Part I

Published in the July 2010
Political Observer print edition.

Superior Court
Parking Lot a
Money-Making Racket
for Lancaster
Parking Enforcement

-------- 

Standard Parking Spaces
Measure Two Feet Fewer
Than Minimum Width as
Mandated by Municipal Code

-----
 Compact Spaces Short 1 ½ Feet
---

LANCASTER – If the parking spaces at the Los Angeles County Superior Court on Avenue M seem unusually narrow, that’s because they are. Lancaster Municipal Code sets the minimum width for standard 90 degree parking spaces for all developments at nine feet – commercial and government alike - a fact The Political Observer verified with the City of Lancaster’s Planning Department.

     At the Antonovich Courthouse located on Avenue M, spaces are only seven feet wide making for a tight squeeze physically and perchance financially in the event one receives a citation for not parking between the lines.

     The constricted confines of Antonovich Courthouse parking spaces are not limited to the standard spaces. Also according to Lancaster Municipal Code (MC), parking spaces labeled “compact” must be no less than eight feet wide. At Antonovich Courthouse, they measure six feet and six inches – nearly 20 percent smaller than required. Those drivers parking their vehicle with a tire touching the separator line may receive a ticket courtesy Lancaster Parking Enforcement.


A Toyata Prius barely fits within the confines of a "Compact" space.

 
     Justice is not served when Lancaster’s mobile tax-collectors prey upon the public, issuing citations for parking with tires on a line in a parking space that is two-feet too narrow by the City’s own regulation. But this is exactly what is happening at Antonovich Courthouse.

    For drivers operating a full-size sedan, or worse, yet, a truck or SUV, parking in a space only seven feet wide may present a problem opening the door far enough to exit the vehicle without door-dinging the vehicle in the space beside you, or having your door dinged by that person as they enter or exit their vehicle.

     There is good news for drivers of wider vehicles when parking in Lancaster because MC 10.04.130 – Compliance with parking space markings – states no vehicle shall be stopped or left standing other than within a single space “unless the size or shape of such vehicle makes compliance impossible.”

     For vehicles wide enough, this code may be reasonably construed to mean if tires on both sides stand upon the lines, or exceed them on both sides, the vehicle’s size makes compliance impossible.

Government Got You
Coming & Going

     Conveniently, Lancaster facilitates paying parking citations on-line at the City website, along with handy detailed instructions on the procedure to contest the citation. However, payment of the fine is required before the Appeal process may begin.

     California Vehicle Code Section 40215 provides vehicle owners the ability to contest a parking citation provided the citation was issued in error. There are three steps to contest a citation and each level must be completed prior to moving to the next step.

     First is the Initial Review, followed by the Administrative Hearing, and then the final level is the Appeal to the Superior Court. If any of these steps are not completed within the designated time period, people are warned at the City’s website, they may be forfeiting their Right to contest the citation. As part of the City’s “E-Payment Process,” victims are instructed how to navigate the Appeal process.

1st Level - Initial Review

     There is no fee to contest a citation at this level. To request an Initial Review, victims must contest the citation in writing within 21 calendar days of the citation issue date. The cited vehicle owner must include the reason(s) they believe the citation was issued in error and include copies of any documentation to support their claim. Cited vehicle owners are cautioned that all supporting documents will not be returned.

     The citation or reminder notice must also be included, along with the cited person’s full name and mailing address. These items must then be mailed to: “City of Lancaster, P O Box 3540, Tustin, CA 92781.”

     Those victims found not liable during the Initial Review process will have the cost of their parking citation refunded.

2nd Level – Administrative Hearing

     An Administrative Hearing may not be requested until after the vehicle owner has been found liable as a result of Initial Review. Those persons dissatisfied with the results of the Initial Review may request an Administrative Hearing in person or in writing by submitting a request within 21 calendar days of the mailing of the Initial Review result. The Initial Review result letter must be included.

     Before an Administrative Hearing is scheduled, payment for the full amount due on the citation is required. Payment may be made on-line prior to a hearing request, or a check or money order may be tendered by mail with the request for an Administrative Hearing. If found not liable during the Administrative Hearing process, any amount paid will be refunded.

     For those suffering financial hardship and unable to pay the fine, a waiver may be requested. To qualify, victims must supply “satisfactory proof” of an inability to pay the amount due by tendering an itemized monthly income and expense statement, a copy of a current signed IRS tax filing, a signed written statement that the information provided is true and correct, and a request to waive the fine so the citation may be further contested.

