Anaheim Council to Keep City Freeways Free of Billboards

Anaheim Mayor Pro Tem Irv Pickler on Tuesday withdrew his support for a proposal to allow billboards along the city’s freeways, effectively killing the measure.

Pickler’s last-minute reversal forestalled a formal vote on the proposal, which would have lifted a 20-year-old ban on freeway billboards.

Pickler, who recently announced his candidacy for mayor, joined council members Miriam Kaywood and E. Llewellyn Overholt Jr. in opposing the proposal. He said that he was deluged with phone calls critical of the billboard plan and therefore decided last weekend to drive with his wife along Orange and Los Angeles county freeways. During the drive, he said, he found the signs “weren’t too attractive,” and he decided to change his mind.

Pickler said his reversal had nothing to do with his mayoral bid.

Before Tuesday, a 3-2 council majority favored lifting the current billboard ban, though the issue had not come to a vote. A new ordinance was drafted by the city attorney and was about to undergo environmental review. Mayor Don Roth and Councilman Ben Bay supported the proposal. Roth is one of three candidates seeking to replace Ralph B. Clark on the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

Predicts Return of Issue

Tuesday’s turnabout surprised Floyd L. Farano, the attorney who represents Regency Outdoor Advertising and who proposed lifting the current ban. Farano predicted that the issue will return.

“My guess is that it’s not dead. Somewhere along the line, it’s something that needs to be done. I think it needs to resurface,” Farano said.

Councilwoman Kaywood, the most vocal opponent of freeway billboards, said she hoped the subject of billboards would not come back, noting that the council had killed the same issue in May, 1984, only to see it return.

“Eternal vigilance is the name of the game,” Kaywood said. “I can’t tell you how happy I am. I think it was a real victory for the people.”

The ordinance proposed by Farano and his client, Regency Outdoor, would have allowed billboards along 4 1/2 miles of the Santa Ana, Riverside and Orange freeways. In exchange the billboard companies agreed to reduce by half the total number of billboards in the city.

In the 1960s, the billboard companies took down about 30 freeway billboards as part of the city’s beautification program. In exchange, they were allowed to erect up to eight billboards per intersection. Through the years, the number of inner-city billboards increased to 135, according to city officials.

Farano argued that under Regency’s proposal, the potential for the total number of additional billboards would be lowered from 324 to 104.

Assistant Zoning Director Annika Santalahti questioned whether lowering the maximum allowed inside the city would make a difference on the total number of billboards. She noted that only one intersection in the city has eight billboards. Most have one or two billboards because there is no space, the owners don’t allow billboards or the low traffic or visibility does not make the corner enticing to billboard companies, she said.

Addressing the councilTuesday, Farano blamed the defeat of Regency’s proposal on the Los Angeles Times’ editorials critical of the measure.

Farano said The Times was being “hypocritical” because the newspaper has several billboard advertisements along freeways in Orange and Los Angeles counties.

Residents Changed His Mind

But Pickler, rebuking Farano, said Anaheim residents, not the editorials, had influenced him to change his mind.

Meanwhile, Overholt said he had opposed lifting the ban because Foster & Kleiser, a division of Metromedia Inc., had failed to support Regency’s proposal. Kaywood cited aesthetics.

Kaywood said public opposition did not become evident until this week because “people did not know that it was coming up again.”

Before Tuesday’s session, Kaywood alleged that Roth, Pickler and Bay may have been influenced by campaign contributions from the billboard industry.

Roth had supported the ban on freeway billboards and had declared the issue dead in 1984. Campaign reports filed with the city clerk show that sign-industry donations to Roth have more than doubled in the past two years, while the levels of contributions to the other council members have changed little.

Roth said that campaign contributions do not influence his decisions and that any such implications would be a “smear.”

Roth, noting that he is now in an expensive race for a county seat, said that contributions to his campaign have increased and that the billboard companies’ total contribution is only a small part of his war chest.

“I’m running for the Orange County Board of Supervisors, which takes in four cities (in his district). My God, what do you want me to do? It cost me $550 just to file yesterday,” Roth said.

Roth reported receiving $5,750 from four billboard firms in 1985 compared to $1,300 in 1984, the last year in which the billboard issue came before the council.

Campaign Financing Reports

Regency Outdoor Advertising, the firm that proposed the new billboard ordinance, gave Roth $2,500 in 1985 compared to $500 in 1984, mandatory campaign financing reports show. Roth raised a total of $212,349 from all sources in 1985 compared to $60,644 in 1984.

Farano, the attorney representing Regency and several other billboard firms before the council, gave Roth $3,250 in 1985, including $1,250 on May 29. City records show that Farano first wrote to the city about renewing efforts to end the freeway sign ban on May 3.

Also a lobbyist for developers and real estate firms, Farano is one of about 30 members of a group advising Roth on his current bid for a seat on the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

Farano gave $2,250 to Bay last year, $1,000 to Pickler and nothing to Overholt and Kaywood, according to campaign reports.

Regency donated $1,000 each to Pickler and Bay in 1985.

The Sacramento-based Outdoor Advertising Assn. contributed $1,500 to Roth and $500 each to Pickler and Bay.

United Outdoor Advertising gave $500 to Roth, while Metropolitan Outdoor Advertising contributed $150 to Bay.

Foster & Kleiser donated $500 each to Bay and Pickler, and $1,250 to Roth, according to the campaign reports.

Helped Wife’s Race

Harvey Englander, Roth’s campaign manager, said Tuesday that he is a friend of Farano, who helped raise money for Roth and for Englander’s wife in a recent school board race.

Englander said he had advised Roth not to worry about citizen protests over the billboard issue.

“He asked me about it, and I told him that it’s a touchy issue for some people, but that most people don’t give a damn,” Englander recalled.

Englander said that he is conducting a poll in which the billboard issue is raised, but that earlier surveys--including one commissioned by Farano--showed that only 15% to 20% of the respondents “care about the issue.”

Increase in Contributions

Englander said that the increase in billboard industry contributions to Roth in 1985 was due to the supervisorial contest.

“We’ve done a lot more fund raising, so, sure, the billboard companies doubled their contributions, as I’m sure everybody has,” Englander said.

Meanwhile, Farano noted that only two residents showed up at Tuesday’s meeting to oppose the billboard ordinance.

“I don’t think people care that much about it,” Farano said.

Farano said his law firm hired a graduate student to conduct a survey in which more than half of the 100 people polled at shopping centers said that they would support the idea of allowing a limited number of signs along freeways. About a third were indifferent, and the rest said no, according to Farano.

Voiced Opposition

The city’s staff and Planning Commission have consistently voiced their opposition to reversing Anaheim’s stand on freeway billboards.

Anaheim resident Ann Bien, who attended Tuesday’s meeting, said: “I think it’s really silly. This is going back 20 years. I can remember very clearly all the arguments against billboards when they were voting it down.

“Not only are they not very pretty, but they are a hazard to drivers (who may be distracted by them).”

City traffic engineer Paul Singer said a Caltrans study conducted in 1984 indicated a higher number of accidents in portions of Interstate 5 that have billboards in Los Angeles compared to another stretch without billboards. Singer said that the numbers may be a coincidence but that the signs are a distraction to motorists.