Court Opinion

ID: 9572814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:44:53.747234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:25.544446
License: Public Domain

*560BIRD, C. J.
I respectfully dissent.
Today, the majority of this court prohibit the City of Berkeley from effectively solving a local traffic problem by means which are expressly authorized by the Vehicle Code. In reaching their conclusion, the majority misconstrue relevant case law, interpret applicable code provisions too narrowly, and ignore the legislative policy that cities adopt traffic circulation plans designed to meet local needs. (Gov. Code, §§ 65300, 65302, subd. (b), 65303, subd. (c).)
I.
The Berkeley diverters wpre installed to implement the city’s plan to reduce vehicular traffic in residential neighborhoods. Adoption of this plan followed extensive engineering studies concerning traffic circulation in Berkeley. Numerous public hearings were held before the planning commission and city council. On two occasions a majority of the city electorate rejected proposals to have the diverters removed.
Contrary to what is stated in the majority opinion’s abbreviated statement of facts, the first traffic diverters were installed in 1964. In 1968, after several public hearings, the city council revised its traffic circulation plan to specifically provide for the reduction of “unnecessary” through traffic in residential neighborhoods by utilizing diverters and other traffic control devices. By 1975, 27 diverters had been installed on various city streets.
In 1972, the city commissioned a private consulting firm to develop a more comprehensive plan “to protect all neighborhoods from undue vehicular traffic.” The resulting “Neighborhood Traffic Study” was discussed at public hearings before the planning commission in February and March of 1975. As a result of the study, the planning commission recommended to the city council that a new traffic circulation plan be implemented and that more traffic diverters be installed.
On July 8, 1975, the city council adopted the traffic management plan (TMP) on an experimental basis. Pursuant to this plan, the city installed 14 additional diverters on residential streets. A study of the first six months of the experimental program found that the diverters had succeeded in decreasing vehicular traffic on most neighborhood streets and in reducing the overall number of traffic accidents and fatalities in Berkeley. Upon reviewing the results of the study in several public *561meetings, the city council adopted the TMP as a permanent program on October 5, 1976.
After their installation, the traffic diverters were the subject of two initiative measures. In June of 1976, the Berkeley electorate voted to defeat a proposal to have the barriers removed by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent. A similar measure was also defeated in April of 1977.
II.
In order to place the issue raised by this case in perspective, it is initially necessary to identify those traffic-management powers which Berkeley indisputably possesses. The majority opinion leaves the impression that these powers are few. However, under the Government Code, Berkeley is required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive general plan for managing its physical growth and development. (Gov. Code, § 65300.) This plan must contain a traffic circulation element which, in turn, may cover all aspects of city traffic management. (Gov. Code, §§ 65302, subd. (b), 65303, subd. (c).)
Implicit in this state-mandated local planning process is the recognition by the Legislature that physical growth and development problems will vary from city to city. Accordingly, each city has broad power to adopt a circulation element in its general plan that is designed to solve the particular traffic problems of that locality.
Here, Berkeley sought to protect its residential neighborhoods from the safety and environmental hazards caused by excessive vehicular traffic. Plaintiffs do not dispute that the city had the authority to adopt a traffic circulation plan to accomplish this objective.
Also, no challenge is raised concerning the traffic patterns resulting from Berkeley’s implementation of the TMP. Indeed, it is conceded that the city could have properly used traffic signs and road surface markings to direct traffic in the same manner. For example, the city could have installed right or left turn only signs instead of diagonal diverters. Like the diverters, these signs would have prohibited oncoming traffic from passing through an intersection and required the vehicles to turn in a given direction. Similarly, a combination of appropriate traffic signs placed at an intersection would have had the same effect on the flow of traffic as either a full or semi-diverter. Indeed, a street that *562ends in a full diverter is nothing other than a street that has been designated a deadend.
It is also clear that the city could have rerouted traffic in the same manner as accomplished by the diverters if the configuration of its streets were changed. Section 5101 of the Streets and Highways Code provides cities with broad authority to make physical alterations in streets “[w]henever in the opinion of the legislative body the public interest or convenience may require . . .. ” (See also City of San Jose v. Lynch (1935) 4 Cal.2d 760, 764 [52 P.2d 919].) A city “may order the whole or any portion, either in length or in width, of any one or more of [its] streets ... to be improved by or have constructed ... thereon ... Ü (b) ... sidewalks, ... curbs, [and] gutters ....” (Sts. & Hy. Code, § 5101, subd. (b), italics added.)
Here, Berkeley could have controlled traffic by erecting sidewalks or curbs where the diverters now stand. Indeed, photographs introduced at trial revealed that other municipalities frequently construct curbs or medians to divert traffic from continuing along a particular street.
