Section 4.75.010 Purpose and findings.

1. Rationale. It is the purpose of this ordinance to regulate adult oriented 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 oriented businesses 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. Based on evidence of the adverse secondary effects of adult uses presented in hearings and in reports made available to the City Council, and on findings, interpretations, and narrowing constructions incorporated in the following 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 (8th Cir. 1998); Jakes Ltd. v. City of Coates, 284 F.3d 884 (2002); BZAPS, Inc. v. City of Mankato, 268 F.3d 603 (8th Cir. 2001); SOB, Inc. v. County of Benton, 317 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2003); Green v. City of St. Paul, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 12057 (8th Cir. 1999) (unreported); Scope Pictures v. City of Kansas City, 140 F.3d 1201 (8th Cir. 1998); Excalibur Group v. City of Minneapolis, 116 F.3d 1216 (8th Cir. 1997); ILQ Invs. v. City of Rochester, 25 F.3d 1413 (8th Cir. 1994); Ambassador Books & Video v. City of Little Rock, 20 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 1994); Alexander v. Minneapolis, 928 F.2d 278 (8th Cir. 1991); John Doe v. Minneapolis, 898 F.2d 612 (8th Cir. 1990); Thames Enters. v. St. Louis, 851 F.2d 199 (8th 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 (9th 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 (10th 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 Adult 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: