BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE       BILL NO: ab 1253
          SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN              AUTHOR:  blumenfield
                                                         VERSION: 2/22/13
          Analysis by:  Mark Stivers                     FISCAL:  no
          Hearing date:  June 11, 2013



          SUBJECT:

          Mobile billboards

          DESCRIPTION:

          This bill clarifies that a city or county may establish civil  
          penalties for violation of a local ordinance or resolution  
          regulating mobile billboards.  

          ANALYSIS:

          Current law prohibits a city or county from enacting or  
          enforcing any ordinance or resolution on matters covered by the  
          California Vehicle Code unless expressly authorized by that  
          code.  Among other things, the Vehicle Code does allow cities  
          and counties to regulate mobile billboard advertising displays.   
          A mobile billboard is an advertising display that is attached to  
          a mobile, non-motorized vehicle, device, or bicycle, that  
          carries, pulls, or transports a sign or billboard and is for the  
          primary purpose of advertising.  In regulating mobile  
          billboards, a city or county may establish penalties including,  
          but not limited to, removal of the mobile billboard advertising  
          display and misdemeanor criminal penalties.  The city or county  
          also may establish a minimum distance that a mobile billboard  
          advertising display shall be moved after a specified time  
          period.

           This bill  clarifies that a city or county may also establish  
          civil penalties for violation of a local ordinance or resolution  
          regulating mobile billboards.  
          
          COMMENTS:

           1.Purpose of the bill  .  According to the author, mobile  
            billboards can endanger drivers and pedestrians.  A wide truck  
            may obstruct the right of way on a narrow street.  An  
            oversized billboard may block the view of oncoming traffic.   




          AB 1253 (BLUMENFIELD)                                  Page 2
          
                                                                       


            In addition, mobile billboards may affect business by  
            occupying precious parking spaces in a commercial corridor.   
            This bill empowers local governments to address the problems  
            of mobile advertising through less drastic means than the  
            misdemeanor criminal penalties currently specified in the  
            Vehicle Code.  

           2.Other cities  .  According to the Assembly policy committee  
            analysis, several cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco,  
            West Hollywood, and Burbank have banned or regulated mobile  
            billboard advertising displays.  

           3.Clarification of existing law  .  Current law already states  
            that cities and counties may establish penalties for violation  
            of local mobile billboard ordinances.  The statute includes a  
            list of possible penalties that does not mention civil  
            penalties, but the list is expressly non-exclusive.  In other  
            words, cities and counties may already impose civil penalties  
            for these violations.  The author argues that the explicit  
            addition of civil penalties is a necessary clarification. 

          Assembly Votes:
               Floor:                            57-15
               L Gov:                              7-1
               
          POSITIONS:  (Communicated to the committee before noon on  
          Wednesday,                                             June 5,  
          2013.)

               SUPPORT:  League of California Cities        

               OPPOSED:  None received.