###

PREVIOUSLY:

• Planning Commission Denies Permit to Rebuild a Fallen Billboard South of Eureka
• In a Split Vote, Supervisors Move to Allow Fallen Elk River Billboard to Be Rebuilt, But it Must be Removed in Five Years

###

A years-long battle over the fate of a roadside billboard in the Elk River wetlands came to an end today as the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors narrowly voted to deny a request to allow the sign to remain alongside Highway 101 indefinitely. 

The item passed in a 3-2 vote, with First District Supervisor Rex Bohn and Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell dissenting. 

The dispute dates back to November 2019, when the billboard was toppled during a windstorm. The owner, Geoff Wills of Allpoints Signs, submitted an application to the Humboldt County Planning Commission to repair the fallen sign, but the request was denied on the basis that the structure no longer complied with current building codes despite its status as a legal, nonconforming — or “grandfathered in” — billboard. The decision was appealed to the Board of Supervisors, which ultimately agreed to allow Wills to reconstruct the billboard on the condition that it be removed by Sept. 29, 2025.

But instead of seeking the permits required to have the billboard dismantled, Wills applied to change his permit to eliminate the condition requiring its removal. 

The issue at the center of today’s public hearing was whether or not the billboard still qualified as a legal non-conforming structure after the repairs made in 2020. 

Jeffrey Slack, the local attorney representing Allpoints Signs, argued that the billboard was repaired — not rebuilt — which would conform to its existing use. Senior Planner Steve Lazar, on the other hand, said the sign lost its non-conforming status when it collapsed during the storm.

“The one important thing to really hammer on is that we’re no longer dealing with a non-conforming structure,” Lazar explained during a presentation to the board. “When the billboard collapsed, it ceased to be a non-conforming structure — it was destroyed. … When the board took action in September of 2020 to approve the special permit, the billboard changed from a non-conforming structure to a conforming structure.”

On top of that, the Board of Supervisors approved a pair of ordinances in 2024 that banned new billboards in the county’s coastal zones and certain inland areas to protect environmentally sensitive habitats.

“Both sets of regulations don’t allow destroyed billboards to be rebuilt if they’re in locations that are problematic, like flood zones, riparian areas, environmentally sensitive habitat areas or wetlands, all of which are applicable to the site we’re talking about,” Lazar said, emphasizing staff’s recommendation to deny the permit modification and have the sign removed.

Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo asked what the removal process would look like and whether Wills would need a permit to move forward. 

“The removal process would not be related to the permit because the permit would, depending on what the board chooses to do, no longer be in effect. It would be denied,” Planning and Building Director John Ford said, noting that the permit is currently classified as “stayed” due to the modification request. “At that point, it becomes an enforcement action, either for the county or for the state, because there would no longer be a permit present.”

Speaking during public comment, Wills claimed he never agreed to the five-year timeline set by the board and said he never received any follow-up correspondence from county staff regarding the Sept 2025 deadline or the permits required to remove the billboard.

Wills | Screenshot

“Term limits [were] never part of the deal,” he said. “That got brought up after [the] comment section was closed [at the board’s September 2020 meeting]. It was decided without any of my input, and we did not agree to it. … I got no notices from the county. I had no idea.”

Wills estimated that losing the billboard would reduce his annual income by about $15,000. “This is my livelihood,” he said. “You guys have the choice to essentially appease people’s subjective feelings on whether they want to see a billboard or not, or the fact that this billboard contributes to our local economy and is a substantial part of my business, my wealth, my retirement, everything.”

Supervisor Bohn worried the loss of the billboard would have a greater impact on the local economy, given that small business owners use billboards to advertise. 

“I know [someone who] lost one on the bay, and … his business dropped 40 percent,” Bohn said. “Picking away at these businesses one at a time for our own personal, little idiosyncrasies. … I had a guy this morning at coffee at 6:30, where he says, ‘I hate billboards.’ A 75-year-old truck driver. But he says, ‘I don’t think we should take them down because I hate ‘em’ and I think that sums it up.”

Returning to Wills’ claim that he didn’t know about the five-year timeline, Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson said his acceptance of the terms was “implied” when he applied for the permit and went ahead with the rebuild. 

“From my perspective, the applicant entered into this agreement voluntarily in that they accepted the permit,” Wilson said. “So, I think we’re here right now, basically, just trying to enact the terms that were agreed to and put forth over five years ago.”

With that, Wilson proposed a motion to approve staff’s recommendation and deny Wills’ request to modify his permit. The actual motion was made by Arroyo and seconded by Fifth District Supervisor Steve Madrone.

The motion passed in a 3-2 vote, with Bohn and Bushnell dissenting.

###

What else happened at today’s meeting? Check back tomorrow for more coverage of the board’s mid-year budget review and a loan program for King Salmon residents.