###

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a letter of “strong opposition” to a new state bill that would would dramatically expand the definition of “customary maintenance” on billboards, allowing sign companies to make substantial changes to those structures without local government review or permitting.

“No other structure of this size in the state of California gets that kind of waiver,” Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson said during Tuesday’s meeting.

The letter, which the board approved with a 4-1 vote, argues that Assembly Bill 770 would undermine local authority, compromise public safety and endanger environmental and cultural resources. It was placed on the agenda’s consent calendar, meaning it was scheduled to be adopted among a batch of items without specific deliberations, but First District Supervisor Rex Bohn pulled it for discussion.

“I just couldn’t sign the letter the way it was,” Bohn said, noting that it’s twice as long as the bill itself and that it mentions “cultural resources,” which he considered a stretch since most billboards are located next to four-lane highways. Bohn argued that while many people “hate billboards,” others appreciate the tax base they generate. He said repair technology has improved, and sign owners should be allowed to take advantage of that.

“They’re basically earthquake-proofing [the billboards], kind of like what we make people do with old buildings, just making them stronger or better,” Bohn said.

Wilson disagreed. He said the language of the bill would apparently allow owners to replace nearly the entire structure, so long as the face of the sign remained the same, without a permit. That could mean replacing wooden posts and support beams with metal ones, or even installing or replacing concrete foundations.

“This could be in areas of environmental concern in ecologically sensitive areas,” Wilson said. “We have billboards currently in Humboldt County in wetlands and estuaries. So there would be no permit required for all the large equipment to put that in. There would be no permit required for historical or archaeological review. I’m sure tribal entities would not like that very much.”

Wilson also mentioned the increased public safety risk posed by reinforced metal structures along the roadside.

“Sometimes the billboards are actually, in many cases, encroaching on public lands or on properties where the owners don’t even know that they’re there,” Wilson added. “We’ve seen that all over the place. We’ve seen it in Humboldt Bay. We see it in Del Norte County. … It’s just odd that we would support this unsafe and environmentally significant change in the code.”

Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo agreed, and she pushed back on Bohn’s skepticism about cultural resources. Many of Humboldt County’s roadways were built on or near tribal pathways and village sites, she said, adding that protecting such archaeological resources “is a bit of a moral imperative for those of us in elected office.”

Second District Supervisor and Board Chair Michelle Bushnell said her understanding was that existing billboards already went through the necessary permitting processes, but Planning and Building Director John Ford said that’s not necessarily true.

“A lot of the billboards that exist out there were never permitted,” he said, and he vouched for Wilson’s assertion that the bill would essentially allow billboards to be completely rebuilt without local review. 

Bohn remained unconvinced. Regarding the letter’s expression of concern over the environmental impacts of “heavy machinery,” he said, “Last night I counted seven pieces of equipment exceeding 50,000 pounds building a trail next to the wetlands and cultural resources” referring to the Humboldt Bay Trail project.

Wilson countered by pointing out that “all the laws that protected the ecological and cultural values” for that project could be sidestepped by billboard owners should AB 770 pass.

“[T]his is a use that is not in the public trust’s best interest,” Wilson said. “This is just — this is for private commercial use.”

Wilson also said the bill could nullify the legal precedent that was established after Viacom Outdoor, Inc. sued the City of Arcata in 2006 after city officials red-tagged billboards that had been toppled by storms, thereby preventing them from being re-erected.

The advertising company sued, arguing that the city’s regulatory authority over such repair work was preempted by California’s Outdoor Advertising Act. A trial court agreed, but the decision was overturned on appeal. Local jurisdictions can, in fact, regulate the rebuilding of storm-damaged billboards, the appellate court decided.

 Wilson said AB 770 would effectively invalidate that precedent.

“We don’t do this for houses; we don’t do this for schools; we don’t do this for — there’s just no structure we do this for,” he said. “Why would we do it for this? It seems extreme and I hope that we oppose it today.”

Bohn circled back to Wilson’s remark about private commercial use. “Private use is not a bad thing,” he said. “Private use is what drives this county.” As for the claim that this bill would impact people’s quality of life, Bohn didn’t buy it.

“I had two friends die this weekend,” he said. “I’m thinking about their quality of life and I don’t think the billboards had a damn thing to do with it.”

Arroyo eventually made a motion to approve the letter, and Wilson seconded it. Right before the vote, Bushnell said she was conflicted but concerned about the potential loss of local control. She wound up joining the majority vote on the motion, which passed 4-1, with Bohn dissenting.

The authors of AB 770 are Assemblymembers Mark González and Blanca Pacheco, both Democrats from the Los Angeles area. The legislation is supported by the California State Outdoor Advertising Association, a lobbying organization dedicated to advancing the outdoor advertising industry in the state.

The Outpost emailed representatives for both of the bill’s authors to ask about their reasoning behind the bill and get their response to the letter of opposition approved by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors. We didn’t hear back from González’s office before this post was published. A spokesperson for Pacheco said the Assemblymember has been in back-to-back meetings and her office would be unable to gather the necessary information in time for our deadline.

We also emailed the office of our own representative in the Assembly, Chris Rogers. His chief of staff, Meredith McNamee, said the bill remains in committee hearings and Rogers has not yet had a chance to review it. Bills often get substantially amended in committee, so if this one emerges it will likely be different. Rogers and his staff will review the bill prior to it going to a vote on the floor, if it makes it that far, McNamee said.

You can read the letter approved by the supes via the link below.

###

DOCUMENT: Letter of Opposition to Assembly Bill 770