Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Carvalho and Hon. City Council Members <br />November 18, 2014 <br />Page 2 <br />Steptoe <br />9TLPi0E d JONNION LV <br />reason, other cities — including Buena Park, Pomona and Fullerton —have rejected similar <br />proposals by AV. <br />Third, the Agreement reveals that AV will control all billboards on City property for 30 <br />years. This lengthy encumbrance of City property is unnecessary and a bad deal for City <br />taxpayers. Indeed, the length of the Agreement's term itself violates Section 1301 of the Santa <br />Ana Charter, which states that franchises granted by the City "shall not exceed twenty -five (25) <br />years," Accordingly, there is no good reason to have such a long term in the contemplated Site <br />Agreements. <br />Fourth, the Agreement impermissibly delegates the City's authority to AV by failing to <br />provide adequate safeguards to prevent abuse of third - parties' free speech rights. Specifically, <br />the Agreement contemplates that AV "will be responsible for the construction, operation and <br />maintenance of the City Property Sign, including the sign operation activities of sales agents <br />engaged by All Vision." See Ag'mt at § 5.2(e). This delegation of authority flies in the face of <br />the RFP, which specifically states that the successful proposer "may not be directly affiliated <br />with any company whose primary business is the construction or operation of outdoor <br />advertising products." Signing the Agreement would allow AV —a Caltrans- licensed sign <br />operator —to stifle competition by designing a Strategic Plan that heavily regulates or prohibits <br />altogether competing billboards on private property. The City has no safeguards in place —much <br />less adequate ones —to prevent this potential misconduct. Kugler v. Yocum, 69 Cal. 2d 371, 381 <br />(1968) (explaining that any delegation of authority must be accompanied by "safeguards <br />adequate to prevent its abuse. "). <br />Fifth, the Agreement invites future litigation regarding the constitutionality of the City's <br />regulation of billboards and its potential monopoly over any off -site billboard advertising. <br />According to the Agreement, if the City adopts AV's proposed Strategic Plan, then all new <br />billboards on City property will be constructed by AV and belong to the City. Unless the City <br />changes current law to similarly and liberally allow off -site billboards on private property, the <br />City will have established itself and AV as monopolists over, and censors of, an entire medium <br />of commercial advertising. Simply put, the City cannot decide that off -site commercial signs are <br />permissible on City property and then forbid anyone else from speaking unless they pay the City. <br />If free speech in the form of advertising on billboards is allowed, then all persons (not just the <br />City) must have an opportunity to participate in the dialogue. <br />Finally, the City should not be fooled into believing that AV merely is a consultant that <br />wishes to assist the City with creating a well thought -out, balanced outdoor advertising strategic <br />plan. To the contrary, as noted above, AV is a Caltrans - licensed sign operator that is offering its <br />"consulting" services gratis so that it can generate massive revenues in the construction and <br />operation of City -owned signs. Said another way, AV's economic interest presents a clear <br />conflict of interest with respect to its consulting services. The City should unbundle these <br />services so that the outdoor advertising strategic plan is balanced and not infected by a private <br />corporation's economic motive. <br />25A -37 <br />