Showing posts with label Parking: Laws Rules and Regulations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parking: Laws Rules and Regulations. Show all posts

October 13, 2007

Re: enforcement of "no parking" in the Thursday sweeping area

At 12:37 PM 10/13/2007, Todd Rogers wrote:

This is part of the previously announced warning period.......which ends later this month. When that happens, the tickets will have fines associated with them.

These types of dramatic changes to people's lives need to be gradually implemented. Otherwise the push back will be overwhelming and counterproductive. Anyone who has spent any time in public service/administration understands this. The City of LA sure doesn't have anything on Lakewood.

"previously announced warning period"? No mention of that here < http://www.lakewoodcity.org/thenews/cleansweep.asp> nor on the letter mailed out nor on the door hanger cards.

What will the fine be? Second offense increase? Third offense?

Look we are not touting city of LA. Heaven knows they have their problems, starting with LAPD. However as much "bad" press as LA gets (see fox news link in prior email) on their "Draconian" parking enforcement they push right on ahead writing tickets and booting and towing cars. I have seen tickets for cars in parking garages with no front licence and tinted windows. Parking tickets! Now thats revenue generation and making people toe the line. Does LA worry about pushback? No. It sure beats pushback from LASD's "Operation Any Booking". Of course there will be push back. No one wants to comply with laws. You know that working for LASD. But like I have said many times before. Lakewood has created this scofflaw haven and these residents thinking that as property owners they can do what ever they want due to the fact that for years there has been no enforcement of parking and zoning laws (especially aesthetics related) except by complaint, which of course makes the complainer the bad guy and not the city, which quite frankly is wrong. It is also an effective way to limit enforcement. The City should take the heat for law/zoning enforcement. Not the residents. I am not blaming you for the fear of "push back" nor for the current situation due to years of lack of enforcement. But people are going to need to start taking their medicine. I suspect that is why voters voted in a law and order guy like you. And remember warning do nothing for the most part as you have already spend thousand on public education on this. The only way to change behavior like this is fine people. That is what most governments do. They are all grownups and most have had speeding or parking tickets before.

September 2, 2007

California Vehicle code and ADA regulations re blocking driveways and sidewalks

This is for those of you than can't seem to figure out where to park your vehicles. Two places not to park them (even for a moment) is in or across a driveway (even the one in front of your house as that is city property) or across a sidewalk, which you also do not own even if in front of your house. And don't forget about the Americans With Disabilities Act enforcement as you (and the city of Lakewood) may find yourselves at the wrong end of a lawsuit where you will have to pay the handicapped persons legal bills! The Federal Dept. of Justice tends to take parking that blocks handicapped access more seriously than Lakewood does. See letters below CA vehicle code section.

CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE
CHAPTER 9. STOPPING, STANDING, AND PARKING sec.22500-22526

section 22500. No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle
whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid
conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a
peace officer or official traffic control device, in any of the
following places:

[inapplicable text]

(e) In front of a public or private driveway, except that a bus
engaged as a common carrier, schoolbus, or a taxicab may stop to load
or unload passengers when authorized by local authorities pursuant
to an ordinance.
In unincorporated territory, where the entrance of a private road
or driveway is not delineated by an opening in a curb or by other
curb construction, so much of the surface of the ground as is paved,
surfaced, or otherwise plainly marked by vehicle use as a private
road or driveway entrance, shall constitute a driveway.
(f) On any portion of a sidewalk, or with the body of the vehicle
extending over any portion of a sidewalk, except electric carts when
authorized by local ordinance, as specified in Section 21114.5.
Lights, mirrors, or devices that are required to be mounted upon a
vehicle under this code may extend from the body of the vehicle over
the sidewalk to a distance of not more than 10 inches.

[inapplicable text]

(l) In front of or upon that portion of a curb that has been cut
down, lowered, or constructed to provide wheelchair accessibility to
the sidewalk.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal427.txt

DEC 3 1993

The Honorable Dennis DeConcini
United States Senator
40 North Center, Suite 110
Mesa, Arizona 85201

Dear Senator DeConcini:

This is in response to your recent letter on behalf of
your constituent, XX , who inquires whether there are
any Federal laws that make it illegal for his neighbors to
bloc sidewalks with their trash or cars. While the activities
of XX neighbors may violate State or local laws, there
are no Federal laws that directly outlaw such behavior by private
individuals. However, allowing public sidewalks to remain
blocked may constitute a violation of title 11 of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

The ADA authorizes the Department of Justice to provide
technical assistance to individuals and entities with rights
or obligations under the Act. This letter provides informal
guidance to assist your constituent in understanding the ADA's
requirements. It does not, however, constitute a legal
interpretation and is not binding on the Department.

Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination against
qualified individuals with disabilities in all programs,
activities, and services provided by or on behalf of State and
local governments. With respect to your constituent's problem,
if a public entity has responsibility for, or authority over,
sidewalks or other public walkways, section 35.133 of the
enclosed title II regulation [reprinted below] requires that public entities must
maintain them in operable working condition. Such maintenance
may include the removal of cars, trash, or other objects blocking
the passage of persons using wheelchairs or other devices to
assist mobility.

