Resolution 4264 - Laserfiche WebLink

G- These secondary adverse impacts pose a threat to the public health and safety; H- Since 1985, the City has had licensing regulations for adult entertainment establishments . Other communities have included in such regulations standards addressing distance requirements between entertainer and patron, identification of point of payment, and other possible requirements which the City' s licensing regulations do not contain. Further, there are decisions currently pending before the appellate courts which address various licensing provisions for adult entertainment establishments; I- On April 12, 1996, the Everett City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2138-96, entitled "AN ORDINANCE establishing a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for or issuance of any license, permit or approval for public places of adult entertainment and adult use businesses in order to allow study of this issue; and declaring an emergency to exist. " Section 3 of Ordinance No. 2138-96 requires that the City hold a public hearing; J- Following implementation of the moratorium, two lawsuits were filed challenging the moratorium entitled DEJA-VU EVERETT-FEDERAL WAY, Inc. V. CITY OF EVERETT, C96-0629 and JOHN WALLOCK V. CITY OF EVERETT, C96-0630 . Both lawsuits allege that the City' s moratorium ordinance, Ordinance No. 2138-96, violates the plaintiffs rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution. Plaintiffs have noted a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a Motion for Order Shortening Time seeking to have the Preliminary Injunction scheduled for May 17 to be heard on May 9, 1996; K- If the plaintiffs were successful in their challenge to the City' s moratorium and the City had not made the revisions to its adult use zoning regulations and Comprehensive Plan to remove the defects upon which Judge Farris relied, then there would be a period of time during which sexually oriented adult entertainment businesses or adult use businesses could submit applications and possibly claim vested rights to locate in areas where they would be incompatible with the sensitive land uses and with the regulatory scheme to be prepared as a result of the moratorium. Further, plaintiffs are claiming damages from the City due to the moratorium; L- On April 24, 1996, the City received a transcript of the proceedings of Judge Farris' oral decision of April 12, 1996, for the purpose of determining the nature of the changes required to 2