3rd Level – Civil Appeal

     According to information found at Lancaster’s website, California Vehicle Code Section 40230(a) allows for the ability to file a Civil Appeal for a parking citation if you are dissatisfied with the results of your Administrative Hearing. Civil Appeals can be filed at the Antelope Valley Superior Court and must be filed within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the issuing agency's final decision.

     EDITOR’S NOTE: When filing an Appeal at Antonovich Courthouse, be certain to not park on the line within the seven foot parking space or else a citation may be issued and the entire process will be required to begin anew.

     As part of filing a Civil Appeal, a filing fee to the court is required, however, those found not liable during the Civil Appeal process will have all money paid refunded to them, including the filing fee. There is no reimbursement for time or wages lost during the Appeal process.

Lancaster Municipal Code

17.12.230 - Design requirements.

Size and Marking of Spaces.

a. No less than 65% of the parking spaces shall exhibit minimum dimensions of 9 feet wide by 20 feet long or 10 feet wide and 18 feet long in 90 degree parking and 9 feet wide by 18 feet long in angular (45 degree or 60 degree) parking, with required disabled person spaces at the dimensions as provided by law. (See subsection A.10.f. of this section.)

b. No greater than 35% of the parking spaces may exhibit minimum dimensions of 8 feet in width by 16 feet in length. Such spaces shall be labeled "compact car only" in a manner acceptable to the director.  

Part III

Published in the September 2010
Political Observer print edition.

See Parts IV & V
on Page 6

Lancaster Temporarily Suspends
Issuing Specific Citations at
Superior Court &
COSTCO Parking Lots
---------
Not Parking Within a Single Space Temporarily Not a Violation
 ------
Disabled Parking Regulations,
Blocking Fire Lanes
Continue to be Enforced
----
Parking Space Sizes Under Official Review, Investigation by City Hall
---

LANCASTER – It is The Political Observer’s position that issuing parking citations - and collecting the corresponding revenue - is a legitimate function of municipal government.

    If leave your vehicle parked on the street within designated hours on street-sweeping day there is an excellent chance you will receive a citation.

    Considering the numerous signs posted throughout a neighborhood notifying residents of this particular parking restriction, government citing and collecting fines for this infraction is reasonable.

    What was happening with regularity at the Superior Court – drivers being cited for not parking within a single space in a space two feet too narrow by Lancaster code - is not.

   For Part III of our investigation, The Political Observer can report to our readers we have been informed by Lancaster Vice-Mayor Ron Smith that Lancaster Parking Enforcement has been instructed to no longer issue a citation at both Antonovich Courthouse and COSTCO for not parking within a single space.

   Smith credited The Political Observer’s reporting as the reason behind City Hall’s decision to suspend this element of enforcement. However, Smith cautioned and emphasized that Parking Enforcement will still patrol the Superior Court looking for vehicles in violation of parking codes relating to public safety. He cited as two examples unauthorized parking in a disabled parking space, and parking in a fire lane.

   The vice-mayor did provide a correction to our report as published in the July newspaper. In that issue, The Political Observer reported, after being informed incorrectly by the City’s Planning Department, that all parking facilities within Lancaster city limits fell under municipal code. This, according to Smith, is an error, because the L.A. County Superior Court parking lot is governed by county code.

    But this fact didn’t matter much to Smith. “If the county code permits parking spaces to be narrower than allowed by Lancaster municipal code then not one citation should be issued for not parking within a single space at the courthouse. The county needs to follow our code,” demanded the vice-mayor.

Citations Suspended

    Monique Edwards is a Management Analyst II (supervisor) in the Finance Department at Lancaster City Hall, and it is she who called for her Parking Enforcement officers to temporarily suspend issuing citations at Antonovich Courthouse and COSTCO for not parking within the confines of a single space.

    Edwards said in late July a fellow employee shared with her the article published in the Political Observer exposing the situation at the courthouse. After reading the article, Edwards said she began investigating our claims regarding the size of the parking spaces.

    “I immediately directed staff to suspend issuing citations at the location until further notice,” said Edwards.

    Edwards said she also read the August Political Observer and learned about similar concerns at COSTCO, after which, she advised staff to suspend issuing citations at that location as well. Edwards said the suspension will remain in effect until she is able to determine whether the sizes of the parking stalls are in compliance with city requirements.

