Ticketed for "Overnight Parking" but Only Posted Sign is for "Street Cleaning."

[dlara61]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: CA

Ticketed for "no overnight parking". No signs indicating a driver needs a permit to park on street or you are in violation or will be ticketed. The only sign on street is a "street cleaning" sign. Was not parked on street during street cleaning hours.

[California student]

What city was this in? In the city I currently live in the signs for no overnight parking is posted at the city limits, not on the individual streets.

[dlara61]

Covina, CA.

[California student]

http://www.covinaca.gov/images/webus...Qs_2_21_12.pdf

Street view image of the sign (the small one that really can't be read under the speed limit sign):
http://g.co/maps/2msbg

I'm not sure what the statute requirements are for the signs, but I'm going to assume that those signs meet spec, so you need to prove that a sign is missing on a major entrance (preferably one that you took) or something else to prove that no adequate notice has been given to have a hope in beating it. Maybe someone else is more information.

Personally, I think that sign is cheap given the small size and font on the sign, but the court isn't going to care about what I think. At least in my city, the sign is the same, but top half is "No overnight parking" in big block letters.

[That Guy]

More often than not, these parking restrictions are set up by local authorities in their respective jurisdictions pursuant to in areas commonly referred to as "Residential Disctricts" and are established pursuant to several California Vehicle Code sections 22506 AND 22507 and in this case, specifically under 22507.5 allowing them to issue local ordinances regulating parking during any period of time that authority might choose.

Covina's regulation (along with most municipalities in the San Gabriel Valley) can be found under Covina Municipal Code #s 10.32.180 and 10.32.185...

If you parked your vehicle within the borders of the city of Covina, the presumption can be made that you were visiting someone there... And the qustion that begs itself then is: "Why did they not tell you anything about an overnight parking restriction? Alternatively, if you werenoy visiting anyone, why would you park somewhere without knowing the local rules and regulations?

Personally, I think that sign is cheap given the small size and font on the sign, but the court isn't going to care about what I think. At least in my city, the sign is the same, but top half is "No overnight parking" in big block letters.

CS, when you set such HIGH STANDARDS, you are setting yourself up for a HIGH LEVEL OF DISAPPOINTMENT...

The notice requirement which must be met is described under Government Code section 65090:

65090.

(a) When a provision of this title requires notice of a public hearing to be given pursuant to this section, notice shall be published pursuant to Section 6061 in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdiction of the local agency which is conducting the proceeding at least 10 days prior to the hearing, or if there is no such newspaper of general circulation, the notice shall be posted at least 10 days prior to the hearing in at least three public places within the jurisdiction of the local agency.
(b) The notice shall include the information specified in Section 65094.
(c) In addition to the notice required by this section, a local agency may give notice of the hearing in any other manner it deems necessary or desirable.
(d) Whenever a local agency considers the adoption or amendment of policies or ordinances affecting drive-through facilities, the local agency shall incorporate, where necessary, notice procedures to the blind, aged, and disabled communities in order to facilitate their participation. The Legislature finds that access restrictions to commercial establishments affecting the blind, aged, or disabled is a critical statewide problem; therefore, this subdivision shall be
applicable to charter cities.

[quirkyquark]

Ooh, a decent parking cite (i.e. NOT "parked in a handicapped space") ... I like these because there is fairly limited case law in the area, and I have looked at a lot of it while helping other folks out in the past.

...so you need to prove that a sign is missing on a major entrance (preferably one that you took) or something else to prove that no adequate notice has been given to have a hope in beating it.

That Covina interpretation is bull***. The notice (=signing) requirement is in VC 22507(a)--the umbrella "Local Parking Regulations" section--as "With the exception of alleys, the ordinance or resolution shall not apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice thereof have been placed." (GC 65090 applies only to the ordinance(s) designating "residential districts", not the ones establishing parking regulations. You could research that angle via a public records request, but case law here will show that the signing WAS totally inadequate and the ticket is not justified.

This case involved a Santa Barbara ordinance prohibiting overnight parking ONLY for larger vehicles (RVs, etc.), under VC 22507.5:

Homes contends the trial court erred by finding that the signs the City posted provided adequate notice to motorists. We agree.

Section 22507, subdivision (a), states that "the ordinance ... shall not apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice thereof have been placed." "[I]t is proper to consider legislative history `where it buttresses our interpretation of the plain meaning of a statute....' [Citations.]" (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal. App.4th 1153, 1167) Homes notes that the Legislative history of this provision shows that legislators were concerned that "motorists unfamiliar with the local regulations could unknowingly violate them" if parking signs were not "posted along a street which is being regulated...." (Assemblyman John Francis Foran, letter to Governor Ronald Reagan, July 9, 1969 on Assem. Bill No. 699 (1969 Reg. Sess.).)

Here the City did not post signs on all the streets to which the ordinance applies. It placed signs at 33 locations which the City Attorney contended were entrances to the City. Homes notes that the Department of Transportation Traffic Manual [now the CA MUTCD -- find the proper section/page], section 4-03.1, Regulatory Signs, states, "Regulatory signs are usually installed at the locations where the regulations apply." (Id., ch. 4, p. 14.) They point out that cities must post parking restriction signs for street sweeping "at each entrance to the street." (§ 22507.6.) "`[E]ntrance' means the intersection of any street or streets comprising an area of restricted parking...." (Ibid.) The purpose of these signs is to provide notice of the different parking restrictions for each street before motorists decide to park there.

But because this ordinance is a uniform citywide parking ban, we do not necessarily agree with Homes' suggestion that the City must post every street corner in town. Yet, they correctly note that the City's evidence was insufficient to show adequate posting. The City presented no testimony and the City Attorney's oral argument was not evidence. Clifford's declaration did not explain the reasons for the selection of each of the 33 sites. Moreover, the City Attorney conceded that not all the entrances to the City were posted. Therefore a motorist, unaware of the restrictions, could enter the City, park on a non-posted street and be cited. That is the classic trap for the unwary that the Legislature wanted to prevent.

The signs do not state that the restrictions apply citywide. A motorist could therefore read the sign and believe it applied only to the street where it had been posted.

On a more pragmatic note, I don't know if the people involve in the first two levels of contesting parking tickets ("administrative") will even consider (or read) such an argument. However, if you take it to the final step, i.e. Superior Court, and take a printout of this precedent, you will win....assuming someone shows up for the other side in the first place! (needless to say, the Covina City Attorney isn't going to bother )