Friedman

Friedman v. City of Beverly Hills

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 684·47 Cal. App. 4th 436·54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 882·96 Daily Journal DAR 8599·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5312
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 16, 1996B090063California3,224 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Vehicle Code section 22507 allows local agencies to create preferential parking on designated streets “. . .to residents and merchants . . . .” May a city provide preferred parking to its residents, but not to its merchants? Yes, it may.

Jeffrey Friedman, a merchant, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of respondent, the City of Beverly Hills (City). The judgment denied Friedman a writ of mandate to compel the City to vacate its adoption of the resolution granting preferential parking to residents. Because section 22507 grants local entities broad power to prohibit or restrict parking, and substantial evidence supports the resolution, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Facts

Friedman owns a commercial building at the comer of Burton Way and North Wetherly Drive in Beverly Hills. The building has five retail stores and ten offices. It is located within a small island of property zoned and used for commercial purposes, surrounded by property zoned and used for residential purposes.

Parking is scarce. Friedman’s tenants told him that the shortage of parking threatened their businesses. Beginning in 1986, Friedman asked the City to alter existing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.