§ 20-47. Cases, sources and studies considered.

In adopting these sign regulations, the mayor and city council recognize the vast number of court decisions, coming from Georgia courts, the federal courts, and courts throughout the United States, which recognize that the regulation of the size, location and quantity of sign structures is a valid and lawful means of achieving the above-stated intents and purposes, and that such intents and purposes are valid and lawful governmental interests, which include the following:

•  City of Doraville v. Turner Communications, Corp., 236 Ga. 385 (1976) (finding that under its police power authority, a municipality can regulate the location and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs within their territorial jurisdiction);

•  Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Cobb County, Ga., 193 Fed.Appx. 900 (C.A.11 ^th 2006) (finding that the stated goals within a sign ordinance of protecting against traffic hazards and the adverse impact on the county's aesthetic qualities are substantial government interests);

•  Gregory v. Clive, 2007 WL 2914515 (Ga. S.Ct. 2007) (recognizing as within a local government's police power to enact legislation governing billboards and signs, as such legislation clearly addresses the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community);

•  H & H Operations, Inc. v. City of Peachtree City, Ga., 248 Ga. 500 (1981) (holding that, under its police power, a municipality can enact and enforce reasonable regulations governing the erection and maintenance of signs within its jurisdiction);

•  Harnish v. Manatee County, Florida, 783 F.2d 1535 (C.A. 11 ^th 1986) (finding that aesthetics is a substantial governmental goal which is entitled to and should be accorded weighty respect, and that the governmental entity charged with the responsibility of protecting the environment must be given discretion in determining how much protection is necessary and the best method of achieving that protection);

•  Lamar Advertising Company v. City of Douglasville, Ga., 254 F.Supp.2d 1321 (N.D.Ga. 2003) (finding that where a sign ordinance asserts the goals of public safety, traffic safety, health, welfare and aesthetics, a municipality has shown an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free speech);

•  Members of the City Council of the City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984) (finding that a government entity can regulate signs and billboards when necessary to advance a significant and legitimate state interest, such as the protection of the aesthetics and quality of life within its jurisdiction);

•  Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981) (holding that the goals of traffic safety and aesthetics advanced by a municipality as justification for regulating signs is a substantial governmental interest);

•  St. Louis Poster Advertising Co. v. City of St. Louis, 249 U.S. 269 (1919) (finding that billboards may be prohibited in the residential districts of a city in the interest of the safety, morality, health and decency of the community);

•  Spratlin Outdoor Media, Inc. v. City of Douglasville, 2006 WL 826077 (N.D.Ga. 2006) (upholding sign ordinance where the ordinance's height and setback restrictions were rationally related to its stated goals of promoting the health, safety, morality and general welfare of the community, promoting the orderly and beneficial development of the city, promoting adequate access to natural light and air, improving the aesthetic appearance of the city, and encouraging the most appropriate use of land and buildings in accordance with the city's comprehensive plan).

Such cases, which were considered by the mayor and city council prior to adoption of this provision, are part of the official record of the adoption of the ordinance from which this chapter derives.

(b)

Studies and sources considered. Having considered the following studies, which the mayor and city council find to be relevant, useful and applicable to the City of Cartersville, the city finds that the size, location and quantity of sign structures within the city must be regulated in order to achieve the above-stated intents and purposes:

(1)

Billboards in the Digital Age: Unsafe (and Unsightly) at Any Speed. Scenic America Issue Alert, Scenic America (2007).

(2)

Billboard Regulation in Portland. City Club of Portland Bulletin, 78 (13), 1-40. City Club of Portland (September 6, 1996).

(3)

Cartersville Sign Ordinance Stakeholders Committee input from five (5) meetings, 2010-2011.

(4)

Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) 2007 Model Code.

(5)

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Outdoor Advertising regulations.

(6)

Guidepost to Municipal Sign Regulation, 2009, Georgia Municipal Association (GMA).

(7)

Model Sign Code, 2011, United States Sign Council.

(8)

Municipal Control of Signs Guidebook, 2006, New York State Division of Local Government Services.

(9)

Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction, 2001, Federal Highway Administration (FHA).

(10)

Sign Control on Rural Corridors: Model Provisions and Guidance, University of Georgia Land Use Clinic (June 26, 2003).

(11)

Study of Local Regulation of Outdoor Advertising in 268 U.S. Jurisdictions, 2001, Professor Alan Weinstein, Cleveland State University.

(12)

Traffic Safety Evaluations of Video Advertising Signs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1937, 105-112. Smiley, Alison and Persaud, Bhagwant et al (2005).

(13)

Visual Preferences in Urban Signscapes Study, 1999, Dr. Jack Nasar and Xiadong Hong.

(14)

Variable Message Sign Study, 1994, Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WISDOT).

Such studies and sources, which were considered by the mayor and city council prior to adoption of this provision, are part of the official record of the adoption of the ordinance from which this chapter derives.

(Ord. No. 26-12, 5-3-12)