Thus, in seeking this writ of mandate, plaintiffs only challenge Berkeley’s decision to use diverters to implement its plan to reduce traffic in residential neighborhoods.1
III.
Whether Berkeley may properly employ diverters to control traffic hinges on whether express authority for placement of the diverters exists in the Vehicle Code. (Veh. Code, § 21.)2 Two sources of authority are present. First, under section 21101, subdivision (a), a city may “[c]las[e] any highway to vehicular traffic when in the opinion of the legislative body having jurisdiction the highway is no longer needed for vehicular traffic.”3 The power to close streets “to vehicular traffic” encompasses the authority to dose streets to through traffic by the install*563ation of traffic barriers.4 (Snyder v. City of South Pasadena (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 1051 [126 Cal.Rptr. 320].)
In Snyder, the City of South Pasadena concluded that a certain street was not needed as a conveyor of through traffic and that a large volume of traffic was destroying the residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood. Accordingly, the city installed a barrier across the entire width of the street at an intersection just inside the Los Angeles border. The barrier closed the street to through traffic in either direction, but allowed local traffic access to residences on either side of the divider.
The Court of Appeal held that South Pasadena’s closing of the street to through traffic was authorized by Vehicle Code section 21101, subdivision (a). (Id., at pp. 1057-1059.) The court reasoned that a narrow reading of the statute to allow only complete closures of streets would be “strained.” (Id., at p. 1058.) A locality could consider, the court concluded, the intended use of a street for residential purposes in making the required preliminary determination that a street was not needed for vehicular traffic. (Id., at pp. 1058-1059.)
Snyder is controlling in the present case. The Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the code section comports with the well-settled rule of statutory construction that “statutes are to be given a reasonable and common sense construction.” (Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Security Pacific Nat. Bank (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 797, 815 [149 Cal.Rptr. 883].) Certainly, a city’s authority to close a street to vehicular traffic includes the right to close a street to through traffic if the street is not needed for that purpose.
Moreover, such an interpretation does not violate the “plain meaning” of the code section. The language of the statute is sufficiently flexible to allow for the closure of streets to only through traffic. “[V]ehicular traffic,” as used in the statute, does not necessarily refer to all vehicles which seek to use the street for any purpose.
Here, the full diverters installed by Berkeley have the identical effect on the flow of traffic as the barrier erected by South Pasadena. As in the Snyder case, Berkeley’s purpose in closing the streets to through traffic was to preserve the residential character of the neighborhoods involved. Plaintiffs concede that a legislative finding that these streets were not needed for through traffic was implicit in the extensive stud*564les, lengthy deliberations and public hearings conducted by the city council prior to the adoption of the TMP. This implied finding of fact satisfied the requirement of Snyder and the terms of the code section. Heretofore, written findings of fact have not been generally necessary in legislative proceedings. (City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 389-391 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Ensign Bickford Realty Corp. v. City Council (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 467, 472-473 [137 Cal.Rptr. 304].)
The majority’s reliance upon City of Lafayette v. County of Contra Costa (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 749 [154 Cal.Rptr. 374] for the proposition that section 21101, subdivision (a) does not authorize the “partial closure” of streets is misplaced. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 553-554.) The majority fail to recognize that “partial closure,” as used in City of Lafayette, does not mean the closure of streets for certain purposes such as through traffic in one or both directions. “Partial closure” in City of Lafayette refers only to the closure of streets to some persons, but not others. ■
The gate which Lafayette sought to erect across the width of Happy Valley Road would have prevented only nonresidents from driving the length of that street. Resident motorists were to be furnished with devices which would enable them to open the gate and drive through. The Court of Appeal held that Lafayette “was without police power, or other authority, to deny use of Happy Valley Road to some members of the traveling public, while granting it to others.” (Id., at pp. 752-753, see also id., at p. 757.)
The holding in City of Lafayette was limited to the unique facts of that case. The opinion by the court makes this fact abundantly clear. The Court of Appeal found Snyder to be inapposite because the South Pasadena barrier prohibiting through traffic did not discriminate between city residents and nonresidents. (Id., at p. 757.) In addition, the court emphasized that “[the city’s] right to close the road, or a portion of it, to all persons by ‘a permanent barricade’ was neither sought, nor litigated, nor otherwise at issue at the trial.... We, of course, make no determination in respect of the City’s right, if any, to erect such a permanent barricade.” (Id., at p. 758, italics added.)
