I agree with
-ossiblue (pics show blocking theoretical crosswalk and that pic claimed staged)
-Tobra (only one primary residence allowed, searchable by tax records, can 'o worms might apply).

Tread carefully. Not trying to argue and wish you the best. Looks like a BS ticket.

About 10 years in Brisbane, a parking meter was cut off at the base and stolen.
The Council wrote it off as a single meter being stolen for $50 in coins and thought no more of it.

It had been stolen by a group of engineering students, who reverse engineered the universal meter key and then spent the next 10 years at night quietly harvesting the meters throughout the city.

Usual story, they eventually got greedy and began taking enough for EVEN our somnambulant Council to realise something was going on..............

I agree...might be cheaper to pay & let sleeping dogs lie...

There are no dogs lying, just people on the internet who don't know what they're talking about. It will not be cheaper to pay, it will be cheaper to not pay. But thanks anyways.

Your most recent photos are certainly helpful in putting the ticket into context. Still, you are dealing with a bureaucrat so you'll never know how they will, literally, see things.

The wide shot clearly shows there is a red curb painted on the street side of the ramp. There is no red paint on the building side, where you parked, as that is not a street. However, the red curb establishes the enforcement of CVC 22522 for which you were cited. It doesn't matter that the side of the apron on which you parked is not a street nor painted, the code states you cannot park within 3' of a ramp "if the adjoining area has been designated with...red paint."

Clearly, whether or not the code means the red must be painted on the side on which you parked to be enforceable is open to interpretation. How will a parking violation employee interpret the code vs the violator? That's you gamble. Personally, I think the wide shot which shows the red curb should not be submitted or, at least, cropped so the curb does not show.

Still, you've got nothing to lose by challenging the violation. Depending on the mood of the clerk who reviews your challenge, you may win or you may lose. Just don't give them too much evidence.

If they nail you on the running out of state plates in order to avoid California license fees...well, whatever you say. (edit) And..good luck to you.

If there is anyone on this board who pays more CA. vehicle fees than me, I truly feel sorry for them. The issue is not where my various residences are or where my vehicles reside. I've gone through the issue exhaustively w the authorities a long time ago. I know the laws backwards and forwards.

The issue is internet privacy and the creepiness of some troll sniffing feet all day between stalking other men on the internet. Many years ago, when I first started posting here, I was young and naive about these things. I'd post personal photos, pictures of my vehicles, (including license plates), all kinds of things. I've learned hard lessons w the trolls here. I'll just leave it at that.

Be very careful what you post online.

Too many trolls/nannies/hall monitors commenting on this thread. :rolleyes:

Great comments from ossiblue.

Denis, I've taken to using my phone to photograph my car, whenever I park it on city streets. Just to have a record in case I have an overzealous parking enforcement person working in my area. It's a small PITA to do that, but it better to fight city hall with. Definitely fight your ticket and hopefully you'll be able to keep your money.

I think I'd get some street marking paint and paint a labelled three foot line there.Not only are you three feet from the edge, but you are more than three feet from the traction mat laid into the concrete.

Dangerous tactic, IMO. It's like volunteering much more information to the police than they ask for, giving them more material to, possibly, use against you.

There are no specific distances that I could find regarding how far from the front of the apron a vehicle must be. Without specifics, it could be argued it is up to the discretion of the officer. The 3' buffer is specific to the adjoining curb/sides of the apron. His car, it could be argued, was absolutely within 3' of the side of the apron--in fact, it was inside the perimeter of the apron. Doing as you propose would supply the traffic department with photographic proof that his car was parked in front of the apron, parked very close to the front of the ramp, and certainly within the 3' buffer that applies to the sides of the apron.

No need to give them more information than necessary to make your case.