______________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________ 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 

State of California
 

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP
 

Attorney General
 

OPINION :
 

: No. 89-803
 

of :
 

: MAY 3, 1990
 

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP :
 

Attorney General :
 

:
 

RONALD M. WEISKOPF :
 

Deputy Attorney General :
 

:
 

THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS C. HOLLAND, CITY PROSECUTOR, CITY
 

OF BURBANK has requested an opinion on the following question:
 

Is a section of highway more than 300 feet long, fronted
 

on both sides entirely by businesses which do not have vehicular
 

access to the highway by driveways or alleys, in "a business
 

district" within the meaning of Vehicle Code section 22102 which
 

prohibits U-turns in business districts except at intersections?
 

CONCLUSION
 

A section of highway more than 300 feet long that is
 

fronted on both sides entirely by businesses which do not have
 

vehicular access to the highway by driveways or alleys, is not in
 

"a business district" within the meaning of section 22102 of the
 

Vehicle Code.
 

ANALYSIS
 

This opinion discusses the legality of making U-turns on
 

a certain type of highway. Section 22102 of the Vehicle Code
 

generally prohibits the making of U-turns in "business districts."1
 

A "business district" is defined in section 235 as a portion of a
 

highway where fifty percent of the contiguously fronting property
 

on both sides for 300 feet is occupied by business buildings. But
 

subdivision (d) of section 240 provides that a highway or portion
 

1

Further references to sections of the Vehicle Code will be by
 

section number only, and all unidentified statutory references
 

herein should be understood to be to that Code.
 

1. 89-803
 
 

of a highway shall not be deemed to be within a business district
 

if there is no right of access to the highway by vehicles from the
 

contiguous property.2
 

We are asked whether a section of highway that is more
 

than 300 feet long and is fronted on both sides entirely by
 

businesses is to be considered a "business district" within the
 

meaning of section 22102 if the contiguous business properties do
 

not provide vehicular access to the highway by driveways or alleys.
 

We conclude that it is not.
 

Our primary task in answering the question presented is
 

to ascertain the intention of the Legislature: Did the Legislature
 

consider such a stretch of highway to be a "business district" for
 

the purpose of specifically prohibiting U-turns in it under section
 

22102? (Cf., Sand v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 567, 570;
 

Great Lakes Properties, Inc v. City of El Segundo (1977) 19 Cal.3d
 

152, 153; Select Base Materials v. Board of Equalization (1959) 51
 

Cal.2d 640, 645.) To ascertain that intention we turn first to the
 

words of the statutes involved. (People v. Stockton Pregnancy
 

Control Medical Clinic, Inc. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 225, 235; Moyer
 

v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230;
 

Steilberg v. Lackner (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 780, 785; Rich v. State
 

Board of Optometry (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 591, 604.)
 

Section 22102 provides as follows:
 

"No person in a business district shall make a U-


turn, except at an intersection, or on a divided highway
 

where an opening has been provided in accordance with
 

Section 21651."
 

Sections 100 through 680 provide definitions for various
 

words and phrases used in the Vehicle Code. Section 100 provides
 

that "unless the provision or context otherwise requires, these
 

definitions shall govern the construction of [the] Code." The term
 

"business district" is defined in section 235 as follows:
 

"A `business district' is that portion of a highway
 

and the property contiguous thereto (a) upon one side of
 

which highway, for a distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or
 

more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is
 

occupied by buildings in use for business, or (b) upon
 

both sides of which highway, collectively, for a distance
 

of 300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous
 

property fronting thereon is so occupied. A business
 

2

The term "highway" is generic; section 360 defines it as "a
 

way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to
 

the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway
 

includes street."
 

2. 89-803
 
 

district may be longer than the distances specified in
 

this section if the above ratio of buildings in use for
 

business to the length of the highway exists."
 

Under the section, "the occupancy of the land is the determining
 

factor in fixing the character of the district. The required
 

number of buildings used for business purposes in a given distance
 

is sufficient for the establishment of a `business district'."
 

(Adrian v. Guyette (1936) 14 Cal.App.2d 493, 502, interpreting
 

former § 281⁄2, subdivision (a) of the Vehicle Act as amended in
 

1929, a precursor to § 235; see also, Newton v. Thomas (1955) 137
 

Cal.App.2d 748, 758-760, 763.) The portion of highway described in
 

our question would clearly be within a business district, as
 

defined in section 235, because it is more than 300 feet long and
 

the contiguously fronting property on both sides is occupied
 

entirely by businesses. 


