Based on public testimony and other evidence and information before it, the Algona city council makes the following findings of fact:
A. The regulations and standards of conduct in this chapter are consistent with standards and regulations approved by Washington municipalities and are supported by the legislative record contained in those municipal files, the city of Algona records, and in the record of judicial review and affirmation of such regulations and standards. See, e.g., Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 132 Wn.2d 103, 937 P.2d 154 (1997); and Deja Vu-Everett-Federal Way, Inc. v. City of Federal Way, Case C95-1272Z (W.D. Wash. 1/5/96).
B. The license fees required herein are reasonable fees imposed as necessary regulatory measures designed to help defray the substantial expenses incurred by the city in regulating the sexually oriented adult entertainment industry.
C. Concern over sexually transmitted diseases is a legitimate health concern of the city which requires regulation of sexually oriented adult entertainment businesses in order to protect the health and well being of the public.
D. Hidden ownership interests for the purposes of skimming profits and avoiding the payment of taxes have historically occurred in the adult entertainment industry in the absence of regulation. In order for the city of Algona to effectively protect the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of its citizenry it is important that the city be fully apprised of the actual ownership of adult entertainment establishments.
E. Adult entertainment businesses such as those in Tukwila and Federal Way continue to operate under similar regulations and standards as those set forth in this chapter, thereby demonstrating the economic viability of such operations under such regulations and standards.
F. The Washington Supreme Court has upheld, and other courts have enforced, more restrictive separation requirements than those contained in this chapter. Requiring a four-foot separation between adult entertainers and patrons is the minimum necessary to ensure the public’s health, safety, and general welfare. The courts have held that the inquiry for First Amendment purposes is not concerned with economic impact. Further, the city has considered and rejects the information of alleged economic impact and finds that such expression may be presented in an economically viable manner, if there is a market for such expression. (Ord. 1046-11 § 1).