View Supplemental Report From Gallo, Jenkins, Kaplan - 6/1/2023

1 RECOMMENDATION
To Adopt, As Amended By The May 23, 2023 Community And Economic Development (CED) Committee, A Resolution:
(1) Authorizing The City Administrator To Negotiate And Enter Into Two Relocation Agreements: One With Becker Boards LLC (“Becker”) And One With Outfront Foster Interstate LLC (“OFI”), With Each Agreement Including, Without Limitation, The Following: (A) Allowing Becker And OFI To Remove And Waive Its Respective Rights To Just Compensation To Certain Existing Advertising Sign Faces At Various Locations In The City Of Oakland In Exchange For Becker’s And OFI’s Construction Of Up To Five New Double-Sided Digital Advertising Signs Each On Private Property, (B) Requiring Becker And OFI To Each Make Annual Paymen ts To Designated Nonprofits And The City, And (C) Other Substantive Terms; And
(2) Adopting Appropriate California Environmental Quality Act Findings

SUMMARY
The primary goals of this Resolution are:

1. To allow new market entrants to the otherwise monopolistic Oakland billboard market, and

2. To fund the Billboard Economic Development Community Coalition through partnerships with civic-minded Billboard Companies.

To materialize these goals, the City brought forth a Resolution to enter into Relocation Agreements with Becker/OFI to remove 50 Advertising Sign Faces in exchange for