In this case, the diverters installed by Berkeley are not proscribed by the holding in City of Lafayette since they effectively close streets to all through traffic in one or both directions. Installation of these diverters *565was authorized by section 21101, subdivision (a) as correctly construed by Snyder.5
A second source of authority for Berkeley’s use of diverters to reroute traffic may be found in section 21100, subdivision (d). This statute, as it presently reads, generally authorizes cities to “[r]egulat[e] traffic by means of official traffic control devices meeting the requirements of Section 21400.”6 Both parties stipulated at trial that the city’s diverters are “traffic control devices.” (See § 440.) Section 21400 provides that the Department of Transportation (DOT) “shall, after consultation with local agencies and public hearings, adopt rules and regulations prescribing uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices placed pursuant to the provisions of this code,...”
Under this statutory scheme, the pertinent inquiry is whether Berkeley’s diverters conform to the prescribed standards. These standards are set forth in title 21, California Administrative Code, sections 1409.1-1409.9. These regulations provide uniform specifications for seven different devices. (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 21, §§ 1409.2-1409.8.) Traffic barriers are not among those specifically covered. However, section 1409.9 provides that “[a]ll [other] official traffic control devices . .. shall conform to the statutory requirements, if any, in effect at the time of their installation.”
Thus, section 1409.9 allows cities to install traffic control devices for which uniform standards have not been promulgated so long as the- devices conform to any statutory requirements in effect when they were installed. Since Berkeley’s traffic diverters did not contravene any statu*566tory standards existing “at the time of their installation,” their use in implementing the TMP was valid under section 1409.9.
A contrary conclusion would necessarily lead to anomalous results. Many commonly used and essential traffic control devices, including traffic signals and one-way street signs, are not specifically regulated.7 Thus, if traffic diverters are not authorized by section 1409.9, all other devices and signs for which specific regulations have not been promulgated by the DOT are invalid.
The majority opinion fails to come to grips with the absurd result that will ineluctably follow from its holding. According to the majority, certain devices, which are not specifically covered by the regulations, have been installed in accordance with standards prescribed in the DOT traffic manual. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 558.) However, the provisions of the traffic manual are not rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to Vehicle Code section 21400. Therefore, they do not validate the traffic control devices contained therein. At trial, a DOT traffic engineer described the manual as an “in-house document” which merely provides guidelines for the DOT in traffic matters.8 The manual itself contains the disclaimer that “[i]t is neither designed as, nor does it establish, a legal standard for these [traffic] functions.”
Moreover, the provisions of the traffic manual cannot be considered rules and regulations for official traffic control devices since the manual was not promulgated in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 21400 and the Administrative Procedure Act. (Gov. Code, § 11342 et seq.) Section 21400 requires the DOT to consult with local agencies and conduct public hearings before adopting any regulations concerning traffic control devices. The Administrative Procedure Act also establishes a number of procedures with which administrative agencies promulgating regulations must comply. These procedures include public notice of the proposed action, an opportunity for the public to be heard, the filing of the regulations with the Secretary of State, *567and the publication of the regulations in the Administrative Code. (Gov. Code, §§ 11343-11343.9, 11346-11347.3.) There is no dispute that the traffic manual was not published in accordance with the procedural requirements of Vehicle Code section 21400 and the Administrative Procedure Act. Hence, the manual’s provisions cannot be deemed regulations within the meaning of section 21400.9
Finally, it should be emphasized that approval of the city’s use of diverters to regulate vehicular traffic in residential neighborhoods does not interfere with the policy underlying the uniformity requirement of Vehicle Code section 21400. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that all motorists understand the meaning of the devices which municipalities use to control traffic. With common regulatory devices such as traffic signals, where information is communicated indirectly through symbols, the need for uniformity is especially acute. By contrast, the city’s diverters directly convey traffic information to motorists by physically obstructing the passage of vehicles. Thus, the absence of any regulations establishing uniform standards for diverters does not lead to confusion among motorists.
IV.
In this case, the City of Berkeley was faced with a local traffic problem. Excessive vehicular traffic threatened the residential character of certain neighborhoods. To preserve its neighborhoods and to reduce vehicular use of residential streets, Berkeley adopted a traffic circulation plan that provided for the installation of a system of traffic diverters. The use of diverters to close streets to through traffic in one or both directions was within Berkeley’s authority under the Vehicle Code.
Reynoso, J.,* concurred.
The petitions of defendant and appellant and interveners and appellants for a rehearing were denied July 14, 1982. Kaus, J., did not participate therein. Bird, C. J., was of the opinion that the petitions should be granted.

