertainment establishments have on the rentability/salability of residential property located within the following distances from such establishments?

Increase Decrease No effect Total

Less than 500 feet -- 147 (100.0%) -- 147

500 – 1000 feet -- 141 (99.3%) -- 142

More than 1000 feet -- 141 (97.2%) -- 145

10. (Not tabulated)In regard to the questions set forth above, please describe the effects which you believe the concentration of adult entertainment business has on each of the following:

In summary, the respondents felt that the subject businesses have a decidedly adverse impact on surrounding businesses and residential properties and the large majority believe that the adverse effect extends beyond the 1000-foot radius.

Comments indicate concern for:

1. personal safety, e.g. assaults

 

2. moral effect on children

 

3. safety of property, e.g. vandalism, robbery, etc.

 

4. neighborhood appearance; adult entertainment establishments were described variously as tawdry, tacky, garish, seedy, messy, neglected, untidy, blighted, unkempt.

 

5. litter, e.g. cans, bottles, newspapers, etc., strewn about public and private property, especially heavy after Saturday night.

 

6. spillover parking into residential areas; on-site parking is often inadequate; customers seeking anonymity park at a distance away from any given establishment, on residential streets.

 

7. graffiti on public and private property.

Node Citywide

Population 1960 1970 1960 1970

Total Population 18,484 19,033 2,479,015 2,811,801

Black 38 340 334,916 503,606

Percentage 0.2 1.8 13.5 17.9

Spanish 540 3,833 260,399 518,791

Percentage 3.7 20.1 10.5 18.5

Median Age 42.1 38.0 33.2 30.6

Persons 0-17 2,190 3,126 756,640 849,246

Percentage 11.8 16.4 30.5 30.2

Persons 65+ 2,437 3,334 253,993 283,395

Percentage 13.1 17.5 10.2 10.1

No. of Husband & Wife Families 3,153 3,380 545,109 553,564

No. of Unrelated Individuals 3,833 6,190 329,977 421,701

Average Household Size 1.95 1.90 2.77 2.68

Total Units 9,859 10,667 935,507 1,074,173

Singles 2,938 1,919 559,745 560,378

Percentage 30.0 18.0 59.0 52.0

Multiples 6,921 8,748 375,762 510,261

Percentage 70.0 82.0 40.0 47.4

Built Pre-1939 7,039 5,736 481,797 328,988

All Occupied Units 9,226 9,962 876,010 1,024,835

Owner 1,330 1,078 404,652 419,801

Percentage 14.0 11.0 50.0 39.0

Renter 7,896 8,986 471,358 607,573

Percentage 86.0 89.0 43.0 56.4

Median Family Income 5,699 7,713 6,896 10,535

Median School Years Completed 12.1 12.3 12.1 12.4

Median Value Owner Occupied in $ 16,450 25,825 17,300 26,700

Median Rent in $ 77 105 78 114

Total Employed 9,370 9,113 126,276 1,150,796

Unemployed 900 912 6,914 86,802

Percentage 9.6 10.0 5.5 7.5

Node Citywide

Population 1960 1970 1960 1970

Total Population 5,497 5,897 2,479,015 2,811,801

Black 9 2 334,916 503,606

Percentage 0.0 0.1 13.5 17.9

Spanish 100 439 260,399 518,791

Percentage 1.8 7.4 10.5 18.5

Median Age 42.1 41.6 33.2 30.6

Persons 0-17 1,106 1,091 756,640 849,246

Percentage 20.1 18.5 30.5 30.2

Persons 65+ 729 1,076 253,993 283,395

Percentage 13.3 18.2 10.2 10.1

No. of Husband & Wife Families 1,371 1,301 545,109 553,564

No. of Unrelated Individuals 841 1,337 329,977 421,701

