McMahan's Furniture Co. v. City of Pacific Grove

DRAPER, P. J.

Defendants, a charter city and its officials, appeal from decree permanently enjoining enforcement of those portions of an ordinance which prohibit erection and maintenance of any sign which projects more than 24 inches from the building to which it is attached or extends more than 14 inches over a public way. Plaintiffs are merchants whose businesses have overhanging signs exceeding

[734]

these limits, all hut one erected before adoption of the ordinance in 1955. All have exhausted their administrative remedies by applying for variances. It is stipulated that the city has denied all applications for variance, whether by plaintiffs or others.

The trial court found that the ordinance has no reasonable relation to the public health, safety or welfare. As to such findings, we do not look to the substantial evidence rule

(Skyline Materials, Inc.

v.

City of Belmont,

198 Cal.App.2d 449, 455 [18 Cal.Rptr. 95]). Bather, we are bound by the rule that determination of the wisdom and necessity for use of the police power is for the legislative body if the reasonableness of the ordinance is debatable

(Lockard

v.

City of Los Angeles,

33 Cal.2d 453, 461 [202 P.2d 38, 7 A.L.R.2d 990]), or if reasonable minds might differ on the question

(Justesen’s Food Stores, Inc.

v.

City of Tulare,

43 Cal.App.2d 616, 621 [111 P.2d 424]). Moreover, the Legislature has authorized city councils to regulate exhibition and suspension of signs (Gov. Code, § 38774), and the Charter of Pacific Grove has reserved to the city, as it may (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 6), the powers granted by general law. We need not discuss this contention in greater detail, since plaintiffs-respondents now concede that the council has power to regulate overhanging signs.