The reasonableness of the city’s decision to install diverters seems beyond dispute. The diverters physically block the passage of traffic. Unlike traffic signs, they cannot be easily disobeyed. In addition, the number and variety of signs that would be required to achieve the same traffic patterns would probably confuse motorists. Finally, the diverters are not permanent fixtures. Thus, as the needs of the community change, they can be relocated more easily and with less expense than curbs or other physical constructions.

Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.

As explained in the majority opinion (see maj. opn., ante, at p. 550, fn. 5), for purposes of this section “street” and “highway” are synonymous terms. (See §§ 360, 590.)

PlaintifTs concede that if section 21101, subdivision (b) allows closure of a street to through traffic, the city may install diverters to effect that closure.

The majority opinion also relies on Simpson v. City of Los Angeles (1935) 4 Cal.2d 60 [47 P.2d 474] which upheld a Los Angeles ordinance closing a one-block street to all vehicular traffic. The court found that the street closing was within the city’s police power. (Id., at p. 67.) While the case was pending, the Legislature passed the predecessor to section 21101, subdivision (a). One party represented to the court that this statute was enacted in order to preserve the validity of the Los Angeles ordinance. (Id., at p. 67.) This fact, however, does not mean that the Legislature necessarily intended to prohibit the closure of streets to some traffic. Had the Legislature sought that result, the language of the statute would have more clearly stated such an intent.

The mandate that official traffic control devices must meet the requirements of section 21400 was added by amendment in 1980. (Stats. 1980, ch. 671, § 2, p. 1865.) This amendment merely made explicit in section 21100, subdivision (d) what was already required by sections 21400 and 21401.

The regulations only establish uniform standards for the following traffic control devices: stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed signs, warning approach signs for railroad crossings, street and highway name signs, warning devices for road work interfering with traffic, and two-way left-turn lanes.

The engineer also testified that while the manual covers most traffic control devices, it does not prescribe standards for all devices employed by the DOT. Thus, even if the manual’s provisions are considered regulations, some traffic devices used by the DOT would still be invalid unless section 1409.9 of title 21, California Administrative Code is construed as a “stop gap” measure.

The majority states that for purposes of this case, the critical fact is that “the manual ... contains no standards or specifications for diverters of the kind used by [Berkeley].” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 558, fn. omitted, italics omitted.) This fact, however, is meaningless since the manual’s provisions do not set forth valid regulations for traffic control devices.

Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.