    “As the courthouse is county property, I am awaiting the receipt of information to determine whether or not the size of the stalls at the courthouse meet compliance with county standards. I am scheduled to visit both locations in the near future with a city inspector to determine the actual size of the stalls,” said Edwards.

    Once a determination has been made as to whether or not the size of the stalls at each location meet city or county standards, “It will then be decided whether or not the issuance of parking citations at these location will resume,” added Edwards.

    Also as part of our investigation, The Political Observer reviewed the City of Lancaster’s budgets for Fiscal Years 2003/04 through 2010/11, as made available by the City of Lancaster at their website. Budget figures reveal revenue from parking citations has grown by a little more than $700,000 over this period - a 37% increase.

    For the 2003/04 Fiscal Year, the budget shows total revenue from parking citations under one-half million dollars at $429,652. According to the 2010/11 budget, anticipated revenue from parking violations when this current fiscal year ends is anticipated to be slightly over one million dollars - $1,156,350.  

    When measured year by year, the City experienced a decline in Parking Enforcement generated revenue of 16% in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/07, the only year of those reviewed with a loss when measured against the previous year.

    The largest increase in the years covered occurred in FY 2004/05 when the City realized a 42% increase from the prior year.

    City budget documents reveal Lancaster is expecting an increase in Parking Enforcement revenue in the current Fiscal Year of less than one percent over FY 2009/10.

    This figure may fall short when the current temporary suspension of issuing parking citations at Antonovich Courthouse and COSTCO are factored in. Parking Enforcement generated revenue from FY 2003/04 through the estimate for FY 2010/11 is itemized at the end of this article.

    Also included as Part 3 of our continuing investigation, The Political Observer sought to ask courthouse employees - those that disobey parking code regulations in a lot protected by the security of a gate inaccessible to enforcement – if they were aware parking this way was in violation of a municipal parking ordinance.

    In particular, we were especially eager to ask this question to the owner of the Lexus pictured on the front page of our August newspaper. Since publication of that issue, The Political Observer has reconnoitered the courthouse employee parking lot on several occasions, and on each instance this same vehicle was observed parked occupying two spaces.

    Arriving at the Antonovich Courthouse early on the morning of Tuesday, September 7, about 30 minutes prior to the courthouse opening to the public, The Political Observer took a position beside the government employee entrance at the north end of the parking lot. Numerous employees were observed entering and parking – some in conformance with code, others not.

    The first employee to park their vehicle in violation of code, and within earshot of The Political Observer’s position behind the demarcation gate, was asked if she was aware she had parked occupying two spaces. The court employee replied she was aware of this.

    When asked if she was aware the practice was against parking code, frowned upon by Parking Enforcement, and that the general public is often ticketed for the same thing, the gub-mnt’ employee haughtily replied, “They don’t patrol our parking lot. It’s only against the law for you.”

    When asked for her name, the scofflaw laughed aloud, smiled, declined to provide her name, and then began walking to the Courthouse.

    Soon after this conversation, the infamous Lexus was observed driving into the government employee parking lot, and parking occupying two spaces - as pictured on the front page of our August newspaper. The Political Observer asked the driver the same questions as the previous scofflaw but this government employee replied to our inquiries with “no comment.”

    When asked if she was a judicial officer, perhaps a traffic court judge or commissioner, she replied again with, “no comment,” and then made her way to the courthouse.

Parking Citation Revenue

    The following figures are from City of Lancaster’s budget documents as made available to the public at their website: www.cityoflancasterca.org. Figures for FY 2004/05 through FY 2008/09 are reported as “actual.”

    Figures for FY 2009/10 are reported by the City as “estimated” and figures for FY 2010/11 budget are anticipated revenue. Actual figures for FY 2009/10 will be reported in the FY 2011/2012 budget, to be adopted next year.

FY 2003/04

$429,652

FY 2004/05

$611,696

+ $182,044 = 42% increase

FY 2005/06

$856,005

+$244,309 = 40% increase

FY 2006/07

$719,275

- $136,730 = 16% decrease

FY 2007/08

$921,222

+ $201,947 = 28% increase.

Total Parking Citations Issued: 33,910

    Parking on a street posted for street sweeping accounted for 23,483 of the citations issued – 69% followed by missing or expired tags at 4,838 – 14%. Eighty-seven citations were written for not parking within a single space – 1/5th of 1%.

