(a)

Findings. The regulation of sexually-oriented businesses in this UDC are based on the following findings of the city council:

(1)

Sexually-oriented businesses cause adverse secondary effects, which are recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court (in cases such as Young v. American Mini Theatres, 426 U.S. 50 (1976), City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986), FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990)) and the 10 ^th Circuit Court of Appeals (in cases such as Doctor John's v. G. Blake Wahlen, 542 F.3d 787 (10 ^th Cir. 2008)) as impacting substantial governmental interests in health, safety and welfare.

(2)

In City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 120 S. Ct. 1382 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a "city need not 'conduct new studies or produce evidence independent of that already generated by other cities' to demonstrate the problem of secondary effects, 'so long as whatever evidence the city relies upon is reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem that the city addresses.'"

(3)

Other cases, such as City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts, 541 U.S. 774 (2004), Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991), Essence, Inc. v. City of Federal Heights, 285 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2002), Z.J. Gifts D-2, L.L.C. v. City of Aurora, 136 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 1998), O'Connor v. City and County of Denver, 894 F. 2d 1210 (10th Cir. 1990), City of Colorado Springs v. 2354 Inc., 896 P.2d 272 (Colo. 1995), 7250 Corp. v. Board of County Comm'rs for Adams County, 799 P. 2d 917 (Colo. 1990), and Marco Lounge, Inc. v. City of Federal Heights, 625 P.2d 982 (Colo. 1981), have upheld reasonable regulations of sexually-oriented businesses.

(4)

The negative secondary impacts of sexually-oriented businesses have been studied in other communities. These communities include, but are not limited, to Adams County, Colorado; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Ellicottville, New York; Garden Grove, California; Houston, Texas; Indianapolis, Indiana; Islip, New York; Las Vegas, Nevada; Los Angeles, California; Louisville, Kentucky; New York, New York; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Phoenix, Arizona; Rome City, Georgia; St. Paul, Minnesota; Tucson, Arizona; and Whittier, California.

(5)

The American Center for Law and Justice also completed a study on the secondary effects of such uses, dated March 1996.

(6)

Secondary effects of sexually-oriented businesses may include any or all of the following material effects on the health, safety, and welfare of city residents:

a.

Particularly when they are located in close proximity to each other, sexually-oriented businesses are an indicia of urban blight, or a factor that downgrades the quality of life in the adjacent area;

b.

Sexually-oriented businesses have a deleterious effect on both neighboring businesses and surrounding residential areas, as they are regularly correlated to an increase in crime and a decrease in property values;

c.

Sexually-oriented businesses commonly require special supervision from public safety agencies in order to protect public health, safety and welfare, including that of the patrons of such businesses;

d.

Studies and experience show that in the absence of regulation of sexually-oriented businesses, significant criminal activity, including prostitution, narcotics and liquor law violations, have historically and regularly occurred within and within the immediate vicinity of such businesses;

e.

Sexually-oriented businesses are frequently used for unlawful and unhealthful sexual activities, including prostitution and sexual liaisons of a casual nature, and the concern over sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, is a legitimate health concern of the city;

f.

Sexually-oriented businesses lend themselves to ancillary unlawful and unhealthy activities that are often not controlled by the operators of the establishments; and

g.

Children and minors may be harmed by exposure to the secondary effects of sexually-oriented businesses, including those encountered when children walk through or visit in the immediate neighborhood of such businesses.

(b)

Objectives. The city wishes to minimize and control the adverse secondary effects of sexually-oriented businesses and thereby protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens; preserve the quality of life; preserve the property values and character of surrounding neighborhoods; deter the spread of urban blight; and protect residents and property owners from increased crime.

(c)

Intent. It is not the intent of this Code to suppress any speech protected by the First Amendment, but to enact reasonable, content-neutral regulations that address the secondary effects of sexually-oriented businesses. To this end, the regulations in this Code that apply specifically to sexually-oriented businesses impose restrictions which are no greater than necessary to further the city's substantial interest in preventing adverse secondary effects attributable to such businesses.

(Ord. No. 33-2017, § 1, 12-6-17)

(a)

Generally. The findings of this section support the policy that is articulated in section 21-4, statement of policy regarding marijuana uses and marijuana cultivation.

(b)

Findings. The city council finds that, as of the effective date of this UDC:

(1)

Marijuana is a controlled substance under federal law, and possession of marijuana is prohibited by federal law.

(2)

The voters of the State of Colorado have approved a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution to allow for persons with "debilitating medical conditions" to use medical marijuana. The will of the voters is reflected in Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution. That section of the Colorado Constitution is further implemented and further regulated by C.R.S. § 12-43.3-101, et seq.

(3)

The voters of the State of Colorado have approved a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution to legalize, under state law, the personal use of marijuana by persons over the age of 21. However, part of the amendment, reflected in Article XVIII, Section 16(5)(f) of the Colorado Constitution, provides, "A locality may prohibit the operation of marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing facilities, or retail marijuana stores through the enactment of an ordinance …"

(4)

The United States Constitution, in Article VI, Debts, Supremacy, Oaths, provides in part, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution …"

(5)

Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 812. Possession and sale of marijuana is illegal under federal law. (See 21 U.S.C. § 841, et seq.) Violators of U.S. Code are subject to criminal and civil penalties under Federal law.

