HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 25F562- 470 -6686 1 02:52:26 p.m. 11 -14 -2014 212
2o%U Nav lLk
PM T. 40
CALIFORNIA STATE O F SAt�T� �mg
ADVERTISING ASSOCI I 0)= (;owr'lm
14,2014
David Cavazos
City Manager
y of Santa Ana
Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor
Ana, CA 92702
Mr. Cavazos,
1215 B Street, Suite 1500
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 446 -7843
Fax(916)442 -5961
www.CSOAA.com
Via Fax
Fax(714)647 -6954
The California State Outdoor Advertising Association ( CSOAA) is a California association of
lboard companies. We represent approximately ninety percent of all billboards in California. I
derstand that there will be an item on the November 18, 2014 City Council meeting regarding
lvision. I respectively ask that you seek to table this issue until our State Association can meet and
-cuss this issue with you. I would like to discuss how and why other cities have not approved this type
an agreement with Allvision, over staff recommendations, and why the city would be forfeiting
Mons in proceeds if they did approve the agreement.
I would also like to bring a couple of my members to discuss what happened in these other cities,
;luding Santa Clarita wherein Allvision's proposal has resulted in an approximate 2 million dollar loss
the City. To be clear, I believe the City of Santa Ana should hire an outdoor advertising consultant if
it is their pleasure, and there are several good ones that are used by various cities, but it would be wise
table this issue so that we can discuss the issues surrounding Allvision.
Therefore, my request is simple. Please table this item until you and some of my members can
;et so that we can relay some facts and documents to your Staff so that they can conduct some
iportant additional research prior to making this important decision? I think this is a reasonable
proach so that no one is later embarrassed or caught off guard. If after your research, you choose to
nfinue with recommending Allvision that would be your choice, as it would be for others to oppose it.
3wever, I will always be grateful for the opportunity that you have provided to the CSOAA prior to
ovine forward on this issue.
A. Kudler
President
Mr. Dennis Loper
CSOAA Executive Director
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
CCM 11/18/2014
25F
Mitre - Ramirez, Norma
From:
Huizar, Maria
Sent:
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 9:48 AM
c7 c?
To:
Cavazos, David; Haluza, Karen; Carvalho, Sonia R.
r—
Cc:
Mitre Ramirez, Norma; Trujillo, Rose Ann; Orozco, Norma
�:oo
o
Subject:
FW: OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PROPOSAL
o Tl
Attachments:
Santa Ana Ltr - T boydston[4].pdf
�D
ca
Entered into the record.
From: Cathie Piacentini [mailto:cathiep(@csgmail.netl
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 9:44 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vince; Martinez, Michele; Amezcua, Angelica; Benavides, David; Reyna, Roman; Tinajero,
Sal; Cavazos, David; Huizar, Maria
Subject: OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PROPOSAL
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER FROM TimBen Boydston, Councilman, Santa Clarita.
Cathie Fiacentini
Capitol Strategies Group
1215 K Street, Suite 1500
Sacramento, Ca 95814
(916) 446 -7843
Fax: (916) 442 -5961
This email has been scanned by the Boundary Defense for Email Security System. For more information please visit
http://www.apptix.com/email-security/antispam-virus
CM 11/18/2014
1 25F
November 15, 2014
Mayor Miguel Pulido and Councilmembers
Santa Ana City Council
20 Civic Center Plaza
�? o
P.O. Box 1988, M31
m�
Santa Ana, CA 92701
� o
Sent via email: citycouncil @santa - ana.org
"i
1� co
Dear Honorable Mayor Pulido & Councilmembers, z
I understand that you are considering creating a revenue stream for your city using o4gor
advertising. As a Santa Clarita City Councilmember who has recently gone through a cor�enti&
ordinance adoption, referendum process and ballot measure that was ultimately defeated"by our
residents, I wish to share my experience with you about one of your potential consultants,
Allvision.
The proposal before our Council was brought by the Metropolitan Transportation Agency, which
uses Allvision to handle its outdoor advertising. MTA/Allvision would take down a significant
number of billboards along the railroad right -of -way in exchange for building three digital
billboards along the I -5 and CA -14 freeways and a 50 -year exclusivity on the operation of those
boards. Highlighted in their presentation was the possibility that the city could make millions of
dollars from ad revenue, which would have been split between Metro, Allvision and the City,
with the City responsible for the lion's share of expenses.
The Allvision company hired lobbyists who harassed me and my supporters, in an aggressive
and unnecessary manner. They also falsified documents given to the State saying that a billboard
site was zoned as commercial when in reality it was actually open space.
After a majority of the Council approved the proposal, a referendum process began, which
successfully gathered 18,000 signatures, forcing the council to either retract the ordinance or put
it to a vote of the people. That election took place Nov. 4 and Measure S, as it was named, was
defeated by a majority vote of 56 percent to 44 percent of the voters.
While this may sound like a perfect example of democracy at work, the process was fraught with
conflict, deception and violence, all of which was traced back to Allvision through their
expenditures, acting as an agent of Metro.
The Council was informed by Allvision that MTA could rebuild billboards on its property, even
though this is against California law (5405.6 Business and Professional Code, enacted Oct.
2001). When this was brought to their attention, Allvision insisted that the signs could be rebuilt.
It wasn't until the California State Outdoor Advertising Association provided a letter from
Senator Richard Polanco, (who wrote SB 919 that resulted in the law), as well as an analysis
from the Legislative Council informing the City that Allvision finally agreed their assertion was
wrong.
Repeated attempts by the public to examine and have input on the proposal were rejected out of
hand. "Public" input was only solicited at private, membership -based meetings, such as the
Chamber of Commerce. No public town hall forums were ever held. Representatives of the
billboard companies asked to have the process slowed down so that they could bring in
competing offers for our City, but the offers were ignored.
When the referendum process started, Allvision sent "blockers" to try and stop signature
gatherers from talking to people. Blockers followed and harassed both petitioners and signers
with loud verbal confrontations or placed themselves between the petitioner and signers. Some
physical altercations occurred, resulting in arrests and more than one petitioner sought medical
attention for injuries.
In the 30 -day petition period, Allvision spent $120,000 to pay the blockers to take away the
Constitutional right of voters to petition their government. I was outraged that a company that we
might be doing business with would act in such a manner.
The Inspector General of Metro investigated the claims of abuse by the blockers and on April 24,
the blockers were told to stop interfering with the signature - gathering process. They ignored the
order, and the abuse continued into May, when the petitions were turned in. The City incurred
additional sheriff's expenses of time responding to these incidents and for additional patrols to
ward off potential confrontations.
When the issue was placed on the ballot, Allvision completely financed the "Yes on S"
campaign, for an amount of $164,000, producing mailers and ads that were placed on radio,
newspapers, and various websites in Santa Clarita. The mailers were misleading and sometimes
patently false.
On November 4, the people spoke and the Allvision deal was killed. This issue turned neighbor
against neighbor and destroyed the trust many people had in their government. I hope that Santa
Ana does not invite this predatory group into their community, and that you benefit from our
experience. I encourage you look carefully at all possible partners, and if you choose to move
forward with an outdoor advertising contract, let competition work to give your citizens the best
deal which they have had input on.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
In the Peoples Service,
TimBen Boydston
Councilman (not writing on behalf of the Council as a whole)
timbenboydston@yahoo.com
Mitre - Ramirez, Norma
From:
Sent:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Categories:
Huizar, Maria
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:19 AM
Cavazos, David; Haluza, Karen; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Lawrence, Mark; Flores, Alma; Garcia,
Jorge (CMO); Foulkes, Matt c-
CSOAA letter to the City Council re Agenda Item 25F r--I °—G
CSOAA Letter to the Santa Ana Mayor and Council re Allvision - 3?1'r18 -11tpdf
�CD
Correspondence
Correspondence received and entered into the record.
o —
-ID CO
�F
y. v
_ ... - -___... _- - -_ _._._ _.__ __ _ .....
_._._
From: Mark K [ mailto : mark. k(albulletindisplays.coml
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 10:53 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vince; Martinez, Michele; Amezcua, Angelica; Benavides, David; Reyna, Roman; Tinajero,
Sal
Cc: Cavazos, David; Huizar, Maria
Subject: CSOAA letter to the City Council re Agenda Item 25F on the City Council Agenda for Nov 18 2014
Honorable Mayor Miguel Pulido and City Council,
I have attached a letter for your consideration.
Thank You,
Mark A. Kudler
President
r
"CRiArrtz1 unwR ADimnsivow
3127 E. South Street, Ste. B
Long Beach, CA 90805
(310) BULLETIN [285 -53841
(562) 470 -6680 * Fax (562) 470 -6686
www.BulletinDisolays.com
Mark.K( BulletinDisulays.com
Notice: Please take notice that the information contained in this email is intended only for the persons or entities named above. This message may
contain confidential and legally privileged communications. If you are not the intended recipient, please be notified that you have this document in
error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original email. Thank you.
CM 11/18/2014
25F
CSOAA
CALIFORNIA STATE OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION
1215 K Street, Suite 1500
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 446 -7843 1 Fax (916) 442 -5961
w .CSOAA.com
Sent Via Email
November 18, 2014
Mayor Miguel Pulido and City Council
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92702
RE: Item 25F on City Council Agenda for November 18, 2014
Dear Honorable Mayor Pulido and City Council,
2014 NOV 18 4N 11: 27
CITY OF SANTA
CLERK OF CQUP'Cji�
The California State Outdoor Advertising Association ( CSOAA) is a California association of
billboard companies. We represent approximately ninety percent of all billboards in California.
Item 25F on the November 18, 2014 City Council meeting is in reference to a potential contract
between the City of Santa Ana and a private company named Allvision. We respectively request
that you:
1. Pull the item from the Consent Calendar
2. Table this issue until our State Association can meet and discuss this issue with you
and the rest of the City Council.
We would like to discuss how the city would be forfeiting millions in proceeds if they approve the
agreement and why cities after cities have not approved this type of an agreement with Allvision,
despite staff recommendations. We would also like to bring to your attention what happened in
Santa Clarita wherein Allvision's proposal has resulted in an approximate $2 million cost to the City.
To be clear, we are not opposed to the City of Santa Ana hiring an outdoor advertising consultant if
that is your pleasure, and there are several exceptional ones that are used by various cities.
However, we ask that you table this item so that we can discuss the concerns about this contract
and Allvision's proposed roles.
Therefore, our request is simple. Please continue this item from further council action until CSOAA
members can have an opportunity to meet with you, councilmembers and city staff to share with
you the policy and legal concerns that are involved in this proposed agenda item. On behalf of our
association members, we thank you in advance for your consideration to table Item 25F until we
have a chance to meet with you.
Sincerelv,
Mark A. Kudler
CSOAA President
CC. City Manager David Cavazos
City Clerk Maria D. Huizar
CSOAA Executive Director, Mr. Dennis Loper
CSOAA Members
Mitre - Ramirez, Norma
From:
Huizar, Maria
Sent:
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:11 PM
To:
Mitre - Ramirez, Norma
Cc:
Trujillo, Rose Ann; Orozco, Norma
Subject:
FW: City Council Agenda Item No. 25F -
Advertising Management Services
Attachments:
Santa Ana - City Clerk Protest Letter.pdf
Norma, please enter into the record. Thank you.
Agreement with All Vision, LLC for Outdoor
From: Steve Shinn [ mailto:sshinn(cbTRAdvisors.coml
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:08 PM
To: Huizar, Maria
Cc: !City Council; Haluza, Karen; Pezeshkpour, Ali; Hodge, Ryan
Subject: City Council Agenda Item No. 25F - Agreement with All Vision, LLC for Outdoor Advertising Management
Services
Ms. Huizar,
Attached is our letter regarding the above subject item to be considered at tonight's city council meeting. I trust this will
be distributed to the council members prior to the meeting and will be part of the public record. I'm not able to attend
the meeting in person, but would be available to meet with city representatives in the near future.
Regards,
Steve
Steve Shinn ( Managing Director
TRA 1 503 Redwood Avenue, Corte Madera, CA 94925
Main: +1415 309 0503 1 Fax: +1617 482 0210
www.TRAdvisors.com
CM 11/18/2014
25F
rya
November 18, 2014
Maria Huizar
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana ( "City ")
20 Civic Center Plaza, 8" Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Re: City Council Agenda Item No. 25F
Agreement with All Vision, LLC for Outdoor Advertising Management Services
Dear Ms. Huizar,
The purpose of this letter is to express our concerns with the staff recommendation and the proposed
agreement for the above referenced item.
As noted in the staff report, the City received two proposals in response to the Request for Proposal
(RFP) for Outdoor Advertising Management Services issued on May 30, 2014. 1 am the Managing
Director for TR Advisors, LLC, who submitted the other proposal in response to the RFP.
We have a number of issues with the proposed agreement:
The proposed agreement provides that All Vision may develop, construct and maintain signs on
City property. This right to be granted to All Vision directly contradicts the RFP. The RFP states
in the Introduction that the successful proposer "may not be directly affiliated with any
company whose primary business Is the construction or operation of outdoor advertising
products." The proposed agreement, with an expanded scope now allowing this dual role of
independent consultant and interested developer, cannot be the product of this solicitation.
