Board approves billboard relocation agreement, drawing strong neighborhood opposition

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved a site-development review and a billboard relocation agreement with OutFront Media that would remove multiple static billboards in the unincorporated area and allow construction of an 80-foot, two-faced electronic billboard at a commercial site.

Eileen Dalton, director of economic and civic development for the county’s Community Development Agency, summarized the program’s nearly two-decade history and the revenue-sharing structure: the county has so far banked $563,223 in net revenue from prior relocations and staff estimates the proposed billboard could generate roughly $1.6 million in revenue to the county over the term of the lease and about $52,000 a year in net revenue to the Ashland/Cherryland community trust, depending on future ad markets. Dalton described a contract with a consultant (TR Advisors) that was negotiated on a commission basis (the consultant receives a share of revenue until a capped payment is reached).

Damian Curry of the Planning Department described the site-development review findings: the project would remove 10 static signs at multiple properties, the initial study resulted in a mitigated negative declaration, and staff recommended approval with conditions including standard findings about driver safety, sign brightness and preservation of nearby residential character.

Public comment was extensive and split. Neighbors and community members argued the proposed location is adjacent to residential uses and a neighborhood-serving business district and that the sign would constitute visual blight and a public-safety risk. “This thing is going to be so obtrusive and so unsafe for freeway drivers,” a neighborhood resident said. Other speakers representing neighborhood groups and the Eden Area MAC urged denial or relocation to less intrusive sites.

OutFront Media’s representative said the company has a signed lease with the property owner and that construction and maintenance access will be managed by easement or site access arrangements; the applicant said a temporary construction easement was proposed and the lease was signed in 2021. County counsel and staff responded to procedural objections: counsel said notice requirements under the zoning ordinance (10-day notice to properties within 500 feet and site posting) were met and that some complaints filed with outside agencies had not resulted in investigations.

Jason Bezas, attorney for the Alameda County Taxpayers Association, and others raised legal objections, arguing that (1) the county’s relocation ordinance prohibits installing billboards on parcels that contain residential uses, and (2) Caltrans and state law on outdoor advertising and scenic corridors could affect permitting. Staff and counsel responded that the specific plan and commercial zoning designation control in this location and that the existing residential uses are legal nonconforming uses in a commercial zone, not a basis to bar the relocation under the site's applicable code section.

President Meili moved to approve the mitigated negative declaration, the site-development review and the relocation agreement and to delegate execution authority to the Community Development Agency; the motion carried with one abstention recorded. Staff noted the relocation agreement requires the applicant to indemnify and defend the county against legal challenges as a condition of approval.

The board’s action authorizes the county to proceed with the relocation agreement and associated site development review, subject to conditions and permitting (including Caltrans approvals where required). Opponents signaled potential legal challenges and asked the board to reconsider the site selection; supporters said the program removes blighted static signs and provides community revenue and signage for local events.