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
TO: The entire City Council
SUBJECT: Supplemental
Information Report On Becker/OFI
Proposal, And Analysis Of Viability
Of Clear Channel Proposed Sites
FROM: Councilmember Noel Gallo,
Councilmember Kevin Jenkins, and
Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan
DATE: May 31, 2023
2 allowing Becker/OFI to build a total of 10 new double-sided digital signs on private property near freeways, and to allow Becker/OFI to provide community benefits to the various Oakland-based and serving nonprofit organizations that are part of the Coalition. Shortly after the Becker/OFI Resolution was submitted, the City received a separate offer from Clear Channel Outdoor to build/convert 18 digital faces on a mixture of City-owned and private property. Becker/OFI provided comments at the CED Committee meeting on 5/23 where the veracity of the Clear Channel offer was challenged. Becker/OFI assert that the Clear Channel offer is not viable, and was only submitted by Clear Channel as a last-minute effort to subvert the Becker/OFI offer, and that Clear Channel does not have the intention nor the ability to materialize its offer or any community benefits for the City. Clear Channel provided public comment where they claimed that the statements made by Becker/OFI were not completely accurate. The CED Committee approved to forward the Becker/OFI resolution as amended to the June 6, 2023 City Council Agenda on Consent, with direction to provide a supplemental report with information provided from Caltrans to the City as to which of the sites in the Clear Channel offer, which Becker/OFI assert have Caltrans issues, are developable as revenue generators from a Caltrans perspective. This Supplemental Report satisfies that direction. BACKGROUND The Clear Channel nonbinding offer included 18 faces, of which 4 faces were proposed on City Property at $210,000/face/year, and 14 of the faces were proposed on private property at $105,000/face/year. Becker/OFI asserted that 7 of the 18 Clear Channel faces have Caltrans issues that would make difficult or prevent those faces from being built and generating revenue. They also assert that 8 more of the proposed Clear Channel faces have other issues that would make difficult or prevent those faces from being built and generating revenue, for a total of 15/18 faces with various issues. Becker/OFI submitted an evidence packet, as well as a summary of the evidence packet which includes charts and graphs, to the record (attached). This Supplemental Report investigates the Becker/OFI claim that a large portion of the sites in the Clear Channel offer have material issues that would make difficult or prevent those faces from being built and generating revenue for the City or the Coalition, and provides information about the findings of that investigation. 3 ANALYSIS - CALTRANS ISSUES The Office of Councilmember Gallo reached out to George Anzo, Outdoor Advertising Permits Manager of the Caltrans Office of Outdoor Advertising Permits, to clarify the developability of the 7 proposed Clear Channel faces that Becker/OFI assert to have Caltrans issues. Landscaped Freeway Becker/OFI assert that 6 of the Clear Channel faces are adjacent to a Classified Landscaped Freeway, and are currently not developable from a Caltrans perspective. Mr. Anzo from Caltrans confirmed Becker/OFI’s claim1 that the following Clear Channel faces are indeed adjacent to a Classified Landscaped Freeways: 1. I-880 20’ south of 98th Avenue (98th/Empire – Columbia Gardens), APN 45-5322-8-1, Face 1 This location was confirmed by Caltrans to be adjacent to a Classified Landscaped Freeway 2. I-880 20’ south of 98th Avenue (98th/Empire – Columbia Gardens), APN 45-5322-8-1, Face 2 This location was confirmed by Caltrans to be adjacent to a Classified Landscaped Freeway 3. I-980 WS 15ft. north of 27th Street, West Side [APN 9-689-24-1] This location was confirmed by Caltrans to be adjacent to a Classified Landscaped Freeway 4. Bay Bridge (I-80) SS .7 Mi east of Toll Plaza [APN 18-305-2-3], Face 1 This location was confirmed by Caltrans to be adjacent to a Classified Landscaped Freeway 5. Bay Bridge (I-80) SS .7 Mi east of Toll Plaza [APN 18-305-2-3], Face 2 This location was confirmed by Caltrans to be adjacent to a Classified Landscaped Freeway 6. I-880 Frwy ES .25mi north of High Street [APN 33-2169-16-2] This location was confirmed by Caltrans to be adjacent to a Classified Landscaped Freeway Caltrans Regulations do not allow Advertising Displays (or conversions of existing signs to digital) to be placed near Classified Landscaped Freeways. Clear Channel claims to be able to circumvent this requirement by relocating a condemned billboard from another Classified Landscaped Freeway to one of the locations above. Clear Channel has provided no evidence of this. This seems to not be a readily available solution for Clear Channel, and especially not for remedying all 6 of 1 Verified in Email from