City of Los Angeles v. Barrett

Decision Date13 September 1957
Citation153 Cal.App.2d 776,315 P.2d 503
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard BARRETT, Eva M. Barrett, Helene N. Barber, and Richard Barrett and Eva M. Barrett, trustees for Jeanne Barrett McHale and Martine Barrett Pond, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 22193.

Dryden, Harrington, Horgan & Swartz, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Roger Arnebergh, City Atty., Bourke Jones, Asst. City Atty., and Claude E. Hilker, Deputy City Atty., Los Angeles, for respondent.

ASHBURN, Justice.

Defendants appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction against their proceeding with the construction of an advertising sign upon their lot which adjoins the Hollywood Freeway in the city of Los Angeles. The primary questions for determination are: (1) Whether the subject sign is a 'roof sign' requiring a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety, or an 'outdoor advertising structure' falling within the jurisdiction of the Board of Public Works and requiring its permit for construction; (2) whether the continued construction of the sign after revocation of a permit was properly enjoined as one designed to have its advertising viewed primarily from the freeway and creating a condition endangering the safety of persons thereon.

Defendants' property, known as 411-417 North Hoover Street, consists of a lot which is 50 feet wide and 150 feet long; the south side adjoins the freeway and is considerably below the level of that traffic artery. There are two residences and a small one-room building on the lot, that building being on the south side of the front residence. Defendants obtained from the Department of Building and Safety a permit to construct a sign approximately 16 feet by 37 1/2 feet in size to be supported by two piers, one on either side of the structure and both sunk 18 feet into the ground; the sign was to pass over and well above this one-room structure, rising approximately 35 feet in the air. Later, an alteration permit was granted to defendants by the same department. No permit was obtained from the Board of Public Works. The building department permits were revoked on September 21, 1955, 'as these permits were issued in error.' At that time the work of installation had proceeded only as far as digging of a hole for the footing for the sign, which had then been sunk four to six feet deep; neither supporting post was in place. Defendants continued to work without any permit until served with a restraining order on or about November 4, 1955. By that time the steel framework was practically completed. It straddled but did not touch the small structure above mentioned. The injunction order describes it as 'a framework approximately 45 feet high and designed to carry a sign approximately 16 feet in height by 37 1/2 feet in width.'

The main contention of appellants is that this is a roof sign within the jurisdiction of the Building and Safety Department because it stands over a roof. Counsel rely in this contention upon the literal reading of certain sections of the Municipal Code.

Article 7 of Chapter 6 of the Municipal Code (as introduced by Ordinance No. 78,537) regulates, according to its title, 'the erection, construction and maintenance of outdoor advertising structures, accessory signs, post signs and advertising statuary used for advertising purpose.' Section 67.01 defines 'outdoor advertising structure' as 'any structure or devise erected upon the surface of the ground for outdoor advertising purposes, or to attract the attention of the public and visible from any public street, alley or other public place, as distinguished from any sign attached to or placed on a building, upon which any poster, bill, printing, painting, device or other advertisement of any kind whatsoever may be placed, posted, painted, fastened or affixed, or used in connection with, including so-called electric and/or cutout signs; provided, however, that the same shall not be deemed to include * * * any sign not exceeding twenty (20) square feet in area used exclusively * * * to designate the name of the owner or occupant of the premises or to identify the premises such as physicians', or surgeons' name signs, apartment house signs, post sign or accessory sign.' Section 67.18 (a) requires a written permit from the Board of Public Works to erect any outdoor advertising structure. Section 67.15.01, relating expressly to signs adjacent to freeways, says: 'No outdoor advertising structure, post sign or advertising statuary shall be erected, constructed, relocated or maintained, regardless of the district or zone in which it is located: (a) If such structure, sign or statuary is designed to have or has the advertising thereon maintained primarily to be viewed from a main traveled roadway of a freeway; or (b) If such structure, sign or statuary, because of its location, size, nature or type, constitutes or tends to constitute a hazard to the safe and efficient operation of vehicles upon a freeway, or creates a condition which endangers the safety of persons or property thereon.' Section 67.18 (c) 1 and 2 commands that no permit be issued to erect such a structure unless the Board of Public Works shall have determined that it is not designed to have the advertising thereon viewed primarily from a main traveled roadway of a freeway; that every application for a permit to erect such a structure within 500 feet of such freeway shall be considered by the Board of Public Works and if it determines that the same is not designed to have its advertising matter viewed primarily from the freeway it shall refer the application to the Board of Traffic Engineering Commissioners for its determination as to whether the structure would constitute or tend to constitute a hazard to the safe and efficient operation of vehicles upon the freeway or crate a condition endangering the safety of persons or property thereon; if the Board of Traffic Engineering Commissioners answers that question in the affirmative the application for the permit must be denied.

The complaint alleges that the structure under consideration 'will have the advertising upon any sign attached thereto, maintained primarily to be viewed from a main traveled roadway of the Hollywood Freeway, and which structure and anticipated sign, because of its location, size, nature and type, will constitute and will tend to constitute a hazard to the safe and efficient operation of vehicles upon the Hollywood Freeway, and will create a condition which will endanger the safety of persons and property thereon.' The affidavit of Mr. Lloyd M. Braff, which was presented in support of the motion, avers that he is general manager of the Department of Traffic of plaintiff city, refers to his professional qualifications and says that he has observed the framework of the billboard under construction; '[t]hat traffic volumes on this portion of the Hollywood Freeway are such as to make the traffic thereon among the most densely recorded in the United States; that in the outbound peak hour, 8900 vehicles have been recorded in one hour; that under such dense conditions this means that each...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Gawzner Corp. v. Minier
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 11, 1975
    ...Pasadena, 216 Cal.App.2d 270, 30 Cal.Rptr. 731; Burk v. Municipal Court, 229 Cal.App.2d 696, 40 Cal.Rptr. 425; City of Los Angeles v. Barrett, 153 Cal.App.2d 776, 315 P.2d 503; see Gov't. Code, § 38774.) The size, location, and other physical attributes of signs may be regulated in the inte......
  • Arata v. Superior Court In and For San Mateo County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 13, 1957
    ......Dower and that the telephone was located at 91 Oriente Street, Bayshore, City, San Mateo County'; that the premises at 91 Oriente Street were put under surveillance; various ......
  • Carlin v. City of Palm Springs
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 26, 1971
    ...Pasadena, 216 Cal.App.2d 270, 30 Cal.Rptr. 731; Burk v. Municipal Court, 229 Cal.App.2d 696, 40 Cal.Rptr. 425; City of Los Angeles v. Barrett, 153 Cal.App.2d 776, 315 P.2d 503; see Gov't Code, § 38774.) The size, location, and other physical attributes of signs may be regulated in the inter......
  • West v. Lind
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 22, 1960
    ...motion for a temporary injunction. It is not necessary that the ultimate rights of the parties be determined. City of Los Angeles v. Barrett, 153 Cal.App.2d 776, 783, 315 P.2d 503. On an appeal from the granting or denial of a preliminary injunction, not only is the trial court's determinat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT