Albano and the BPD are misinterpreting CVC 395.5 and allowing in those sleazy van ads

 
(Look, it’s not a permanent sign, either…)
 
tn-818-1123-burbank-moves-to-prohibit-roving-a-001
 

Even though the council several years ago banned mobile advertising on Burbank streets, we’re still seeing it on those various “utility vans” in town which try to masquerade as authentic craft and work vehicles.

The reason for this is that Albano and the BPD have imposed an unreasonably limited definition of these prohibited uses. Burbank allows these phony vans with ads because they incorrectly think that our law only applies to those ridiculous trailers and pulled signs that we used to see all over the place.

But it doesn’t. The specific definition of allowable prohibitions includes those which “…carries, pulls, or transports a sign or billboard…”

Note the word “transports.” It’s not just trailers.

The original BMC actually confuses another CVC that regulates parking restrictions on permanent signs with the 2012 state law that permits communities to ban mobile advertising:

C. Permanent Advertising Signs Excepted.
Pursuant to Section 21100(p)(2) and (p)(3) of the California Vehicle Code, this section does not apply to advertising signs that are permanently affixed in a manner that is painted directly upon the body of a motor vehicle, applied as a decal on the body of a motor vehicle, or placed in a location on the body of a motor vehicle that was specifically designed by a vehicle manufacturer for the express purpose of containing an advertising sign, such that they are an integral part of, or fixture of a motor vehicle for permanent decoration, identification, or display and that do not extend beyond the overall length, width, or height of the vehicle.

Whoever wrote this into Burbank law did so deliberately to allow the very kind of mobile advertising that the state said they could now control after 2012. Burbank was being too cautious, which is why other cities don’t have this same problem.

At worst there’s a conflict between the two CVCs, and which should be resolved in favor of the current Burbank code and the newer 2012 VC. The BPD could also check to see if these sleazy van signs are actually “permanently affixed,” which under state law means only painted on or decals. If they’re not (and you know that most of them around here aren’t — they’re cheaply mounted instead), then they clearly violate our local Burbank law against mobile advertising.
 
 
 

Advertisements

11 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

11 responses to “Albano and the BPD are misinterpreting CVC 395.5 and allowing in those sleazy van ads

  1. Burbanker

    Follow the money with these people, is there some permit or fee that gets paid ? They have to pay that city attorney’s salary and perks so follow the money.

    • semichorus

      I doubt it. It’s just lack of concern, and then taking the easy way out on the legal opinion.

      This is the kind of thing they should be fighting in court, not some schluby issue like going after people just to show who’s boss.

      But what can you say– it’s Burbank we’re talking about.

  2. Anonymous

    Looks like the one in the picture had a ticket on it.

  3. Claudio

    Who remembers that the “topless maid” vans found their way into Sun Valley (Los Angeles) to “visit” Gary Brick?

  4. Norm

    Maybe Fruitos and Tellamantez can rent one of these vans and stick a sign on it that says topless councilmember maids 80.00 an hour or your vote.

    • Anonymous 3

      Nihilism is usually reserved for pimply teenaged boys.

      • Anonymous 3.0

        Can we get a naked anonymous 3 on a van ? I’m sure a picture of anon3 would sell lots of used cat litter to people who want to recycle everything.

        • Willie Watcher

          If Anon3 is who I think he is, I do not want to see him naked with his little Willie. I’ll bet he looks just like the Trump statue but much shorter. Hardy har har. Yuk!

  5. Citizen Cane

    Splitting atoms. Mobile billboards do not ruin the quality of life. Building a 30 unit apartment building of condo unit on a lot which once had a small single family home on if, does ruin the quality of life. The city is raising the issue as a deflection technique while more important issues are concerns.

  6. Anonymous

    Any parked vehicle that’s sole purpose is advertising shall not be allowed on public streets.
    There Amy free language to fix your poorly written one.

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s