However, the basic definition of "business district"
 

found in section 235 is qualified by section 240 which provides as
 

follows: 


"In determining whether a highway is within a
 

business or residence district, the following limitations
 

shall apply and shall qualify the definitions in Sections
 

235 and 515[3]

:
 

"(a) No building shall be regarded unless its
 

entrance faces the highway and the front of the building
 

is within 75 feet of the roadway.
 

"(b) Where a highway is physically divided into two
 

or more roadways only those buildings facing each roadway
 

separately shall be regarded for the purpose of
 

determining whether the roadway is within a district.
 

"(c) All churches, apartments, hotels, multiple
 

dwelling houses, clubs, and public buildings, other than
 

schools, shall be deemed to be business structures.
 

"(d) A highway or portion of a highway shall not be
 

deemed to be within a district regardless of the number
 

3

Section 515 provides the definition of "residence district"
 

in much the same way as section 235 defines "business district," to
 

wit, by the number and type of occupancies (dwelling houses or
 

business structures) of contiguously fronting properties over a
 

specified distance (1⁄4 mile). Section 22103 prohibits the making of
 

U-turns in residence districts when another vehicle is approaching
 

from either direction within 200 feet, except at an intersection
 

where the approaching vehicle is controlled by an official traffic
 

control device.
 

3. 89-803
 
 

 

 

of buildings upon the contiguous property if here is no
 

right of access to the highway by vehicles from the
 

contiguous property." (Emphases added.)
 

Section 240 derives almost verbatim from the addition of
 

section 90.1 to the Vehicle Code of 1935, in 1939. (Stats. 1939,
 

ch. 658, p. 2106, § 1.)4 That addition dramatically changed the
 

legislative definition of business district that was then found in
 

section 89 of the Vehicle Code. (It also dramatically changed the
 

parallel legislative definition of residence district that was
 

found in section 90 of the Code.)5
 

Exactly like section 235 today, section 89 of the Vehicle
 

Code of 1935 predicated whether an area is a business district on
 

the number of business buildings contiguously fronting upon a
 

highway passing through it. (Cf., Newton v. Thomas, supra, 137
 

Cal.App.2d at 758-760, 763; Adrian v. Guyette, supra, 14 Cal.App.2d
 

at 502-503.) But subdivision (d) of section 90.1, which is
 

essentially the same as subdivision (d) of section 240 as it
 

appears today, now added a second step to the definitional process
 

which had the effect of largely abandoning the nature of the
 

occupancy of the land as the determining factor in fixing the
 

character of the district. By stating with plain reference to
 

4

As added, the new section 90.1 read: "Limitations in
 

Determining Business and Residence Districts. In determining
 

whether a highway is within a business or residence district, the
 

following limitations shall apply and shall qualify the definitions
 

in sections 89 [defining business district] and 90 [defining
 

residence district]: .... (d) A highway or portion of a highway
 

shall not be deemed to be within a business or residence district
 

regardless of the number of buildings upon the contiguous property
 

when there is no right of access to the highway by vehicles from
 

the contiguous property."
 

5

Section 89 defined "business district" as section 235 does
 

today (Stats. 1935, ch. 27, p. 99, § 89) and section 90 of the
 

Vehicle Code of 1935 defined the term "residence district" as
 

section 515 does today (id., § 90; cf., fn. 3, ante.) From a
 

historical prospective it is noted that although those definitions
 

derived directly from section 281⁄2 of the Vehicle Code as amended in
 

1929 (Stats. 1929, ch. 253, p. 510, § 7), they have been defined in
 

California law since at least 1913. (E.g., Stats. 1913, ch. 326,
 

p. 639, § 1(5) ["business district" shall mean the territory of any
 

county or incorporated city and county, city or town, contiguous to
 

public highway, which is at that point mainly built up with
 

structures devoted to business"]); see also Stats. 1905, ch. DCXII,
 

p. 816, § 1, subd. (1.)(3) ["`closely built up' shall mean (a) the
 

territory of any county or incorporated city and county, city or
 

town contiguous to a public highway which is at that point built up
 

with structures devoted to business."].)
 