Average Household Size 2.36 2.11 2.77 2.68

Total Units 2,520 2,865 935,507 1,074,173

Singles 1,289 1,082 559,745 560,378

Percentage 51.2 37.8 59.0 52.0

Multiples 1,231 1,783 375,762 510,261

Percentage 48.8 62.2 40.0 47.4

Built Pre-1939 898 813 481,797 328,988

All Occupied Units 2,328 2,790 876,010 1,024,835

Owner 1,076 989 404,652 419,801

Percentage 46.2 35.4 50.0 39.0

Renter 1,252 1,801 471,358 607,573

Percentage 53.8 64.6 43.0 56.4

Median Family Income 8,086 13,154 6,896 10,535

Median School Years Completed 12.6 12.6 12.1 12.4

Median Value Owner Occupied in $ 22,350 37,700 17,300 26,700

Median Rent in $ 92 136 78 114

Total Employed 2,574 2,736 126,276 1,150,796

Unemployed 177 280 6,914 86,802

Percentage 6.9 10.2 5.5 7.5

Node Citywide

Population 1960 1970 1960 1970

Total Population 6,860 8,438 2,479,015 2,811,801

Black 3 72 334,916 503,606

Percentage -- 0.1 13.5 17.9

Spanish 183 909 260,399 518,791

Percentage 2.6 10.7 10.5 18.5

Median Age 43.9 41.3 33.2 30.6

Persons 0-17 576 803 756,640 849,246

Percentage 8.3 9.4 30.5 30.2

Persons 65+ 1,158 1,644 253,993 283,395

Percentage 16.8 19.4 10.2 10.1

No. of Husband & Wife Families 1,306 1,408 545,109 553,564

No. of Unrelated Individuals 2,805 3,602 329,977 421,701

Average Household Size 1.76 1.62 2.77 2.68

Total Units 6,773 8,044 935,507 1,074,173

Singles 764 702 559,745 560,378

Percentage 11.3 8.7 59.0 52.0

Multiples 5,818 7,559 375,762 510,261

Percentage 85.9 94.0 40.0 47.4

Built Pre-1939 3,731 3,037 481,797 328,988

All Occupied Units 5,996 7,506 876,010 1,024,835

Owner 394 420 404,652 419,801

Percentage 6.6 5.6 50.0 39.0

Renter 5,602 7,137 471,358 607,573

Percentage 93.4 94.4 43.0 56.4

Median Family Income 6,429 8,537 6,896 10,535

Median School Years Completed 12.5 12.6 12.1 12.4

Median Value Owner Occupied in $ 22,200 37,333 17,300 26,700

Median Rent in $ 92 123 78 114

Total Employed 6,535 6,745 126,276 1,150,796

Unemployed 481 575 6,914 86,802

Percentage 7.4 8.5 5.5 7.5

Node Citywide

Population 1960 1970 1960 1970

Total Population 16,855 15,736 2,479,015 2,811,801

Black 510 1,287 334,916 503,606

Percentage 3.0 8.2 13.5 17.9

Spanish 869 3,936 260,399 518,791

Percentage 5.2 25.0 10.5 18.5

Median Age 38.8 34.2 33.2 30.6

Persons 0-17 2,482 2,751 756,640 849,246

Percentage 14.7 17.5 30.5 30.2

Persons 65+ 2,830 2,432 253,993 283,395

Percentage 16.8 15.5 10.2 10.1

No. of Husband & Wife Families 3,343 2,720 545,109 553,564

No. of Unrelated Individuals 4,881 4,818 329,977 421,701

Average Household Size 2.04 2.01 2.77 2.68

Total Units 8,866 7,982 935,507 1,074,173

Singles 2,655 1,913 559,745 560,378

Percentage 30.0 24.0 59.0 52.0

Multiples 5,531 6,081 375,762 510,261

Percentage 62.4 76.2 40.0 47.4

Built Pre-1939 6,589 4,093 481,797 328,988

All Occupied Units 8,274 7,636 876,010 1,024,835

Owner 1,404 896 404,652 419,801

Percentage 17.0 11.7 50.0 39.0

Renter 6,870 6,748 471,358 607,573

Percentage 83.0 88.4 43.0 56.4

Median Family Income 5,901 8,142 6,896 10,535

Median School Years Completed 12.2 12.5 12.1 12.4

Median Value Owner Occupied in $ 15,975 24,100 17,300 26,700

Median Rent in $ 76 103 78 114