The RFP, as issued, seeks an independent consultant to advise the City and work solely on its
behalf in the policies, plans and management for its outdoor advertising program. TRA
proposed to fill only that advisory role and was deemed qualified. We stand ready and able to
negotiate a contract based on our response to this RFP. If the City, despite the potential
conflicts, now wants both an advisor and developer, a new RFP must be issued to open the
development piece to the competitive process. To now allow the proposer to develop sites not
only flies in the face of the independent advisory role but also introduces an opportunity
specifically excluded from the RFP and never opened to full competition.
The dual role presents a potential conflict of interest which the RFP, as issued, sought to avoid.
The City is allowing All Vision to provide consulting services which gives it a significant role in
setting policy for an Outdoor Advertising Strategic Plan, while at the same time granting All
Vision the right to develop sites per its own recommendations.
o This would violate section 10365.5 of the California Public Contract Code which states:
"No contractor who has been awarded a consulting services agreement may submit a
bid for, nor be awarded a contract for the provision of services, procurement of goods
or supplies or any other related action which is required, suggested or otherwise
deemed appropriate in the end product of the original consulting services contract"
Although this code is applicable to State agencies, the wisdom of this good government
policy should be followed.
TRA
The type of conflict -of- interest code required for all public agencies under the California
Political Reform Act appears to require that All Vision, because it will participate in
making governmental decisions, must submit a disclosure Form 700 Statement of
Economic Interests that may give rise to any conflict of interest in performing the full
scope of this proposed contract. To our knowledge, no such disclosure has been made.
For the above stated reasons, the City should: (a) reject the proposed agreement with All Vision as
contrary to the RFP and negotiate a contract with TRA consistent with its response; (b) reject the
proposed contract with All Vision on the basis that it presents a potential conflict of interest; or (c) issue
a new RFP to reflect the desired dual role and to open both opportunities to the competitive process.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincergly,
e Shinn
Managing Director
CC: City Council Members
Ryan 0. Hodge, Assistant City Attorney
Karen Haluza, Interim Executive Director Planning and Building Manager
Ali Pezeshkpour, Assistant Planner I
www.tradvisors.com
Mitre - Ramirez, Norma
From:
Huizar, Maria
Sent:
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 8:35 PM
To:
Mitre - Ramirez, Norma
Cc:
Trujillo, Rose Ann; Orozco, Norma
Subject:
FW: Santa Ana City Council Agenda Item No. 25F -- Proposed Agreement with All
Vision, LLC
Attachments:
CanonDEE2BB_Exchange_11 -18 -2014 16- 58- 51.pdf
Please enter into the record.
From: Ruga, Dylan [mailto:druga(aOsteptoe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 5:21 PM
To: Carvalho, Sonia R.; Hodge, Ryan; sarvalho@bbklaw.com; Huizar, Maria
Cc: 'Mark Kudler' (mark.kCcbbulletindisplays.com) (mark.kflbulletindisplays.com)
Subject: Santa Ana City Council Agenda Item No. 25F -- Proposed Agreement with All Vision, LLC
Dear Ms. Carvalho, Ms. Huizar, and Mr. Hodge,
Please see the attached letter on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association with respect to City
Council Agenda Item No. 25F.
Thank you.
Dylan Ruga
Dylan Ruga
Partner
druga(a),steotoe.com
Steptoe
+1 310 734 3228 direct
+1 310 734 3229 fax
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.steptoe.com
This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and /or privileged. If
you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please
notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.
CCM: 11/18/2014
25F
Dylan Ruge
310 734 3228
druga@steptoe.com
2121 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310 734 3200 main
u ,steptoexom
November 18, 2014
Via HAND DELIVERY
SteMoe
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
Sonia R. Carvalho The Honorable City Council Members
City Attorney 20 Civic Center Plaza
20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701
Santa Ana, California 92701
Re: City Council Agenda for November 18, 2014
Consent Agenda Item No. 25F
Dear Ms. Carvalho and Hon. City Council Members,
We write on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association to urge City
Council to reject the proposed Outdoor Advertising Service Agreement (the "Agreement ") with
All Vision, LLC ( "AV "), which is on the City Council's Consent Agenda for November 18,
2014 as Item No. 25F.