(6)

The United States Department of Justice ("U.S. DOJ") issued a memorandum on October 19, 2009 regarding U.S. DOJ policy on enforcement of the Federal Controlled Substances Act in states that allow medical marijuana under state law. In that memorandum, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden writes, in pertinent part:

a.

"Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law … Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations."

b.

"This guidance regarding resource allocation does not 'legalize' marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party, or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter."

c.

"Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law … create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act."

(7)

In response to the reallocation of investigative and prosecutorial resources of the U.S. DOJ, medical and recreational marijuana uses have proliferated in Colorado.

(8)

On February 23, 2017 a White House official signaled that there will be "greater enforcement" of federal laws against marijuana use, particularly in the area of recreational marijuana; however, as of the effective date, neither the White House nor the U.S. DOJ has articulated a substantive change in policy.

(Ord. No. 33-2017, § 1, 12-6-17)

(a)

Statement of interests. The city has the following legitimate, important, substantial, or compelling interests in regulating signs:

(1)

Preventing the proliferation of signs of generally increasing size, dimensions, and intrusiveness (also known as "sign clutter") that tends to result from competition for the attention of passing motorists and pedestrians, because sign clutter:

a.

Creates visual distraction and obstructs views, potentially creating safety hazards for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians;

b.

May involve physical obstruction of streets, sidewalks, or trails, creating public safety hazards;

c.

Degrades the aesthetic quality of the city, making the city a less attractive place for residents, business owners, visitors, and private investment;

d.

Increases the cost of doing business in the city by placing undue pressure on business owners to invest in ever-increasing amounts of signage; and

e.

Dilutes or obscures messages on individual signs due to the increasing intensity of competition for attention.

(2)

Maintaining and enhancing the historic character of downtown Alamosa.

(3)

Protecting the health of the tree canopy in the city.

(4)

Maintaining a high quality aesthetic environment to protect and enhance property values, leverage public investments in streets, sidewalks, trails, plazas, parks, and landscaping, and enhance community pride.

(5)

Protecting minors from speech that is harmful to them as provided by state or federal law, by preventing such speech in places that are accessible to and used by minors.

(b)

Findings. The city finds that:

(1)

Content-neutrality, viewpoint neutrality, and fundamental fairness in regulation and review are essential to ensuring an appropriate balance between the important, substantial, and compelling interests set out above and the constitutionally-protected right to free expression.

(2)

The sign regulations set out in this Code are unrelated to the suppression of constitutionally-protected free expression, do not relate to the content of protected messages that may be displayed on signs, and do not relate to the viewpoint of individual speakers.

(3)

The incidental restriction on the freedom of speech that may result from the regulation of signs pursuant to this Code is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of the important, substantial, and compelling interests that are advanced herein.

(4)

Regulation of the location, number, materials, height, sign area, form, and duration of display of temporary signs is essential to preventing sign clutter.

(5)

Temporary signs may be degraded, damaged, moved, or destroyed by wind, rain, snow, ice, and sun, and after such degradation, damage, movement, or destruction, such signs harm the safety and aesthetics of the city's streets if they are not removed.

(6)

Certain classifications of speech are not constitutionally protected due to the harm that they cause to individuals or the community.

(c)

Intent. The sign regulations in this Code represent the city's best effort to advance its legitimate, important, substantial, and compelling interests while ensuring consistency with an evolving legal framework.

(Ord. No. 33-2017, § 1, 12-6-17)

(a)

Interests. The unique and diverse landscapes of the city are among its most valuable assets. Protecting these assets will require that location and design of wireless telecommunication services and/or equipment be sensitive to and in scale and harmony with, the character of the community.

(b)

Findings. The city finds that providing predictable, consistent, and balanced standards for the siting and screening of wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment is important in order to:

(1)

Preserve the character and aesthetics of areas which are in close proximity to wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment;

(2)

Protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working in the area surrounding wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment related to the placement, construction or modification of such facilities; and

(3)

Allow development that is compatible in appearance with allowed uses of the underlying zoning district.

(c)

Intent. It is the intent of the city to further its interests in protecting its community character while also promoting access to wireless telecommunications services within the city. To that end, the city intends to:

(1)

Enforce standards that mitigate the visual, aesthetic, and safety impacts of wireless telecommunications facilities through careful design, siting and screening, and placement for their construction or modification;

(2)

Allow for fair and meaningful competition and, to the greatest extent possible, extend to all people in all areas of the city high quality wireless telecommunication services at reasonable costs; and

(3)

Encourage co-location and clustering of antenna sites and structures, when practical, to help reduce the number of such facilities that may be required in the future to service the needs of customers, and thus avert unnecessary proliferation of facilities on private and public property.

(Ord. No. 33-2017, § 1, 12-6-17)