George Anzo (Caltrans) directly to City - Attached 4 their Landscaped Freeway issues (which would need 6 condemnations). Notwithstanding the unavailability of this remedy for Clear Channel, it is not in the best interests of the City to allow a trade-in program for using condemned signs to build in areas deemed as a Classified Landscape Freeway for the following reasons: 1. Allowing companies to trade in condemned signs for building in Classified Landscaped Areas provides an unfair advantage to large companies, such as Clear Channel, that may have more access to such condemned signs that are otherwise unavailable to new market entrants. Allowing such a practice in Oakland goes against one of the primary goals of this Resolution: to allow new market entrants to the otherwise monopolistic Oakland billboard market. 2. If an area is classified by Caltrans to be Landscaped, then that portion of the freeway is inappropriate for a Digital Billboard Face, as it has landscape planting that is designed to enhance the aesthetics of that segment of the freeway. New Digital Billboard faces are more appropriate in areas that are not classified as Landscaped. Based on confirmation from Caltrans, and other factors above, these 6 Clear Channel sites are not developable as proposed. Residential Zoning Districts Of the 6 faces above, Becker/OFI assert that 3 of the faces are also in Residential Zoning Districts and are further undevelopable from a Caltrans perspective. Mr. Anzo from Caltrans confirmed Becker/OFI’s assertion2 that the following Clear Channel faces are in Residential Zoning Districts: 1. I-880 20’ south of 98th Avenue (98th/Empire – Columbia Gardens) (City Zoning: RD1) [APN 45-5322-8-1] Face 1 This location is in a Residential Zoning District 2. I-880 20’ south of 98th Avenue (98th/Empire – Columbia Gardens) (City Zoning: RD1) [APN 45-5322-8-1] Face 2 This location is in a Residential Zoning District 3. 980 WS 15ft. north of 27th Street, West Side (City Zoning: RU4)[APN 9-689-24-1] This location is in a Residential Zoning District Caltrans Regulations do not allow Advertising Displays (or conversions of existing signs to digital) to be placed on Residential Zoning Districts. Based on confirmation from Caltrans, and other factors above, these 3 Clear Channel sites are not developable as proposed. 2 Verified in Email from George Anzo (Caltrans) directly to City - Attached 5 Spacing From Other Digital Displays Becker/OFI assert that 1 of the proposed Clear Channel faces are within 1000 feet of another proposed digital face, rendering it undevelopable from Caltrans perspective: 1. Location 1) I-880 NS 20ft West of High Street, East Face [APN 33-2203-8-3] Location 2) I-880 NS 590ft East of High Street, East Face [APN 34-2291-6-1] The distance between these 2 existing static signs seems to be less than 1000 feet, and both of the faces that Clear Channel offered to convert to Digital are facing the same direction (East). In the Clear Channel presented offer (two East Face Digitals), Mr. Anzo from did not opine on whether 1000’ rule would apply here or not, but did provide detail that 1 of the signs in question (Location 1) is adjacent to Classified Landscaped Freeway: 1. Location 1) I-880 NS 20ft West of High Street, East Face [APN 33-2203-8-3] This location was confirmed by Caltrans to be adjacent to a Classified Landscaped Freeway Based on Clear Channel’s offer and Mr. Anzo’s response, Location 1 is not developable as proposed. Summary on Caltrans Developability Becker/OFI assert that 7 of the Clear Channel sites offered are not developable due to Caltrans issues. Caltrans confirmed that all 7 of such Clear Channel sites are indeed not permittable3. This means that as Clear Channel has presented their sites, $945,000 of their proposed annual revenue (or 41% of their total offer) is indeed not-viable due to Caltrans issues. The revenue proposed by Clear Channel from 7 of these 7 sites will be discounted, and will be placed into a category labeled as “Not Viable”. ANALYSIS – OTHER ISSUES WITH CLEAR CHANNEL SITES In addition to the 7 sites above with Caltrans issues, Becker/OFI also assert that 8 additional sites in the Clear Channel offer have issues that would make difficult or prevent those faces from being built and generating revenue. Becker/OFI raised no Caltrans Issues with these 8 sites. Mr. Anzo also confirmed that these 8 sites appear to be conforming locations from a purely Caltrans perspective. However, Becker/OFI assert that these sites are not developable due to other (non-Caltrans) issues: 3 Verified in Email from George Anzo (Caltrans) directly to City - Attached 6 Deed Restrictions Becker/OFI assert that 2 of the faces in the Clear Channel offer have a prohibitive Deed Restriction. This deed restriction was confirmed in the deed (attached). The restriction reads: “It is the purpose of this dedication that said real property shall be used solely as a public park, and it is a condition of the dedication that the