Simply put, the Agreement is a bad deal for the City and will expose it to significant
litigation risk, given the myriad procedural and substantive shortcomings in the procurement
process and the Agreement itself. First, the Agreement was the result of an unusually —and
unnecessarily —short RFP process. The RFP was issued on May 30, 2014 and the submittal
deadline was on June 12, 2014, a mere 9 business days later. As you know, Section 2 -806 of the
Santa Ana Municipal Code requires RFPs to be issued "a reasonable time prior to the date set
forth therein for the opening of bids ...." The extremely short timeframe here was not
reasonable, particularly given the lack of an emergency or other exigency requiring a shortened
bidding process.
Second, the Agreement allows AV to deduct all "Direct Expenses" and "Costs of
Construction and Maintenance" before the City sees a dime from revenue generated by
billboards on City property. The definitions of these terms are purposefully vague and provide
AV with every incentive to run up the costs of the projects rather than minimize them. For this
Ms. Carvalho and Hon, City Council Members
November 18, 2014
Page 2
Steptoe
sT—wo A J0 HN BON LLP
reason, other cities — including Buena Park, Pomona and Fullerton —have rejected similar
proposals by AV,
Third, the Agreement reveals that AV will control all billboards on City property for 30
years. This lengthy encumbrance of City property is unnecessary and a bad deal for City
taxpayers. Indeed, the length of the Agreement's term itself violates Section 1301 of the Santa
Ana Charter, which states that franchises granted by the City "shall not exceed twenty -five (25)
years." Accordingly, there is no good reason to have such a long term in the contemplated Site
Agreements.
Fourth, the Agreement impermissibly delegates the City's authority to AV by failing to
provide adequate safeguards to prevent abuse of third- parties' free speech rights. Specifically,
the Agreement contemplates that AV "will be responsible for the construction, operation and
maintenance of the City Property Sign, including the sign operation activities of sales agents
engaged by All Vision." See Ag'mt at § 5.2(e). This delegation of authority flies in the face of
the RFP, which specifically states that the successful proposer "may not be directly affiliated
with any company whose primary business is the construction or operation of outdoor
advertising products." Signing the Agreement would allow AV —a Caltrans- licensed sign
operator —to stifle competition by designing a Strategic Plan that heavily regulates or prohibits
altogether competing billboards on private property. The City has no safeguards in place —much
less adequate ones —to prevent this potential misconduct. Kugler v. Yocum, 69 Cal. 2d 371, 381
(1968) (explaining that any delegation of authority must be accompanied by "safeguards
adequate to prevent its abuse. "),
Fifth, the Agreement invites future litigation regarding the constitutionality of the City's
regulation of billboards and its potential monopoly over any off -site billboard advertising.
According to the Agreement, if the City adopts AV's proposed Strategic Plan, then all new
billboards on City property will be constructed by AV and belong to the City. Unless the City
changes current law to similarly and liberally allow off -site billboards on private property, the
City will have established itself and AV as monopolists over, and censors of, an entire medium
of commercial advertising. Simply put, the City cannot decide that off -site commercial signs are
permissible on City property and then forbid anyone else from speaking unless they pay the City,
If free speech in the form of advertising on billboards is allowed, then all persons (not just the
City) must have an opportunity to participate in the dialogue.
Finally, the City should not be fooled into believing that AV merely is a consultant that
wishes to assist the City with creating a well thought -out, balanced outdoor advertising strategic
plan. To the contrary, as noted above, AV is a Caltrans- licensed sign operator that is offering its
"consulting" services gratis so that it can generate massive revenues in the construction and
operation of City -owned signs. Said another way, AV's economic interest presents a clear
conflict of interest with respect to its consulting services. The City should unbundle these
services so that the outdoor advertising strategic plan is balanced and not infected by a private
corporation's economic motive,
Ms. Carvalho and Hon. City Council Members
November 18, 2014
Page 3
Steptoe
s
*erroe a �OH.50H ur
For each of these reasons, we urge City Council to reject the Agreement altogether. At a
minimum, City Council should remove the Agreement from the Consent List and put the matter
over to another time when the issues addressed in this letter can be debated and analyzed. It
almost goes without saying that City Council cannot responsibly bind its citizens to an agreement
governing free expression for the next third of a century without an open hearing and vigorous
debate, Should City Council choose to ignore this letter and approve the Agreement without
revision, the California State Outdoor Advertising Association reserves all of its rights, remedies
and claims with respect to a legal challenge of the Agreement and the associated procurement
process,
Dylan Ruga