Total Employed 9,073 6,528 126,276 1,150,796

Unemployed 595 465 6,914 86,802

Percentage 6.6 7.1 5.5 7.5

Node Citywide

Population 1960 1970 1960 1970

Total Population 14,886 13,827 2,479,015 2,811,801

Black 43 342 334,916 503,606

Percentage 0.3 2.5 13.5 17.9

Spanish 840 1,822 260,399 518,791

Percentage 5.6 13.2 10.5 18.5

Median Age 43.3 39.8 33.2 30.6

Persons 0-17 1,309 1,248 756,640 849,246

Percentage 8.8 9.0 30.5 30.2

Persons 65+ 2,896 2,712 253,993 283,395

Percentage 19.5 19.6 10.2 10.1

No. of Husband & Wife Families 2,406 1,876 545,109 553,564

No. of Unrelated Individuals 6,631 5,951 329,977 421,701

Average Household Size 1.68 1.60 2.77 2.68

Total Units 10,022 9,680 935,507 1,074,173

Singles 1,714 1,140 559,745 560,378

Percentage 17.1 11.8 59.0 52.0

Multiples 8,110 8,533 375,762 510,261

Percentage 80.9 88.2 40.0 47.4

Built Pre-1939 7,197 5,161 481,797 328,988

All Occupied Units 8,958 8,658 876,010 1,024,835

Owner 812 683 404,652 419,801

Percentage 9.1 7.9 50.0 39.0

Renter 8,164 7,965 471,358 607,573

Percentage 91.1 92.1 43.0 56.4

Median Family Income 5,535 7,584 6,896 10,535

Median School Years Completed 12.2 12.5 12.1 12.4

Median Value Owner Occupied in $ 20,125 30,925 17,300 26,700

Median Rent in $ 80 111 78 114

Total Employed 8,112 6,990 126,276 1,150,796

Unemployed 998 943 6,914 86,802

Percentage 12.3 13.5 5.5 7.5

Node Citywide

Population 1960 1970 1960 1970

Total Population 17,544 11,599 2,479,015 2,811,801

Black 50 44 334,916 503,606

Percentage 0.3 0.4 13.5 17.9

Spanish 398 758 260,399 518,791

Percentage 2.3 6.5 10.5 18.5

Median Age 39.6 38.7 33.2 30.6

Persons 0-17 3,638 2,137 756,640 849,246

Percentage 20.7 18.4 30.5 30.2

Persons 65+ 1,368 1,232 253,993 283,395

Percentage 7.8 10.6 10.2 10.1

No. of Husband & Wife Families 4,526 2,664 545,109 553,564

No. of Unrelated Individuals 3,100 2,832 329,977 421,701

Average Household Size 2.36 2.17 2.77 2.68

Total Units 8,110 5,529 935,507 1,074,173

Singles 4,520 2,716 559,745 560,378

Percentage 55.7 49.1 59.0 52.0

Multiples 3,590 2,813 375,762 510,261

Percentage 44.3 50.9 40.0 47.4

Built Pre-1939 2,058 1,009 481,797 328,988

All Occupied Units 7,548 5,367 876,010 1,024,835

Owner 3,904 2,463 404,652 419,801

Percentage 51.4 45.9 50.0 39.0

Renter 3,644 2,904 471,358 607,573

Percentage 48.3 54.1 43.0 56.4

Median Family Income 9,956 15,672 6,896 10,535

Median School Years Completed 12.6 12.9 12.1 12.4

Median Value Owner Occupied in $ 23,700 39,650 17,300 26,700

Median Rent in $ 98 142 78 114

Total Employed 8,800 5,965 126,276 1,150,796

Unemployed 584 504 6,914 86,802

Percentage 6.7 8.4 5.5 7.5

Node Citywide

Population 1960 1970 1960 1970

Total Population 11,438 12,016 2,479,015 2,811,801

Black 38 326 334,916 503,606

Percentage 0.3 2.7 13.5 17.9

Spanish 357 1,509 260,399 518,791

Percentage 3.1 12.6 10.5 18.5

Median Age 44.5 41.0 33.2 30.6

Persons 0-17 832 970 756,640 849,246

Percentage 7.3 8.1 30.5 30.2

Persons 65+ 2,281 2,379 253,993 283,395

Percentage 19.9 19.8 10.2 10.1

No. of Husband & Wife Families 1,718 1,606 545,109 553,564

No. of Unrelated Individuals 5,768 6,408 329,977 421,701

Average Household Size 1.57 1.56 2.77 2.68