The title II rule also requires that a public entity make
reasonable modifications to its programs, practices, or
procedures when " ... necessary to avoid discrimination an the
basis of disability., See section 35.130(b)(7) of the title II
rule. Under this provision, title II may also require the public
entity to modify its policies, practices, or procedures to ensure
that, aside from temporary and unavoidable situations, public
sidewalks are not blocked by cars, trash, or other impediments to
travel by wheelchair. [reprinted below]

Although, as noted above, there are no Federal laws that
directly prohibit individuals from blocking public sidewalks, you
may wish to suggest to your constituent that he contact the
appropriate local authorities to determine whether any State or
local laws directly prohibit such behavior. If such laws exist,
your constituent may wish to draw the situation to the attention
of the local enforcement agency.

I hope this information will be useful to you in responding
to your constituent.

Sincerely,
James P. Turner
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
November 15, 2001

The Honorable Joseph R. Pitts
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
Lancaster County Courthouse
50 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17602

Dear Congressman Pitts:

This is in response to your letter on behalf of your constituent, xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx, regarding whether sidewalks, and in particular curb ramps, in a residential development built in 1993 must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), if plans for the development were approved by local authorities in 1988. Please excuse our delay in responding.

[inapplicable text]

Existing sidewalks that are not otherwise being altered are subject to Section 35.149 of the title II regulation, which prohibits a public entity from denying the benefits of its programs, activities, and services to qualified individuals with disabilities because the entity's buildings or facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities. A public entity that has responsibility for, or authority over, sidewalks or other public walkways, must ensure that such sidewalks and walkways meet the program access requirement and, when viewed in their entirety, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This may require the public entity to install curb ramps on an existing sidewalk. In addition, a public entity is required to maintain sidewalks in operable working condition. See section 35.133 of the enclosed title II regulation. The only exception to this requirement permits isolated or temporary interruptions in operation when required for maintenance or repairs of the sidewalks. See section 35.133(b).

I hope this information will be useful to you in explaining the requirements of the ADA. You may wish to inform your constituent that further information is available through our Americans with Disabilities Act Information Line at 800-514-0301 (voice) or 800-514-0383 (TTY). Please do not hesitate to contact the Department if we may be of assistance in other matters.

Sincerely, Ralph F. Boyd, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

28 CFR sec. 35.133 Maintenance of accessible features.

(a) A public entity shall maintain in operable working condition
those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be
readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities by the
Act or this part.

(b) This section does not prohibit isolated or temporary
interruptions in service or access due to maintenance or repairs.
(56 FR 35716, July 26, 1991, as amended by Order No. 1694-93, 58
FR 17521, Apr. 5, 1993)


28 CFR sec. § 35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination.

(b)(7) A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™




June 15, 2007

Lakewood CA Temporary RV/Trailer parking rules effective 5-22-07

The “Temporary Rules” below shall take effect immediately upon the adoption of this Resolution (5/22/07), and shall expire on the earlier of: (a) The effective date of a City Council Ordinance modifying the restrictions on parking recreational vehicles and trailers on residential properties; or (b) 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 2007.

Except as otherwise set forth herein, the following types of parking on residential properties shall be allowed during the term of these temporary rules:

1. Parking of all vehicles (including motorized recreational vehicles and trailers) for periods in excess of 72 hours.

2. Parking of all vehicles (including motorized recreational vehicles and trailers) in a driveway or blocking a garage.

3. Parking or storage of motorized recreational vehicles, trailers and camper shells/bodies in a rear or side yard, as currently permitted by City Code, whether or not such rear or side yard is fenced as required by City Code.

Notwithstanding the temporary rules set forth above, the City will continue to enforce all other restrictions on parking on residential properties, including but not limited to the following:

1. Inoperable or unlicensed vehicles located anywhere on a property.
2. Front yard parking (i.e., parking on front lawns or non-driveway areas) of any vehicle.
3. Parking of any vehicle in such a manner that it encroaches onto the sidewalk or public right-of-way.
4. Parking of any vehicle in such a manner that it encroaches into the five-foot ‘vision triangle’.
5. Parking of any vehicle in such a manner that it encroaches into any setback required for fire safety.
6. Parking or storage of any camper shell/body anywhere on a property except in a rear or side yard as currently permitted by City Code.
7. Parking of any commercial vehicle weighing in excess of 6,000 pounds or exceeding
1.5-ton load capacity.
8. Any utility connection from a vehicle to a property.
9. Residing in any vehicle parked on a property, except where otherwise permitted by
City Code.