CITY OF OAKLAND shall develop and maintain said real property as a park and shall not use it or permit it to be used for any purpose inconsistent with or inappropriate to its use as a park." This deed restriction sufficiently demonstrates that a billboard would be inappropriate at this location. In addition, the parcel is currently being used as a community garden park4, and a billboard placed anywhere upon the property would be highly inappropriate and inconsistent with its current use. The 2 faces proposed at this prohibited location are not viable, and therefore $420,000 of their proposed annual revenue (or 18% of the total offer) is indeed not-viable due to deed restriction issues. The revenue proposed by Clear Channel from these sites will be discounted, and will be placed into a category labeled as “Not Viable”. Distance From Freeway Becker/OFI assert that 3 of the faces in the Clear Channel offer are too far from the freeway to be viable locations. This assertion was confirmed for the following sites as proposed by Clear Channel: 1. 98th Ave, North Lane, 2000’ west of I-880 - Face 1 > 1850 feet to closest lane of travel, > 1990 feet to furthest lane of travel 2. 98th Ave, North Lane, 2000’ west of I-880 - Face 2 > 1850 feet to closest lane of travel, > 1990 feet to furthest lane of travel 3. Alameda Ave and High Street > 350 feet to closest lane of travel, > 500 feet to furthest lane of travel As proposed by Clear Chanel, these sites are not adjacent to the freeway, and therefore are not appropriate for billboards. These sites are more than 250 feet from the freeway, which exceed the 250 feet figure that the City has been contemplating as the maximum appropriate distance from the freeway for billboards. In addition, it seems unlikely that Clear Channel would be able to generate freeway-sign revenues from the sites that are nearly 2000 feet from the freeway (98th Ave), and the feasibility of the revenue offered for such sites by Clear Channel is questionable. The Alameda Ave site could possibly 4 See attached photographs of the Community Garden Park 7 be relocated on the parcel to be closer to the freeway. As it is currently proposed, however, it is not viable. Of the 3 proposed Clear Channel faces above, with distance-to-freeway issues, 2 are not viable (98th Ave Faces 1 & 2), and therefore $210,000 of their proposed annual revenue (or 9% of the total offer) is indeed not-viable due to distance-to-freeway issues (~2000feet). The revenue proposed by Clear Channel from these 2 sites will be discounted, and will be placed into a category labeled as “Not Viable”. The Alameda Ave site is not viable as proposed, however, the site could possibly be relocated on the parcel to be closer to the freeway. The revenue proposed by Clear Channel from this site will be neither counted nor discounted, and will be placed into a category labeled as “Possible Remedy”. 16th and Embarcadero Becker/OFI assertion that the face in the Clear Channel offer located at 16th and Embarcadero is not viable due to a multitude of reasons: 1. The sign is not a conversion, and rather a small, single-faced sign facing Embarcadero. This sign would need to be rebuilt as a new sign, made much bigger, and rotated to be oriented toward the freeway. 2. The proposed face is hidden from the freeway due to a series of tall trees between the proposed face and the lanes of travel, obstructing the view of the face, and rendering it unviable from an advertising sales perspective. 3. The proposed face is located on a parcel that is not adjacent to the freeway, and has another parcel between it and the Caltrans right of way, and therefore not in compliance with Oakland Municipal Code section 14.04.270. At this time, the City is unable to either verify or refute the Becker/OFI assertion about the non-viability of this site for the following reasons: 1. The City sees no practical issues preventing the demolition of a smaller sign oriented toward a surface street, and the construction of a larger sign oriented toward the freeway. The City, however, does agree with the Becker/OFI assessment that this sign should not be treated as a “conversion” and should rather be treated as a “new sign” subject to a Relocation Agreement. 2. The City is not an expert in tree line visibility as it relates to billboards. This being said, however, it seems reasonable that the sign can be moved upon the parcel in such a way to better accommodate a more visible line of site to the billboard from the freeway. 3. A more precise definition for “Adjacent” would need be established prior to the City’s determination of this site’s conformance with Oakland Municipal Code section14.04.270. The revenue proposed by Clear Channel from this site will be neither counted, nor discounted, and will rather be placed into a category labeled as “inconclusive”. 