Total Units 8,261 8,835 935,507 1,074,173

Singles 1,169 858 559,745 560,378

Percentage 14.2 9.7 59.0 52.0

Multiples 7,067 7,958 375,762 510,261

Percentage 85.5 90.1 40.0 47.4

Built Pre-1939 5,768 4,344 481,797 328,988

All Occupied Units 7,322 7,756 876,010 1,024,835

Owner 559 559 404,652 419,801

Percentage 7.6 7.2 50.0 39.0

Renter 6,781 7,197 471,358 607,573

Percentage 92.4 92.8 43.0 56.4

Median Family Income 5,792 7,510 6,896 10,535

Median School Years Completed 12.3 12.6 12.1 12.4

Median Value Owner Occupied in $ 23,000 33,300 17,300 26,700

Median Rent in $ 85 117 78 114

Total Employed 6,469 6,177 126,276 1,150,796

Unemployed 861 878 6,914 86,802

Percentage 13.3 14.2 5.5 7.5

Node Citywide

Population 1960 1970 1960 1970

Total Population 7,067 2,342 2,479,015 2,811,801

Black 9 53 334,916 503,606

Percentage 0.1 2.3 13.5 17.9

Spanish 292 311 260,399 518,791

Percentage 4.1 13.3 10.5 18.5

Median Age 45.2 37.3 33.2 30.6

Persons 0-17 567 227 756,640 849,246

Percentage 8.0 9.7 30.5 30.2

Persons 65+ 1,445 325 253,993 283,395

Percentage 20.4 13.9 10.2 10.1

No. of Husband & Wife Families 1,316 336 545,109 553,564

No. of Unrelated Individuals 2,707 1,155 329,977 421,701

Average Household Size 1.74 1.64 2.77 2.68

Total Units 4,334 1,571 935,507 1,074,173

Singles 669 226 559,745 560,378

Percentage 15.4 14.4 59.0 52.0

Multiples 3,463 1,365 375,762 510,261

Percentage 84.6 85.6 40.0 47.4

Built Pre-1939 2,778 726 481,797 328,988

All Occupied Units 3,924 1,446 876,010 1,024,835

Owner 345 93 404,652 419,801

Percentage 8.8 6.4 50.0 39.0

Renter 3,579 1,353 471,358 607,573

Percentage 91.2 93.6 43.0 56.4

Median Family Income 6,102 8,515 6,896 10,535

Median School Years Completed 12.4 12.4 12.1 12.4

Median Value Owner Occupied in $ 21,750 27,600 17,300 26,700

Median Rent in $ 84 112 78 114

Total Employed 3,885 1,430 126,276 1,150,796

Unemployed 380 148 6,914 86,802

Percentage 9.8 10.3 5.5 7.5

Node Citywide

Population 1960 1970 1960 1970

Total Population 7,600 9,344 2,479,015 2,811,801

Black 1 0 334,916 503,606

Percentage 0.0 0.0 13.5 17.9

Spanish 263 146 260,399 518,791

Percentage 3.5 1.6 10.5 18.5

Median Age 41.9 38.7 33.2 30.6

Persons 0-17 1,551 1,697 756,640 849,246

Percentage 20.4 18.2 30.5 30.2

Persons 65+ 1,268 1,674 253,993 283,395

Percentage 16.7 17.9 10.2 10.1

No. of Husband & Wife Families 1,833 1,963 545,109 553,564

No. of Unrelated Individuals 1,325 2,521 329,977 421,701

Average Household Size 2.35 1.70 2.77 2.68

Total Units 3,558 4,897 935,507 1,074,173

Singles 1,705 1,359 559,745 560,378

Percentage 47.9 27.8 59.0 52.0

Multiples 1,853 3,538 375,762 510,261

Percentage 52.1 72.2 40.0 47.4

Built Pre-1939 1,501 1,369 481,797 328,988

All Occupied Units 2,711 4,677 876,010 1,024,835

Owner 1,213 1,143 404,652 419,801

Percentage 44.7 24.4 50.0 39.0

Renter 2,098 3,534 471,358 607,573

Percentage 55.3 75.6 43.0 56.4

Median Family Income 6,690 9,471 6,896 10,535

Median School Years Completed 11.9 12.4 12.1 12.4

Median Value Owner Occupied in $ 17,800 25,450 17,300 26,700

Median Rent in $ 86 118 78 114

Total Employed 3,483 4,452 126,276 1,150,796

Unemployed 267 291 6,914 86,802