May 20, 2007

Southern California Edison's plan for self-storage units and RV parking

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-eaton20may20,1,3116947.story
From the Los Angeles Times

[See related story here]


Pasadena residents draw a line at the lines

Where they see open space, Edison sees revenue-generating self-storage units.
By Deborah Schoch
Times Staff Writer

May 20, 2007

Southern California Edison's plan to replace Pasadena plant nurseries with self-storage units and parking lots has sparked a vocal campaign to preserve a two-mile swath of land under power lines at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains.

In a region facing fierce development pressure, the debate illustrates the growing importance of remaining open space, even if it lies under tall towers and a thick web of power lines.

More than 100 residents met Saturday in a standing-room-only session to plan an initiative to preserve the Edison-owned corridor, calling it an important piece of a potential "emerald horseshoe" of open space cradling the Pasadena area.

The utility is working with a private developer that plans self-storage facilities on Edison rights of way dotted across Los Angeles and Orange counties, with two completed ­ in Long Beach and Orange ­ and one under construction near Anaheim. RHC Communities Inc. also has self-storage projects pending on Edison corridors in more than a dozen other area cities.

In Pasadena, the firm plans to build two self-storage projects on a portion of the corridor. The outcry there is the most vociferous to date, in part because some residents view the current Edison right of way ­ historically a checkerboard of nurseries, tree farms and parking lots ­ as some of the last remaining open space in the city of 146,000 residents.

One speaker at the meeting, Jet Propulsion Laboratory climatologist Bill Patzert, called the corridors an "open space opportunity" at a time when the last open land includes cemeteries and military bases such as Camp Pendleton.

"Give the last open space to the people," he said. "Rather than putting your stuff in storage, give it to the Salvation Army."

Starting in the 1990s, Edison began looking for more lucrative "second uses" for land under its power lines, blaming the decision in part on deregulation and the resulting increased competition. That led to a shift from Christmas tree farms and nurseries to bigger revenue generators such as self-storage units and car lots ­ and Edison said it owed that increased revenue to customers and shareholders.

But just as some Orange County residents protested the closing of Christmas tree farms in the mid-1990s, Pasadena residents are speaking up for plant nurseries and undeveloped space.

The Pasadena project is planned by an RHC subsidiary company, Tustin-based Pacific Storage Partners, which has proposed two self-storage facilities, each about 70,000 square feet, officials said. The plan also called for a warehouse, parking for a new YMCA and ice rink, and an estimated $500,000 in park and recreation improvements. The developer has already provided land that is now part of Vina Vieja Park.

Critics say the plans involve too much development. The Edison corridor provides a valuable band of open land running from Eaton Canyon south, parallel to Eaton Wash, and ending south of Del Mar Boulevard, residents said Saturday. The meeting was organized by a new group, Open Space Now, and held at the Eaton Canyon Nature Center.

The flash point of the controversy, they said, was news that two local nurseries, Persson's and Present Perfect, would lose their land this summer to the new development, which has not yet been reviewed by the city. The tree farms and other nursery areas have already moved.

Persson's in particular has stirred residents' concerns, because it has operated on the site for 35 years and built a staunch following, some speakers said.

"They're having their knees cut out from under them after 35 years, with no public meeting," said attorney Michael J. Coppess, a former Pasadena planning commissioner. "This strip of land is not being planned within the public process. It is being driven by a private storage developer."

He urged residents to contact City Hall and fight development of the right of way, calling the plan "space for cash and prizes."

Spokesmen for Edison and RHC Communities said in interviews Friday and Saturday that the Pasadena plan is on hold as RHC studies how to incorporate more parkland.

"We're not just talking self-storage," said RHC's George Minter. The original plan would have added 12 acres of parks, he said. "What we're trying to do is significantly increase that acreage," he said. A new plan could be ready within weeks, officials said.

Minter blamed the current outcry on the Persson's case and said many of the opponents hadn't studied the complete plans. He said Persson's was offered the chance to move across the street to a new location but declined.

But Gary Butters, general manager of Persson's, said the cost of the move would have proved prohibitive, in part because the nursery is under 1975 city codes and would have had to meet 2007 code standards.

"It wasn't as simple as just picking up your plants, moving them across the street and opening again," said Butters, whose wife, Linda Persson-Butters, owns the nursery started by her parents. Butters said he was also apprehensive because the project incorporating the proposed nursery site has not yet been approved by the city.

He and his wife plan to close the nursery June 30 and will hold a liquidation sale.

RHC representatives met with homeowners associations along the corridor for several years, and those groups never opposed the final proposal, Minter said.

Edison has worked with several developers in recent years to build self-storage facilities in Rosemead, Redondo Beach, Orange, Irvine and other cities, said Edison project manager Lou Salas. In 2001, the utility signed an exclusive option with RHC for the development of more projects.

"We figured it was more prudent to do it with one developer," Salas said. RHC projects on Edison corridors have been approved in Los Angeles, South Gate, Bellflower, Pico Rivera and Paramount. Other plans are pending in the Eagle Rock area, Torrance, Carson, Redondo Beach, Hawthorne, Montebello and other cities.


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™