4. 89-803
 
 

section 89 that "[a] highway shall not be deemed to be within a
 

[business] district", it removed from being a business district, as
 

defined in section 89, an area "when there is no right of access to
 

[a] highway by vehicles from the contiguous property", "regardless
 

of the number of buildings [or their character] upon the contiguous
 

property." In other words, an area where there was "no right of
 

access to the highway by vehicles from the contiguous property" was
 

not to be considered a business district (for purposes of the
 

Vehicle Code), regardless of the character of the occupancies of
 

the buildings fronting on the highway. The subdivision thus
 

provided a nigh absolute determinant of when a highway was not to
 

be considered as being within a business district. 


In Newton v. Thomas, supra, 137 Cal.App.2d 748, the court
 

said that the purpose for the enactment of section 90.1 was "to
 

provide safety in the use of vehicles in areas where there is a
 

great deal of turning, slowing and congestion." ( Id. at 759.)
 

Indeed, the court held that it did not matter whether access to a
 

building from a highway was by a driveway from the highway to a
 

side entrance rather than its front because the salient fact
 

remained that "[t]he traffic and congestion which the section has
 

in mind would be equally great under the one condition as the
 

other." (Id. at 760.) 


From this we can understand why section 90.1 limited the
 

basic definition of "business district" that was provided by
 

section 89. Generally speaking, in such districts "considerable
 

congestion of vehicular traffic and pedestrians is to be expected"
 

and so, in order to provide for the "safety of the traveling and
 

pedestrian public", the Legislature imposed restrictions on the
 

speed and movement of vehicles in them. (Adrian v. Guyette, supra,
 14 Cal.App.2d at 503-504; see e.g., § 22101, supra.) But
 

subdivision (d) of section 90.1 recognized that where "there is no
 

right of access to [a] highway by vehicles from ... contiguous
 

property" there can be no increase in traffic and congestion to and
 

from the highway with its attendant danger, to warrant restrictions
 

on speed and movement of vehicles which would otherwise be
 

necessary. Accordingly, in that situation, "regardless of the
 

number of [business] buildings upon the contiguous property", the
 

subdivision discounted a highway as being within a "business
 

district" so as not to trigger other sections of the Vehicle Code
 

which would then invoke the application of those restrictions, such
 

as the one prohibiting U-turns. (Cf., Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co.
 

(1958) 49 Cal.2d 652, 656.)6
 

6

It should also be noted that where contiguous properties do
 

provide access to a highway, a means is available for motorists to
 

reverse their direction of travel without making a U-turn on the
 

highway. They can drive into the driveway and back out again to go
 

in the opposite direction. (See Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., supra,
 

49 Cal.2d 652, 656.)
 

5. 89-803
 
Like its predecessor, subdivision (d) of section 240
 

plainly states with reference to section 235 that "[a] highway or
 

portion of highway shall not be deemed to be within a [business]
 

district regardless of the number of [business] buildings on the
 

contiguous property if there is no right of access to the highway
 

by vehicles from the contiguous property." The subdivision thus
 

continues to set that qualification as an absolute determinant of
 

when a stretch of highway shall not be considered to be within a
 

business district.
 

Property contiguous to a highway "means the territory
 

with its land lying along and adjoining [it]." (Adrian v. Guyette,
 

supra, 14 Cal.App.2d at 502.) We interpret the "right of access by
 

vehicles" to mean the existence of a path between the highway and
 

the contiguous property of sufficient width to permit the passage
 

of motor vehicles without obstruction (such as curbs, fences or
 

walls), except those placed by the owner or those in lawful
 

possession of the contiguous property to control vehicular access
 

(such as gates or doors) to the property. Thus under subdivision
 

(d) of section 240, a street in a city block between intersections
 

which is bounded on both sides by curbs uninterrupted by any space
 

designed to permit vehicular crossings cannot be in a business
 

district as defined in the Vehicle Code regardless of how many
 

businesses may be in the buildings fronting such street.
 

We therefore conclude that a section of highway more than
 

300 feet long, that is fronted on both sides entirely by businesses
 

which do not provide vehicular access to the highway by driveways
 

or alleys, is not within a "business district" for purposes of
 

Vehicle Code section 22102. If local authorities wish to prohibit
 

the making of U-turns in such areas, they must look to other
 

sections of the Vehicle Code (e.g., § 22113) for authority to do
 

so.
 

* * * * *
 

6. 89-803