8 I-880 and Fruitvale Ave (Fruitvale Station) Becker/OFI assert that the 2 faces in Clear Channel’s proposal located at the Fruitvale Station Shopping Center (Fruitvale Station) have issues related to how those faces are currently permitted by the City. Becker/OFI assert that these faces are only permitted as “on-premise” signs, which means they can only advertise for businesses located “on the premise”, meaning in this case, that the signs can only place ads for businesses located at the Fruitvale Station, and such ads must be paid for by businesses located within the Fruitvale Station. Becker/OFI further assert that Clear Channel has been illegally using these faces for “off-premise” advertising for 20 + years, meaning that they are using the faces as a traditional “off-premise” billboard which advertises for businesses that are not physically located at the Fruitvale Station, and such ads are paid for by businesses located outside of the Fruitvale Station. Becker/OFI further assert that Clear Channel has been collecting advertising revenue from such “off-premise” ads, and has not paid the City any portion of such revenue. At this time, the City is unable to either verify or refute the Becker/OFI assertion about the non-viability of this site for the following reasons: 1. The City must first establish whether the sign in question is indeed permitted as an “on-premise” sign, and 2. If the sign is indeed only permitted as an “on-premise” sign, the City needs to establish whether or not Clear Channel has been using the sign as an “off-premise” sign without a proper permit to do so5, and 3. If the sign has indeed been used as an “off-premise” sign, what revenues from such ad sales have been collected by Clear Channel, and which portions of such collected revenue have been paid to the City, if any, and 4. Are there previous code-enforcement violations in the public record that provide a history of Clear Channel’s illegal use of the sign, and any notices thereof, and 5. What remedies are available to the City. Should the City determine that Clear Channel has been illegally using an “on-premise” sign for “off-premise” advertising without a proper permit, it would be highly inappropriate to allow Clear Channel to benefit financially from the conversion of an illegal-non-conforming sign to a legal-conforming digital sign. The revenue proposed by Clear Channel from these sites will be neither counted, nor discounted, and will rather be placed into a category labeled as “inconclusive”. 5 A cursory Google Street View History search shows that the both faces of the Fruitvale Station sign have been ongoingly used for “off-premise” advertising from at least 2008 to present. 9 Viable Clear Channel proposes Sites The following 3 proposed Clear Channel sites were not disputed by Becker/OFI. Upon preliminary research, these 3 sites seem viable: 1. I-880, 590feet east of High Street (east face) [APN 34-2291-6-1] This site is not adjacent to a Classified Landscaped Freeway, Is Zoned Commercial, and is adjacent to the freeway. This site seems viable from both a City and Caltrans perspective 2. I-880 0.3 miles south of 980 (Webster Street East Face) [APN 1-145-3] This site is not adjacent to a Classified Landscaped Freeway, Is Zoned Commercial, and is adjacent to the freeway. This site seems viable from both a City and Caltrans perspective 3. I-580 31 feet east of San Pablo (Hollis Street East Face) [APN 7-619-1] This site is not adjacent to a Classified Landscaped Freeway, Is Zoned Commercial, and is adjacent to the freeway. This site seems viable from both a City and Caltrans perspective The revenue proposed by Clear Channel from these sites will be counted, and will be placed into a category labeled as “Viable”. FISCAL IMPACT The Becker/OFI proposal is thoroughly vetted, and Becker/OFI have provided Caltrans Preliminary approval letters on all of their sites (attached) but one, which has been filed with Caltrans. In addition to these Caltrans approvals, the City is not aware of any issues that would prevent Becker/OFI from building a total of 10 double-sided digital signs, once the City grants them the authority to do so through this Resolution. These 10 signs would generate the Coalition and the City $1,500,000/year, and over $73,000,000 over the lifetimes of the agreements. In contrast, however, the Clear Channel proposal seems to be mostly not developable due to confirmed Caltrans restrictions, deed restrictions, and adjacency to freeway issues. Clear Channel has not provided any Caltrans preliminary approval letters, and they have stated that their offer is non-binding. Based on the offer they have submitted, there is no avenue for Clear Channel to provide nearly as much Community Benefits as the Becker/OFI proposal. Furthermore, it has been alleged by Becker/OFI that Clear Channel has no intention of building any signs at all, and has only submitted an illusory offer in order to subvert or delay the Becker/OFI offer. 10 Below is a SITE COMPARISON between the Becker/OFI proposal and the Clear Channel offer, and the number of sites that are developable versus not-developable:

Below is a REVENUE COMPARISON between the Becker/OFI proposal and the Clear Channel offer, and which portions of revenues are developable versus not-developable:

11 Below is a TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE COMPARISON between the Becker/OFI proposal and the Clear Channel offer, showing how much of the contract values are developable versus not-developable:

The following is comparison of the Becker/OFI Proposal, compared to the adjusted Clear Channel Proposal:

12 Based on the viability of the Becker/OFI proposal compared to the non-viability of the Clear Channel offer, it is in the City’s financial best interest to move forward the Becker/OFI proposal, as amended by the 5/23 CED Committee. The Becker/OFI proposal will result in over seventy-three million dollars ($73,000,000) of direct funding for the City and various Oakland-based non-profit organizations, projected from the operation of each of the proposed Advertising Signs for the proposed term. This is an average of over one hundred seventy-nine thousand dollars ($179,000) per Advertising Sign per year over the life of the Relocation Agreements. While some minimal expenditure of City funds could be expected in administrative costs to enter into the Relocation Agreement and to issue the building permits for the Advertising Signs, those costs would be mitigated by the required payment of a combined fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to the City upon entering into the Relocation Agreements. There will be no fiscal impact to the City for removing the existing fifty (50) Advertising Sign Faces, as Becker and OFI would each waive their rights to just compensation related to the removal of existing Advertising Signs, including with respect to all real property and personal property interests related thereto. Furthermore, Becker and OFI will cover 100% of the costs of removing such existing Advertising Sign faces. SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES Economic Development: The potentially more than seventy-three million dollars ($73,000,000) that will be provided to the City and in direct community benefit payments will have a positive economic impact for some of Oakland’s most vital non-profit organizations and the impacted communities they serve. The Native American Health Center and the Movement Strategy Center’s Career Technical Education Transitional Age Youth Hub will each receive an average of over two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) per year averaged over the life of the Relocation Agreements. In addition, each of the following organizations will receive an average of over one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per year averaged over the life of the Agreements: 1. Asian Health Services 2. The West Oakland Health Council 3. La Clínica de la Raza 4. Roots Community Health Center 5. Oakland LGBTQ Center’s Glenn Burke Wellness Center 6. Oakland School for the Arts These funds will catalyze affordable housing projects, free dental and health clinics, and vital educational initiatives that are essential for continued economic development in Oakland. In addition, the City of Oakland General Purpose Fund will receive an average of over five hundred ninety-six thousand dollars ($596,000) per year averaged over the life of the Agreements:
13 Moreover, free advertising will be provided across the entire ten (10) new Advertising Sign network proposed in this Resolution for: 1) The Unity Council • For businesses in their small business development program, and for Unity Council events 2) Oakland African American Chamber of Commerce • for Chamber members registered as an Oakland-based small-business, an Oakland-based micro enterprise, or an Oakland-based nonprofit organization, and for Chamber events 3) Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce • for Chamber members registered as an Oakland-based small-business, an Oakland-based micro enterprise, or an Oakland-based nonprofit organization, and for Chamber events 4) Oakland Latino Chamber of Commerce • for Chamber members registered as an Oakland-based small-business, an Oakland-based micro enterprise, or an Oakland-based nonprofit organization, and for Chamber events 5) Oakland Vietnamese Chamber of Commerce • for Chamber members registered as an Oakland-based small-business, an Oakland-based micro enterprise, or an Oakland-based nonprofit organization, and for Chamber events 6) Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce • for Chamber members registered as an Oakland-based small-business, an Oakland-based micro enterprise, or an Oakland-based nonprofit organization, and for Chamber events 7) Black Cultural Zone Community Development Corporation • for organizations and businesses that are members of the Collective, and for events for the Collective 8) Visit Oakland • for Oakland branding and messaging, Oakland events, Oakland marketing, and collaborative messaging in partnership with the Oakland Business Improvement Districts (BID) alliance, community messaging including but not limited to messaging for the Oakland Community Messaging Collective, and workforce education and development organizations such Cypress Mandela, Rising Sun Center for Opportunity and others, and public service messaging 9) City of Oakland • for City branding and emergency and public service messaging. This unprecedented extent of codified free advertising is worth a minimum of $500,000/year and tens of millions of dollars over the life of the agreements. In addition, this free advertising will increase sales for local businesses, and will support local non-profit organizations. Visit Oakland, and the City as a whole, will benefit from more visitors and supporters for Oakland-based events, businesses, and organizations. 14 Environmental Impact 100% of the carbon impact for the life of each of the proposed new Advertising Signs will be offset by a 100% upfront payment in the amount equal to the cost of offsetting the carbon from the electricity consumed by each of the proposed Advertising Signs over the life of each Sign. Social Equity The more than seventy-three million dollars ($73,000,000) that will be directed to the City and local non-profit organizations and projects will be concentrated in areas of the City and with projects serving Oakland’s most impacted residents. The organizations themselves are based in districts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, and serve impacted Oakland residents from across the City. This funding will benefit Oakland-based community health clinics that have been on the frontlines of the pandemic, as well as additional nonprofit organizations and youth development programs, increasing public health resources, education, housing, and additional opportunities for youth, and various support services for some of Oakland’s most impacted areas and residents. In addition, removal of fifty (50) existing Advertising Sign faces will result in a substantial reduction in the number of Advertising Faces in the City's neighborhoods, increasing enhancement of the City's beauty and physical attributes. DISABILITY AND SENIOR CITIZEN ACCESS Approval of this resolution and Agreement will have no direct impact on disabled and senior citizens. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed Relocation Agreements rely on the previous set of applicable California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents including: the Coliseum Area Specific Plan EIR (2015); Broadway Valdez Specific Plan EIR (2014); West Oakland Specific Plan EIR (2014); Central Estuary Area Plan EIR (2013); Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan EIR (1998); the Oakland Estuary Policy Plan EIRs (1999, 2006) and Supplemental EIR (2013); the Redevelopment Area EIRs- West Oakland (2003), Central City East (2003), Coliseum (1995), and Oakland Army Base (2002); and various Redevelopment Plan Final EIRs (collectively, “Previous CEQA Documents”. No further environmental review is required under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. Moreover, each as a separate and independent basis, these Relocation Agreements are also exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 (projects consistent with General Plan and Zoning) and 15061(b)(3) (general rule, no significant effect on the environment). In addition, these Relocation Agreements are exempt pursuant CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities); 15302 (Small Structures); 15303 (Minor Alterations to Land) and 15332 (Infill Development Projects). No exceptions to these exemptions apply. The proposed Advertising Signs are in areas within the City on existing highway corridors 15 not deemed to be a Landscaped Freeway by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and are in areas already highly urbanized. Furthermore, these Advertising Signs to be allowed under the Relocation Agreements will only be allowed in conformance with state law, and subject to outdoor advertising application approval from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Office of Outdoor Advertising as to design, sightline, and driver safety considerations. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for a CEQA exemption and when viewed collectively provides an overall basis to support the finding that this project is exempt from CEQA. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL To Adopt, As Amended By The Community And Economic Development Committee On May 23, 2023, A Resolution: (1) Authorizing The City Administrator To Negotiate And Enter Into Two Relocation Agreements: One With Becker Boards LLC (“Becker”) And One With Outfront Foster Interstate LLC (“OFI”), With Each Agreement Including, Without Limitation, The Following: (A) Allowing Becker And OFI To Remove And Waive Its Respective Rights To Just Compensation To Certain Existing Advertising Sign Faces At Various Locations In The City Of Oakland In Exchange For Becker’s And OFI’s Construction Of Up To Five New Double-Sided Digital Advertising Signs Each On Private Property, (B) Requiring Becker And OFI To Each Make Annual Payments To Designated Nonprofits And The City, And (C) Other Substantive Terms; And (2) Adopting Appropriate California Environmental Quality Act Findings Approval Respectfully submitted, __________________ ____________________ ___________________ Councilmember Gallo Councilmember Jenkins Councilmember Kaplan

D e s c r i p t i o n : A l a m e d a , C A D o c u m e n t - R e e l . I m a g e ( 1 9 60 -1979) 2416.464 Page: 1 of 3 O r d e r : c a 1 C o m m e n t :

D e s c r i p t i o n : A l a m e d a , C A D o c u m e n t - R e e l . I m a g e ( 1 9 60 -1979) 2416.464 Page: 2 of 3 O r d e r : c a 1 C o m m e n t :

D e s c r i p t i o n : A l a m e d a , C A D o c u m e n t - R e e l . I m a g e ( 1 9 60 -1979) 2416.464 Page: 3 of 3 O r d e r : c a 1 C o m m e n t :

Community Garden Park at 623 Market Street

ODA-0071

DIVISION OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
P.O. BOX 942873, MS–36 | SACRAMENTO, CA 94273–0001
(916) 654-6473 | TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/oda
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment" February 28, 2023 CERTIFIED NUMBER: 7022 0410 0002 3607 5296 John B. Foster
Foster Interstate Media Inc.
1111 Broadway Suite 1515
Oakland, CA 94607
Re: Outdoor Advertising Preliminary Application Number P04-3607 Dear John B. Foster:

Thank you for your outdoor advertising preliminary application for an outdoor advertising display comprised of a back to back display to be placed in the County of Alameda, adjacent to southbound Interstate 880, at Post Mile marker 29.553L, and 575 feet south of 16th Avenue Overpass. A true and correct copy of your preliminary application is enclosed for your reference. The proposed display location is identified as conforming to the requirements of the Outdoor Advertising Act at this time.

Within one year of the above date, if you submit an outdoor advertising application for a state permit, one hundred dollars of the preliminary review fees paid from the Preliminary Review Request shall be credited towards your outdoor advertising application.