    This infraction was the sixteenth most-frequently cited violation among the 45 possible listed.

FY 2008/09

$1,006,642

+ $85,420 = 9% increase

Total Parking Citations Issued: 37,722

+ 3,812 = 11% increase.

     Parking on a street posted for street sweeping accounted for 24,157 of citations issued – 64% followed by missing or expired tags at 6,759 – 18%.

    Not parking within a single space jumped to 1,189 (+ 1,102) to account for 3% of Parking Enforcement generated revenue, moving this violation from sixteenth to fourth place behind Disabled Parking violations at 1,502 – 4%.

FY 2009/10

$1,150,000 (Estimated)

+ $143,358 = 14% increase

Total Parking Citations Issued: 41,100

+ 3,378 = 9% increase.

    Parking on a street posted for street sweeping was again the most frequent written citation at 25,537 – 62%, followed by missing or expired tags at 4,415 – 11%.

    Not parking within a single space jumped to 1,769 (+ 580) to represent 4.3% of revenue, but fell to the fifth most cited infraction by one citation behind Disabled Parking violations at 1,770.

FY 2010/11 (Current Fiscal Year)

$1,156,350 (Adopted Budget/Anticipated)

+ $6,350 = Less than 1% increase

editor@tavpo.com

Part II

Published in the August 2010
Political Observer print edition.

SPECIAL: This courthouse employee answered “no comment” when asked if she was aware of regulations prohibiting the occupying of two spaces when parked.

Private Lot Inaccessible
to Parking Enforcement
Provides Safe Harbor

---- 

The Face of
Haughty Government

&
The Consent of
The Governed
---

    Receiving a citation for parking with one’s tires touching the parking space divider line - in a space two feet too narrow by the City’s own municipal code - is especially repugnant when it occurs while conducting business with the branch of government responsible for the blind administration of Justice.

   Now The Political Observer has stumbled upon a situation that may be the equivalent of government rubbing salt in the wounds of The People.

    In our July issue, The Political Observer featured Part I of our investigation into allegations that Lancaster Parking Enforcement habitually cites motorists for not parking cleanly within a parking space. Acting on a tip from a person who read July’s article, we continued our investigation into Lancaster Parking Enforcement’s alleged modus operandi with a trip to COSTCO on Avenue L.

   Our reader informed us that her sister recently received a citation for parking on the line at COSTCO, and she wondered if, perchance, the spaces there were too narrow also, as they are at Antonovich Courthouse.

   The Political Observer can report that standard parking spaces at COSTCO measure eight feet wide – one foot less than the nine feet required by Lancaster Municipal Code.

   After documenting conclusive data at COSTCO, The Political Observer ventured back to the Antonovich Courthouse for a quick look-around and follow-up, never knowing what may be revealed.

   Not wishing to park beside other vehicles within the narrow confines of Antonovich Courthouse parking spaces - inches apart, thus risking damage to the vehicle’s car when the door of the car parked beside opens – a space was chosen along the sparsely-occupied north end of the lot; farthest away from the courthouse steps, and nearest the government-employee parking lot entrance.

    A quick look beyond the wrought iron gate serving as the demarcation line separating mundane parking and government-employee parking quickly revealed a tangible display of the haughty indifference too many in government display toward The People.

   The Political Observer discovered and documented examples of courthouse employees ignoring parking regulations and codes, and by virtue of the privilege entitling them to park in a secured lot - inaccessible to Lancaster Parking Enforcement - immunity from citation.

editor@tavpo.com

   EDITOR’S NOTE: The Political Observer went to City Hall seeking comment from City Manager Mark Bozigian and was informed he was not available. We left a message with staff asking two questions of the city manager: 1. Why are the width of parking spaces at Antonovich Courthouse and COSTCO not as wide as required by code?; and, 2. This being the case, why is Parking Enforcement issuing citations for cars parked with tires on the parking space divider line? We did not receive a response by press time. 

                         ---------------
ALL THOSE ENTERING THESE GATES 
SHALL RECEIVE SANCTUARY FROM
THE LAW


Entrance to the employee parking lot at Antonovich Courthouse.

THOSE THAT HAVE EYES…: - The sign at the entrance to employee parking lot reads: “FOR YOUR SAFETY AND TO PREVENT VEHICLE DAMAGE, PLEASE SCAN YOUR ACCESS CARD BEFORE PASSING THROUGH THE GATE."