Section 25.02.025 Purpose and findings with respect to adult entertainment businesses.

1. With respect to an adult entertainment business it is the purpose of this title to regulate certain adult entertainment businesses in order to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the city, and to establish reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent the deleterious secondary effects of adult uses within the city. The provisions of this ordinance have neither the purpose nor effect of imposing a limitation or restriction on the content or reasonable access to any communicative materials, including sexually oriented materials. Similarly, it is neither the intent nor effect of this ordinance to restrict or deny access by adults to sexually oriented materials protected by the First Amendment, or to deny access by the distributors and exhibitors of sexually oriented entertainment to their intended market. Neither is it the intent nor effect of this ordinance to condone or legitimize the distribution of obscene material.

2. Findings. This ordinance is based on the City’ s general police power, as well as on the evidence of the adverse secondary effects of adult entertainment businesses, which is within the common knowledge of municipalities and is widely reported in judicial opinions, media reports, land use studies, and crime impact reports made available to the City Council, several of which are set forth herein. Additionally, the City Council relies upon repeated judicial findings of municipalities’ reasonable reliance on this body of secondary effects evidence to support time, place, and manner regulations of adult entertainment businesses. The City Council relies upon and incorporates the findings concerning secondary effects discussed in the following non-exhaustive list of cases: City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4026 (June 7, 2004); City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002); Pap’ s A.M. v. City of Erie, 529 U.S. 277 (2000); City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986); Young v. American Mini Theatres, 426 U.S. 50 (1976); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991); FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990); Sewell v. Georgia, 233 S.E.2d 187 (Ga. 1977), dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 435 U.S. 982 (1978); Farkas v. Miller, 151 F.3d 900 (8^th Cir. 1998); Jakes Ltd. v. City of Coates, 284 F.3d 884 (2002); BZAPS, Inc. v. City of Mankato, 268 F.3d 603 (8^th Cir. 2001); SOB, Inc. v. County of Benton, 317 F.3d 856 (8^th Cir. 2003); Green v. City of St. Paul, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 12057 (8^th Cir. 1999) (unreported); Scope Pictures v. City of Kansas City, 140 F.3d 1201 (8^th Cir. 1998); Excalibur Group v. City of Minneapolis, 116 F.3d 1216 (8^th Cir. 1997); ILQ Invs. v. City of Rochester, 25 F.3d 1413 (8^th Cir. 1994); Ambassador Books & Video v. City of Little Rock, 20 F.3d 858 (8^th Cir. 1994); Alexander v. Minneapolis, 928 F.2d 278 (8^th Cir. 1991); John Doe v. Minneapolis, 898 F.2d 612 (8^th Cir. 1990); Thames Enters. v. St. Louis, 851 F.2d 199 (8^th Cir. 1988); MRM, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 290 N.W.2d 338 (Iowa 1980); North Avenue Novelties, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 88 F.3d 441 (1996); World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10443 (9^th Cir., May 27, 2004) (including exhibits cited therein), aff’ g 227 F.Supp.2d 1143 (E.D. Wash. 2002); Bigg Wolf Discount Video v. Montgomery County, 256 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Md. 2003); Z.J. Gifts D-2, L.L.C. v. City of Aurora, 136 F.3d 683 (10^th Cir. 1998); Z.J. Gifts D-4 L.L.C. v. City of Littleton, 93 P.3d 633 (Colo. App. 2004); County of Cook v. Renaissance Arcade and Bookstore, 122 Ill. 2d 123 (1988) (including cases cited therein); and other cases; and on reports concerning secondary effects in and around adult uses, including, but not limited to, Summaries of Key Reports Concerning the Negative Secondary Effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses; Garden Grove, California - 1991; Los Angeles, California - 1977; Whittier, California - 1978; Austin, Texas - 1986; Phoenix, Arizona -1979, 1995-1998; Minneapolis, Minnesota - 1980; Houston, Texas - 1997; Tucson, Arizona – 1990; Indianapolis, Indiana – 1984; St. Cloud, Minnesota - 1994; Amarillo, Texas; Centralia, Washington - 2003; Seattle, Washington - 1989; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - 1986; and Dallas, Texas - 1997; New York Times Square study - 1994; and also on findings from the Report of the Attorney General's Working Group On The Regulation Of Adult uses, (June 6, 1989, State of Minnesota), the Council finds: