Showing posts with label parking: enforcement issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parking: enforcement issues. Show all posts

October 25, 2008

Got Towing Fees?

Fortunately in Lakewood no ones car is ever towed as their is no parking enforcement and even when there is, LASD is not involved in it in any way, especially enforcement. It is the city civilian "parking enforcement staff" who have to call the city council to get an ok to write a parking ticket (for fear of pissing of one of the 2500 people that elects the council). This is a good idea given what we have to pay cops per hour to do this. (only problem is the parking enforcement people dont even pay for themselves with the fines collected; but I digress). Oh one other point... the parking staff leaves at 5pm when all the parking violations occur (once people come home form work). At that point you have to call LASD to complain about a parking problem. Perhaps if the violation is parking in front of a cops driveway you might get someone to respond.

The stories below are really a sad commentary on the greediness of law enforcement. Here are people who we pay very well to enforce the law yet they take advantage of their position to rip off the taxpayers even more. According to a high ranking cop I know the argument for paying police extremely high salaries in CA was to prevent corruption. Well I guess it has not worked at LASD. Even sadder is the fact that the LASD sheriff retired before being accused (caught). So he was making the top pay scale when he "allegedly" ripped off the city. What do you think the chances are this will ever get to court or that this cop will refund the money off his 100k a year pension benefits we are paying? Not likely.

LAAG hopes to revisit this story but we are pretty sure we will not hear of this story again. What is even sadder is this has likely happened before and never made it into the press. Also the LASD is also "reviewing several other internal policies" where I suppose graft and corruption could exist but that have not even been looked at yet. Very sad. I wonder if there are any investigations going on in Lakewood? Surely not (an no one in this city questions anything LASD does) and if there were you can be sure we will never know about it. Wonder if the city ever finished this "investigation"? Where are the results?

Probe of alleged theft prompts L.A. County sheriff to review impound policies
Lee Baca says he plans to have tow-truck operators collect the fees instead of department officials. Investigators are looking into the alleged theft of $400,000 by a sergeant.
By Richard Winton
October 23, 2008

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said an investigation into allegations that a sergeant stole more than $400,000 in car impound fees has prompted a review of the way his department handles such transactions for the dozens of cities it patrols.

Baca said he plans to have the towing operators collect the administrative fees directly from motorists, rather than involving sheriff's officials in the process.

"I don't see the need for the department to be a cashier," he said. "The system has to be tightened."

Sheriff's officials initiated the review after La Puente officials reported a significant shortfall in the fees that were supposed to have been collected by the Sheriff's Department, authorities said.

The sergeant retired from the department in May shortly after he was placed on leave as a result of the ongoing investigation, authorities confirmed this week. He could not be reached for comment. No charges have been filed in the case.

"Our residents have been stolen from," said La Puente Mayor Louie Lujan. "This is a large amount of money. It will have a direct impact on our city budget."

According to authorities, the sergeant supervised La Puente's car impound program and also ran the drunk driving task force and other programs that led to impounds.

John Stites, president of the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Assn., said a union attorney was ready to rebut any allegations made against the sergeant.

"They have been playing around with this for about a year and they have yet to present anything," Stites said.

As part of the investigation into the missing funds, Baca said, detectives have seized money but "not enough to cover the shortfall." He did not say from whom the money was seized.

Michael Gennaco, head of the Office of Independent Review, which serves as the Sheriff's Department watchdog, said the way the cash was handed to deputies by vehicle owners at the Industry Sheriff's Station was problematic.

"That is not a good practice. There is a need for systemic change to avoid this kind of problem," he said.

Gennaco said other stations have had issues. Compton, for example, had accounting discrepancies, but authorities did not establish that money had been stolen, Gennaco said.

Winton is a Times staff writer

richard.winton@latimes.com


Sheriff's department re-thinking towing fees
By Tania Chatila, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 10/24/2008 10:55:17 PM PDT

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is reexamining how it collects towing fees after allegations emerged a former traffic sergeant took nearly $500,000 from the city of La Puente.

Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said while several potential policy changes are on the table, Sheriff Lee Baca wants to take the department out of the collection process completely.

"The sheriff has a strong feeling that the sheriff's department should not be a cashier," Whitmore said.

The department has been reviewing their policies for the past few months, Whitmore said. It stems mostly from an ongoing investigation into allegations former Industry station Sgt. Joe Dyer was stealing tow money from La Puente.

The department's Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau has been investigating Dyer since the beginning of the year.

Officials believe he was collecting towing fees intended for La Puente, but not turning over all of those fees to the city.

La Puente is supposed to receive $168 each time a car is impounded.

That fee is paid to the sheriff's Industry Station, which issues a receipt that the driver must provide to reclaim his or her vehicle at La Puente-based Haddick's towing company. The driver then pays a separate fee to Haddick's and the car is released.

La Puente Councilwoman Lola Storing said officials believe Dyer was only dropping off a portion of those fees and receipts at City Hall - which were never reconciled with the Haddick's records.

Dyer retired in May. He did not return calls seeking comment.

"Let's just say that this has been a wake-up call for the department," said Michael Gennaco, chief attorney for the Office of Internal Review.

The OIR is an independent agency that reviews alleged policy violations within the Sheriff's Department. They are aware of the allegations against Dyer and expect to receive a copy of the case once it is submitted to the District Attorney.

"It's still an ongoing investigation," Whitmore said. "But once it's done we will seek prosecution."

There has been one other case within the department involving mishandled tow fees, Whitmore said.

The incident took place in 2007. It involved a deputy in Compton who was suspended for 10 days after failing to follow the department's money handling procedures, Whitmore said.

Gennaco said that while there was initial concern this deputy might have stolen money, the evidence didn't bear that out.

"There was no evidence of any funds missing," Whitmore said. "Apparently he was not doing the paperwork properly. There was no money involved."

The incident is chronicled in an OIR quarterly report released earlier this year.

Gennaco said strides have already been made at the sheriff's Industry Station to reduce the potential for theft.

"The way things are done now in Industry are totally different," he said.

The department is also reviewing several other internal policies and will consult with the Board of Supervisors, Whitmore said.

Other options include taking the department to a cashless system, he said.

"One of the difficulties is we've got 40 cities and each city kind of has its own way of doing things," Whitmore said. "The whole key here is to encourage people to be honest."

La Puente officials are also reviewing their own cash handling procedures.

Staff Writer Frank C. Girardot contributed to this story.

tania.chatila@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 2109

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

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

January 6, 2008

Lack of Street Sweeping sends trash to Long Beach

We have said it over and over on this website yet government leaders only pay lip service to this problem. Trash anywhere on the streets and sidewalks of Lakewood heads straight into the ocean in Long Beach. This story along with photos on LBReport.com graphically exemplifies what we are talking about. Quite frankly it is sad that a city the size of Long Beach (the 5th largest city in the state) allows other cities to dump their trash on its beaches. If I ran the city of Long Beach I would send the clean up bill to the County of LA and each city in the County. Perhaps that would spur some real action in cities like Lakewood that are afraid to take on the "free parking anywhere anytime lobby".

The solution is simple:

1. Real weekly street sweeping the day after trash day with ALL vehicles moved or towed out of the way. ALL streets must be swept weekly; the Lakewood clean sweep program has a LONG way to go. Right now only 1/4 of the city streets are swept and parking enforcement is weak or non existent. Worse it has taken the city over 30 years to even attempt a fix on the street pollution problem. We have written about this previously.

2. More trash cans everywhere on public and private property. We have asked for public trash cans for trash throwing Mayfair HS students on various streets with virtually no response from the city. Typical. These trash cans also have to be dumped once a week or more often.

3. Holding businesses and residences responsible for trash and other potential run off problems on or near their premises (like oil from cars on the streets and driveways);

4. Taking littering seriously and addressing the problem with laws and citations. It is just a plain lack of concern and enforcement;

5. Once the trash makes it to the storm drains and the LA or San Gabriel River it is the responsibility of the County of LA to clean it out before the rain starts. This may need to be done weekly during the rainy season. There should be inspections before anticipated rain. The County seems to have the time to lock gates on the river preceding a rain so it can also clean up the trash while its down there.

We complain about beach pollution yet we let this trash pileup in the ocean occur. We needs to stop the slobs that are heaving trash out their vehicle windows (including glass bottles) and start encouraging everyone to police this own neighborhoods for trash in the street.

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

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

October 13, 2007

enforcement of “no parking” in the Thursday sweeping area


Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:47:59 -0700
To: "Doug Butler Parking Control Sup" <DButler@lakewoodcity.org>, "Natasha Martin, lead parking control officer" <NMartin@lakewoodcity.org>
From: Lakewood Accountability Action Group | LAAG <updates@LAAG.us>
Subject: enforcement of "no parking" in the Thursday sweeping area
Cc: "Paolo Beltran, St. Sweeping" <pbeltran@lakewoodcity.org>, "Diane Perkin, Dir. Admin. Ser." <dperkin@lakewoodcity.org>, "Todd Rogers, City Council" <TSRR@msn.com>, <TRodgers@lakewoodcity.org>, "Joe Esquivel, City Council" <bayoujo@aol.com>, <JEsquive@lakewoodcity.org>, "Larry Van Nostran, city council" <oldeacon@aol.com>, <LVanNost@lakewoodcity.org>, "Steve Croft, city council" <stacro@aol.com>, <SCroft@lakewoodcity.org>, "Diane DuBois, City Council" <DDuBois@lakewoodcity.org>,

The following statement on your website is not correct. (see below) I have seen cars ticketed twice in Oct. in the "new" "test area" but the parking "ticket" (looks like a genuine ticket printed off a eticket handheld machine) which is still on the car says "warning" with "$0.00" for fines. The car was for sale and not in front of a residence which I understand is also illegal, but there was no fine for that either. Since when do cities bother writing parking tickets with no fines? Does "enforcement" of parking laws mean issuing warnings? I have never seen such a city. City of LA would laugh you people out of the room. LA is Rhino booting cars and towing them. < http://www.lacity-parking.org/laopm/boot.htm> < http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=999480B97CA941E52D58DE04B09BCE6F?contentId=4383422&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1 > Spending money to hire meter maids to write no fine tickets and then tout "enforcement" crackdowns. This is like Alice in Wonderland. The city needs to change its motto from "times change values dont " to "parking laws change tickets dont"

http://www.lakewoodcity.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1018
The Lakewood City Council has approved the first phase of a citywide "no parking" plan that will begin in the Thursday street sweeping area of northern Lakewood. The enforcement of "no parking" in the Thursday sweeping area will begin in October, following a thorough public education effort.

August 30, 2007

letter to City Council re RV/Trailer private property parking code revisions

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:02:06 -0700

To: "Todd Rogers, City Council" , , "Joe Esquivel, City Council" , , "Larry Van Nostran, city council" , , "Steve Croft, city council" , , "Diane DuBois, City Council" , "Howard Chambers, City Mgr" , "Jack Gonsalves Dir. Comm. Dev." , "Lakewood Service Requests"

From: Lakewood Accountability Action Group | LAAG

Subject: RV/Trailer private property parking code revisions

Dear Councilman Rogers:

I wanted to summarize my thoughts in a letter rather than taking up more time in the 8/28/07 city hearings. First after volunteering I was rather disheartened by the fact that I was not asked to participate on the 10 member focus group which claimed to be balanced. It sure appears that the RV owners carried the day there as anticipated. Again I will reassert from my May 2007 letter that it does appear that the Council is capitulating on the reform of the code as to the private property parking issues, which LAAG feels will likely result in further relaxations of the existing code not recommended by the Planning Commission and which will have the effect of nullifying the November 2006 election results.

For brevity I am only going to address the “site plan” number 4 schematics as all the properties in my area have detached rear two car garages. I am also not going to repeat all the information in our
May 2007 letter. Unfortunately most the items I mentioned in that letter were not addressed and will likely come to pass as issues facing a future council.

1. For the most part, you are throwing years of established code precedent out the window by allowing garages to be totally blocked for months if not years on end by huge trailers and motor homes (RV’s). Now the car(s) that could have gone in the garage will have to be parked in front of my house as most of my neighbors have too many vehicles. The city needs to address this issue. How is that fair that your neighbor uses up all his parking with an RV then takes up your street parking?

2. There is no rational basis for allowing RV’s to creep beyond the front of the house. My garage to the front of my house is 51 feet. I don’t know of any RV’s or trailers longer than 50 feet. Allowing the RV to come within 16’ of the sidewalk is silly and again has no rational basis. You are only creating another 5 feet of storage and ruining the look of the houses as you look down the street. You are also creating sight restrictions when backing out. If children are playing on an adjoining lawn you will not be able to see them until its too late. The 5 foot vision triangle should run from the front of the house as well. If the RV’s are even with the houses this blight is reduced. The rule should be that the RV cannot protrude beyond the house.

3. The blight effect would be further reduced by requiring at least a 6 foot fence to run across the entire driveway even with the front of the house. If you make the RV jut out beyond the house the fence becomes a bigger problem. The fence is needed to keep animals and small children out from the underside and backside of the motor home and to block the view of all clutter usually associated with motor homes and their owners who are usually working on them. Also most people that own motor homes think theirs looks great. Most don’t. I think a painted solid fence is better to look at especially with most run down RV’s in Lakewood. It would make the sore thumb blend in better. I also see no rational basis for making a distinction on requiring a corner lot to be fenced. Looking at the front of an RV is just as bad as the side. Also just because more people see it from the street on a corner lot makes my point. If its ugly on the corner its still ugly right in front on my house, on a corner or not. Also why a distinction between campers and RV’s. This is nonsense hair splitting to appease some silent minority.

4. Fire and access issues. How you can park a 12’ high 40 foot long motor home between two homes with barely a few feet either side of it and not think that it is going to hinder firefighters access to either property is ludicrous. In addition most of these RVs have huge fuel tanks and propane tanks which could explode in a fire. Also the more fact that you are wedging this huge plastic coated structure in between two homes is increasing the chance that one house fire will also ignite the adjoining house. I would take that lawsuit against the city especially in light of the fact that it is such an obvious problem. Apparently the firefighters union nixed the Edison right of way RV parking plans with a bogus fire code “revision” but have green lighted (or not addressed) this private property issue. Politics and fire. What a mixture.

5. CEQA The “aesthetics” part of CEQA is a big issue here. I think if this ordinance gets too liberal it is going to be subject to a CEQA challenge. So the existing negative EIR could be called into question as it was done for the changes the Planning Commission envisioned which I don’t see being adopted without significant relaxations affecting aesthetics. It appears here that the Planning Commission recommendations were essentially trashed on key provisions the pro RV lobby wanted and that what ever input the “anti-RV” contingent of 5 citizens, it could not have had much to do with improving aesthetics.

This committee is nothing but a capitulation to the RV owners and has thrown aesthetics out the window. The city is on its way to becoming Cudahy or some other city with low property values. This is how it starts. The November 2006 election results are hereby officially nullified. The voters were successful in moving the blight 20 feet.

The city also has no provisions for the total number of RV’s or vehicles that can be stored on or of the property, their degree of repair or tattered appearance or any method for homeowners to challenge the blight created by a neighbor. Given the enforcement efforts to fix blighted homes so far I see things getting much worse under the “new” “enlightened” code.

Sincerely,

Lakewood Accountability Action Group

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




July 28, 2007

RV plan deemed unsafe

LAAG is going to have to call BS on the fire dept again. Lots of junk cars and huge RVs jammed in between single family homes is fine. Fireworks are fine. Nurseries and or dry brush under high power lines is fine. Homes backing up to powerlines are fine. But dont park an RV under them. Lets see this "study". Post it on the web. I know people who have lived right next to the powerlines since the early 1960's. Never had a fire. I think this is related to the LA Times story a few months back where a bunch of Pasadena residents got all fired up over this and so they likely leaned on the Fire Dept. to come up with a "study" (the folks in Pasadena actually partake in political activism unlike Lakewood residents). Again show us a fire anywhere in the state involving high power lines that was somehow made MORE unsafe for a firefighter due to an RV parked under them. Next they will say RV's cause the lines to fall. No intelligence or facts there folks. Just a parade of "what ifs". Sorta like the Bush administration before going into Iraq. Maybe the fire departments better stick to their roles as permanent heroes and get out of the politics business.


RV plan deemed unsafe
County Fire Dept. decision dooms right-of-way storage proposal.
By Karen Robes, Staff writer
Article Launched: 07/12/2007 09:32:17 PM PDT

LAKEWOOD - Los Angeles County Fire Department officials Thursday quashed efforts to develop a storage facility for 350 recreational vehicles on a utility right-of-way near Woodruff Avenue because the project posed an extreme fire hazard.

Fire Marshal Scott Poster sent city officials a new fire code regulation Thursday that now prohibits the construction of an RV and trailer storage facility beneath a transmission power line.

News of the new regulation crushes Lakewood's hopes of having 350 12-foot-wide by 40-foot-long RV spaces on the Southern California Edison right-of-way stretching from Allington Street to the Lakewood Community Gardens.

The project would have helped ease hundreds of RV owners' concerns about finding storage since new city laws took effect July 1.

Tired of the blight and traffic safety hazards posed by the oversized vehicles, residents voted in November to ban RV and trailer parking on city streets without a three-day permit.

"We thought we found a solution and we were of course disappointed when we heard from the Fire Department," Mayor Diane DuBois said. "But we have to abide by that."

The Fire Department decided to explore projects built underneath high-voltage transmission lines after Edison decided to lease out land to developers wanting to build self-storage, commercial buildings and projects other than light/agricultural, Poster said.

An official from Southern California Edison could not be reached for comment.

After conducting extensive research - which involved speaking with Edison consultants and assembling a power-line safety committee - Fire Chief P. Michael Freeman determined that firefighters and the public would be placed in unnecessary risks, including electrocution, if the high-voltage cables were to catch fire and land on a structure while a firefighter is putting out a blaze, Poster said.

"The dangers well exceeded the advantages," Poster said.

Also, power line failure could affect cities served by the cables, he added.

Despite the collapse of the 350-space project, residents may still see another storage facility being developed on Woodruff Avenue, just south of South Street.

Jim Isham, nine-year owner of Jim's Automotive on 5414 Woodruff Ave., has been working with the city to develop the property behind his business into an RV storage facility.

Isham, a Lakewood resident, said if his project is approved, his facility would provide 80 storage spaces and he would give priority to Lakewood residents.

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




July 6, 2007

Can't we use tickets as warnings?

What ever happened to the street sweeping law to be put into effect July 1 2007? Not done. What about the shift of RV's and Trailers onto private property? We will be lucky to have something worked out on that fiasco by October 2007 (even though the city had a large staff working on it since Nov 7, 2006). Ever wonder what the so called "parking control" budget is vs what the city takes in by way of parking fines? Lets challenge the city to post that information. if they dare. see LAAG's related prior story

As far as warning owners of RV's on street parking have they not had since Nov. 7, 2006 as ample warning? Just another example of a city which lacks the guts to enforce the law for fear of being unpopular or being like that "fascist regime" known as Cerritos where "mean spirited" parking laws are enforced regardless of complaints!! The Horror!!


Lakewood RV laws take effect
RV, trailer owners have 2-week warning period.
By Karen Robes, Staff writer
Article Launched: 07/05/2007 11:38:54 PM PDT
http://origin.presstelegram.com/news/ci_6309541

LAKEWOOD - Minutes after starting her shift Thursday, Natasha Martin, the city's lead parking control officer, zeroed in on a trailer parked on the street.

After checking to see if it had a city permit, she proceeded to write up the trailer.

"Hey, did you give me a ticket?" an annoyed man said as he rushed to his vehicle.

"It's a warning," she said to the man, who looked relieved.

As Martin threaded through the neighborhoods bordered by Del Amo Boulevard, Candlewood Street, Cherry and Downey avenues, she spotted within the first hour of her shift at least six trailers and RVs in violation of new laws that ban recreational vehicles and trailers on city streets without a permit.

"People are getting it," Martin said. "It's letting them understand where you're coming from. We're just (carrying out) what the residents voted for."

The ticket-like warnings are part of an information campaign the city has been conducting since April to warn residents about the new laws that took effect Sunday.

Hoping to stop owners from using city streets for storing rigs and motor homes long-term, the City Council recently passed a series of measures to address the issue. They included a pair of November ballot measures banning the vehicles on public streets without a permit, which voters overwhelmingly passed.

The permit allows for a maximum three-day pass. Residents can get up to 16 permits annually, but must allow at least three days between permits.

Since April, the city has been mailing letters and postcards, leaving paper hangers detailing the city's new laws and issuing warnings leading up to Sunday.

The city decided to give owners a two-week warning before officially ticketing on July 15.

"We expect that by the time citations are going to be issued that every RV and trailer owner knows the consequences of parking their RVs or trailers on city streets without a permit," said spokesman Don Waldie.

Waldie said that the information campaign appears to be working, judging from the city's last four "windshield counts."

The windshield counts - another way of describing the number of warnings issued to RVs and trailers - have diminished by more than 90 percent in the last four months, Waldie said.

The last count, which was being compiled Thursday, showed fewer than 90, significantly lower than the 350 counted in April. "It's a really remarkable testament to the willingness of owners" to follow the rules, he said.




May 23, 2007

Letter to City Council re Private Property RV parking

Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:27:00 -0700
To: "Todd Rogers, Lkwd City Council"
From: "www.LAAG.us | Lakewood Accountability Action Group"
Subject: RV/Trailer private property parking code revisions
Cc: "Todd Rogers, City Council" , , "Joe Esquivel, City Council" , , "Larry Van Nostran, city council" , , "Steve Croft, city council" , , "Diane DuBois, City Council" , "Jack Gonsalves Dir. Comm. Dev." ,


May 22, 2007
Total of 5 page(s) via e mail
Lakewood City Council

Re: RV/Trailer private property parking code revisions
Dear Councilman Rogers:

I wanted to summarize my thoughts in a letter rather than taking up time in the last two city hearings I have attended on this issue. From the Press Telegram report today it does appear that the Council is capitulating on the reform of the code as to the private property parking issues, which LAAG feels will likely result in further relaxations of the existing code not recommended by the Planning Commission and which will have the effect of nullifying the November 2006 election results.

Election issues:

Only the complaining RV (RV includes trailers and all other devices addressed in the 11/06 ballot proposition) owners come to these meetings, not voters, as the general rule is those with money to loose come out and are more vocal. People don’t like to complain about aesthetics but it is annoying. I laughed when one of the pro RV people said “we are the voters”. Well true but there are only 7,000 “RV voters” at most and they were clearly outnumbered in the election.

I think the one issue that is clear is that the voters (the vast majority of which are non RV owners) do not want these eyesores on the street. So clearly it does not make much sense to move the RV’s ten feet into the driveway. La Palma was faced with the opposite situation in 2005. There restricting private property parking would just have moved the RV’s to the street where there were no restrictions at the time. So clearly moving RV’s a short distance does not “remedy” the aesthetics issue.

We need to enforce the will of the voters. The law says it will go into effect July 1. If you suspend all private property parking regulations for months, the effect will be nullifying the election results and the will of the voters. The motor home owners have had 7 months to deal with the election so no delay is justified. Also all the city is trying to do is liberalize the code. If the RV owners want to delay the liberalization of the code then let the existing code stay in force. The requested moratorium is just a stalling tactic for the RV owners to rally the troops to nullify the will of the voters by better organizing and attacking the city at the city council level rather than at the election level.

Enforcement issues:

The overriding sense I get from listening to most people speak is that they did not know the law (an made no effort to find out what it was) and made some of these purchases and parking arrangements based on ignorance of the law primarily due to the fact that not all the parking rules were on your website (and still are not) and because of the city’s famous “complaint driven” enforcement system. Had enforcement been carried out more consistently and regularly then there would be less ignorance of the law. The best way to learn the law is to get a ticket for a violation. You should know that as a law enforcement officer. You also know that ignorance of the law is never an excuse.

Short of real enforcement the city needs to post diagrams like they have displayed at the last two meetings clearly delineating what is allowed and what is not along with measurements. Real photos of do’s and don’ts would also help. That is where the website comes in.

People complained that they bought a RV thinking that Lakewood was a “do whatever you want” type of city. Well that’s too bad. Laws change every year and negatively affect people all the time. Get used to it. They also used your moniker of “Times Change Values Don’t”. One could say that of the code. Times Change, but the code will stay the same, as it should.

Also some people take the position that it is their property and they can do what ever they want with it. Well if that’s true, then take the entire municipal code and throw it out. It is obvious that most RV owners at the meeting just did not give a damn about what their neighbors might think, knowing all the well that most neighbors are too nice to complain and just suffer due to one neighbors insensitivity to the world around him. These are the same people with loud vehicles and environment destroying contraptions. The just don’t care. The neighborhood and all public space is theirs to use as they see fit.

I think a lot of the problem is that many people are just plain lazy. That is why people don’t park in their garages. Too much effort to clean out the garage and open the garage door. People have also bought RV’s that are just plain too big to store on their lot. The RV’s square footage is about 1/3 of the size of their house. They spent their entire fortune on the RV (and now with gas at 4.00 per gal) they have no budget to properly store or accommodate them. So now its my problem? The conscientious RV owners are not the problem. Most of us can spot the problem RV owners just like we can spot the people’s who front yard and house is a disaster. Same people.

I also think the fines clearly have to be in excess of any monthly storage fees and have to be progressive. In addition you need to be able to apply the fine to both the vehicle and the property it is parked on.

This is also about money. Just like fireworks. People come up with all sorts of excuses and of course have to throw the “child” card into the mix. These people over spent and left no budget for storage and now feel that everyone public space and parking in front of their home is open territory for them to adopt as their own personal parking spaces.

Fires:

Make no mistake about it: more 12 foot tall 8 ft wide vehicles in driveways is going to increase the likelihood that the fire department will not be able to access the rear yard as effectively as they could without driveway blockage. The more crowding on the lot the more likely that fires will be able to jump from house to house. Also don’t forget about all those gas and propane tanks on the RV’s and trailers. So really that is a concern for the non RV owner just as much as the RV owner.

Private Enforcement Issues:

The biggest problem we have is that the council may make some decisions that may greatly affect certain owners property values. The code should be written so that these homeowners can still bring private nuisance actions under civil code section 3501 et. seq. If the council is going to rely on a lax or complaint driven system then it should give homeowners the tools they need to fight blight on an as needed basis.

Quite frankly the council would have been better off not stirring up this mess. It should have added the private property parking restrictions to the ballot. Now that its too late and this Pandora’s Box is open. Leave the code as it is and allow those who object to it to file CUP’s when their neighbors complain. If there are only 65 complaints for on property parking then it seems to me that the CUP process may be less burdensome and less costly than the current process. Plus it would only involve the two interested opposing sides. This is really the same thing as a complaint driven system but it puts the burden on the RV owners as it should be.

Permit issues

Clearly this is ripe for abuse and manipulation. The permit system should allow motor home owners to pick the dates they want for a permit (say a fri and a tues for a weekend trip) and take no more days than they need. There should be a limit as to how many consecutive days, days per week and days per year that one can get permits for. Very simple process.

Allowing loading and unloading on private property is a good idea but I still think we need a permit process or we are going to run into the 72 hour enforcement problem again as some people will be in a constant state of unloading and loading. A game the permit process will end.

Also how will neighbors know when people have permits? They must be clearly posted on the vehicle at all times. Also how will property owners be able to check license plates to see that the RV is registered to that property?

Non RV’s and size issues.

The one issue not really addressed here and should be looked at (which is another reason the CUP process should be used) is the total number of vehicles on the lot, number of drivers residing there, the total size of all the RV’s and total lot size. Clearly a 14 foot tall 35’ RV is a bigger problem than a 14’ boat. If you fill the driveway with an RV all the cars and trucks spill out into the street and take away everyone else’s street parking. With all these vehicles on the street, especially work trucks, there will be more break-ins and thefts. This is clearly already one of Lakewood’s biggest crime problems (see our website for more on this issue) which is why Lakewood has almost twice the vehicle theft as Cerritos does where no overnight street parking is allowed.

Care and Use

Another issue that I heard over and over again is that “we use our RV all the time” Well I think most neighbors know how often they are used. I suspect that over 90% are used less than 5 times per year. Also most RV owners think that their RV is very attractive as is their parking arrangement. Again this is all very subjective and typically RV’s owners are more forgiving of owners who don’t maintain their RV’s or their parking site. Again these types of issues could all be dealt with in a CUP. I would love to see all those RV’s owners post a picture of their

Set back

None of the RV’s should be allowed to park forward of the front edge of the house as that is going to create problems for the few of us that park their cars in the driveway and have to back out across the sidewalk. We will be blocked from seeing anything as we back out. That 5 foot vision triangle is not going to cut it. This is the reason you have a front fence height limit of 42 inches. So you can see over it backing out in a car.

Sob Stories

I listed to the whole “parade of horribles” that would occur if there were any parking restrictions. When I was growing up in Lakewood we went camping in an 8 ft. cab over camper and had a 14” aluminum boat towed behind. (not the gross monstrosities sold today) All were parked on our property and we even installed a separate driveway and parking area for them. The fact that families enjoy using RV’s does not give the owners license to do whatever they want. The two issues are not related. Also one has to keep in mind that 90% of these RV’s are “recreational” vehicles, not cars and trucks people use for transportation. Most of these “toy” people have 5 or 6 vehicles. All of which they have to license, maintain and buy gas for. And most get poor mileage. So it is clear that these toys are just that…toys. The whole “way of life” argument is a side issue. If you can afford these “big boy toys” you need to be able to afford all the aspects of owning them. Not just gas costs to get to Glamis.

Also I wonder how some of these people that claim to be disabled are using RV’s. From what I now of RV’s they are a big effort to own, use and set up. Someone who is clearly disabled is not going to be able to do what is required to even use them properly or set them up at a camping area. If they can then being disabled should not prevent them from following the code in Lakewood.

Other issues to consider

Overnight sleeping in RV’s should never be allowed on or off the property. RV’s must be kept in road worthy vehicle code compliance at all times as well as licensed at all times. Also the registered owner has to match the house not just the city. Trailers should never be unhitched in a front driveway (beyond front edge of house) or street ever. Parking on front laws should never be allowed. Ever.

Front driveway fences obscuring RVs should cover at least 60% of the ht of the RV and not be transparent.

Work trailers and “work RV’s”

This is mostly a size/daily use issue. Also most companies have these vehicles parked at a yard and the worker drives there to get the truck. For those running businesses from their home this should be an issue on the business permit and or a CUP issue and or a state contractors license board issue.

CEQA

The “aesthetics” part of CEQA is a big issue here. I think if this ordinance gets too liberal it is going to be subject to a CEQA challenge. So the existing negative EIR could be called into question as it was done for the changes the Planning Commission envisioned which I don’t see being adopted without significant relaxations affecting esthetics.

Edison right of way:

See attached story from the LA Times on that issue. I expect new fights on that front. Also I expect that new ordinances will need to be enacted due to fire, safety and noise issues for those whose homes back up to these proposed storage areas.

Local Storage:

I know that the city has done a survey of spaces available nearby. This need to be posted on the website along with pricing for the spaces. I really think we need to consider a “needs test” as to some of these claims that people cant afford to park their RV there. That is definitely an issue for business related trailers.

Citizen Committee:

If such a committee is started LAAG would like to have at least one of its non RV owning members on the committee. The committee should also be fairly balanced with RV owners and non RV owners that are concerned about aesthetics. I have previously volunteered in writing and in person as you know.


Sincerely,

Lakewood Accountability Action Group


Cc: Council; Jack Gonsalves Dir. Comm. Dev.

March 15, 2007

Parking: can we use citations to "re-educate"?

I almost fell out of my chair when I read the budget for the motorhome "re-education" campaign. Oh my GOD! $140,545 to put fliers on all the motor homes in Lakewood? Cant we use the same people that Dominoes Pizza and the real estate agents use to litter our doorstep with ads? Are they cheaper? Hey voters if you missed the election and the 35 newspaper stories on the motorhome parking issue in Lakewood were sorry but you're going to get a ticket. You deserve to get one for pure stupidity or living under a rock. Has the City Council lost all touch with reality?

The better part of the story (if believable) is that the city is currently spending $337,949 on parking enforcement? (And this does not include the do nothings at the Sheriff's dept. as they are too busy crime fighting to do parking). The only parking enforcement I have seen is on the few streets posted for no parking on sweeping days (like mine) I see the new white Honda Civic$ drive down the street and waive at the good people who slept in and did not get up time to move the car as the sweeper rolls by. No ticket! How nice! Great enforcement! On top of all that we are paying $337,949 for that service!! Here is a stupid question I am sure the city will not want to answer: Just what did the city collect in paid parking citations for the last 5 years? Something tells me its way south of $337,949. Also Lakewood somehow prides itself on the fact that it is a "complaint driven" parking citation system, meaning someone has to call the city to get a cite issued. That being the case $337,949 is even more outrageous. Good thing y'all just re-elected the two councilmen likely responsible for this long standing parking mess, now made even uglier by the waste of funds. We may need the fireworks companies to chip in here. LOL

Education effort will drive home new rules for RVs
By Karen Robes, Staff writer
Article Launched: 03/14/2007 10:26:27 PM PDT

The Lakewood City Council has approved a plan to educate residents about the new laws, set to take effect July 1, restricting street parking for RVs and trailers in the city. (Scott Smeltzer / Press-Telegram)

LAKEWOOD - There's something city officials want recreational vehicle and trailer owners to know, and they're planning to convey it in letters and on notices hung on RVs.

After July 1, Lakewood RV and trailer owners will face daily fines for parking on city streets without a permit.

The City Council earlier this week approved plans to educate residents, handle complaints and provide the staff and resources to enforce the new RV and trailer laws voters approved last November.

The city's annual operating budget for parking enforcement will be $478,494 - a $140,545 increase over last year.

The extra $140,545 includes the wages of the additional parking control officers, their uniforms and vehicle maintenance costs, said city spokesman Don Waldie.

There also are "one-time-only costs" of about $147,940, which includes public information costs ($20,056), the purchase of four new vehicles ($112,000), and additional equipment ($15,884).

Officials hope to get the more than 6,000 RV and trailers to voluntarily comply with the new rules and help lessen residents' requests for service.

"We're going to make every effort we can to make sure people are aware," Mayor Larry Van Nostran said. "We want to make it easier for people to abide by what the laws are going to be."

The new bans are among several efforts to quell concerns about the increasing number of RVs and trailers parked for long periods on city streets. For more than 30 years, the council has tried to balance the needs of RV and trailer owners and those who view the rigs and motorhomes as eyesores and traffic hazards.

The new laws require owners to obtain a maximum three-day permit to park on the street. Residents can get up to 16 permits annually but there must be at least a three-day gap between permits. The permits, which are free, can be downloaded online at www.lakewoodcity.org/

parking.

Beginning in April, the city will distribute hangers and mail letters to all RV and trailer owners registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The city will add 140 hours of enforcement time per week with two full-time and two part-time parking control officers.

The city will also have customer service liaisons and a part-time relief worker to handle resident service requests.

From July 1 through July 15, there will be a two-week warning period for offenders. After that, violators are subject to a daily $40 fine. A vehicle can be towed if five citations have been left unpaid, the grace period of 21 days has elapsed and notice to the DMV has been sent.

Karen Robes can be reached at karen.robes@presstelegram.com or (562) 499-1303.

November 30, 2006

LA Times: Former presidential candidate leads a drive to alter parking policy

This story gives LAAG a few good ideas on parking enforcement here in lackadaisical Lakewood where code compliance is voluntary and parking enforcement is "complaint driven" only. Time to start complaining...RV and Trailer parking are only part of the problem.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-dukakis30nov30,1,3093151.story

A Dukakis win in Westwood
The former presidential candidate leads a drive to alter parking policy.
By Hector Becerra
Times Staff Writer

November 30, 2006

Michael Dukakis lost his bid for president in 1988, but he can declare victory in his latest campaign — against parking scofflaws in Westwood.

The former Massachusetts governor has been at the center of a more than two-year battle against the longtime practice of "apron parking" in the neighborhood west of UCLA known as North Village. There, parked cars spill out of apartment driveways and straddle sidewalks and streets.

"It's a disaster," said Dukakis, who teaches public policy at UCLA and lives part-time in the neighborhood. "Beyond being illegal, it's dangerous. You get two SUVs with their rear ends sticking out into the street, and you end up with a one-way road. It's time to end it."

Los Angeles city officials are now listening to Dukakis and the other critics of apron parking. As soon as January, parking enforcement officers will begin aggressively ticketing cars that partly block streets and sidewalks.

The campaign is expected to leave many residents scrambling for parking. There are only 857 legal curb spaces in North Village, but about 5,700 vehicles belonging to residents. The demand gets far worse when students commuting to UCLA comb the streets for parking spots.

Though apron parking is illegal, Los Angeles officials have allowed the practice in the neighborhood for decades because of the parking crunch.

But Dukakis argues that apron parking is dangerous. He has pleaded his case to city leaders and even admonished parking enforcement officers on the streets.

Dukakis told one officer who was ticketing a car in the red zone that she was missing the other illegally parked cars down the street.

"I said, 'You're tagging this guy because he's over the red line, but what about those 15 cars up there parked illegally?' " Dukakis said. "She said, 'I know, but there's not enough parking up here.' "

He told her that maybe those parked illegally should take the bus.

"She looked at me like I had 10 heads or something," Dukakis said.

He first talked to city officials about the parking situation two years ago. Dukakis then turned to a colleague, UCLA urban planning professor Donald Shoup, author of "The High Cost of Free Parking."

Shoup made the parking dilemma a project for his students. The result was "The Dukakis Project."

"He was the inspiration, and it helps to have a big name on your side when you are tackling an issue such as this," said Adina Ringler, a 26-year-old graduate urban planning student.

The study looked at the consequences and costs of the illegal parking and suggested solutions, including paid permit parking and curbside meters. But more important, the Dukakis Project prompted Shoup to send a letter to city officials that said that apron parking violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The letter got the city's attention. The letter was sent to City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo, as well as to L.A. Police Chief William J. Bratton and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The city then decided to crack down on apron parking.

"How would you like to be someone who is blind and using a stick, trying to get across those sidewalks?" Shoup said.

Councilman Jack Weiss said it was hard not to support the ban. "If [it's] to comply with federal law, what's the alternative?" he said.

The crackdown will hit hardest the students and others who live in the dense apartment buildings near UCLA.

Residents have turned apron parking into an intricately choreographed dance of cooperation and communication. A student attending class might leave extra keys behind so his car can be moved to let other vehicles out. Or another who vacates a spot might ask a roommate to park there until he returns.

Sarah Attensil, a 21-year-old UCLA anthropology major from Lancaster, said that at her apartment there was a schedule for who parks where.

"We're very vocal about where we're going and what time we're getting back," Attensil said. "Pretty much every morning we let everyone know."

PC Zai, a 22-year-old psychology major, said apron parking was "considered so normal for so long, some landlords even charged tenants for those spots."

The prospect of losing spaces leaves students with few options.

"People are really worried," Zai said. "Students figure, 'If I can pay for it and I have a car, I should be allowed to park here.' That's going to have to change."

But Dukakis believes that the changes will make the streets around the campus safer.

"You can't get fire equipment out there. Beyond that, you can barely walk on the sidewalk," Dukakis said. "And for years, no one had done anything about it. It's crazy."