Billboard Issue on Anaheim’s Agenda Again : Law: Opponents vow to fight latest attempt to overturn 1969 ban. Council will consider an ordinance that would allow freeway signs in industrial areas.

In 1969, a citizens’ group persuaded the Anaheim City Council to ban most billboards on freeways within the city limits.

Six years ago, then four years ago, and again six months ago, the billboard industry lobbied to overturn the ban, failing each time after residents protested. During the years, the industry contributed more than $70,000 to Anaheim council and mayoral candidates.

Now, the council is again poised to consider an ordinance that would allow freeway billboards, and once again opponents vow to fight to keep the ban in place. The massive signs, they say, would be unsightly.

“This issue is like Dracula--it will never die,” said Councilman Tom Daly, a billboard opponent. “We have spent a lot of money in recent years to improve the look of the city, so I don’t understand what could be gained by allowing billboards to clutter up our freeways.”

The ordinance that would overturn the ban was written by City Atty. Jack L. White at the request of councilmen Irv Pickler, William D. Ehrle and Bob D. Simpson. Scheduled for consideration at the council’s July 21 meeting, it would allow freeway billboards only in industrial areas.

Each would have to be approved by the city, and no billboard could be built within 500 feet of another. If a billboard company wanted to erect a freeway sign and has billboards in the downtown area, it would be required to remove some from that area first. An annual licensing fee of up to $500 for each sign would be collected by the city and the council could review each billboard’s permit every 10 years.

Pickler, the council’s staunchest proponent for lifting the ban, said it makes no sense to allow billboards in some commercial areas of the city but not along freeways. He wants the law amended to allow the council to look at each proposal for a billboard and approve or reject it based on its individual merits.

“There are certain areas where I wouldn’t go for having billboards,” Pickler said, citing as an example the area around Disneyland. But in general, he said, he doesn’t find billboards unsightly. “I know (ugly) is in the eye of the beholder, but I find them interesting to look at when I’m driving.”

Sally White, a member of Anaheim Beautiful, a group that has led past efforts against billboards, said her organization will fight Pickler’s proposal. She pointed out at a recent council meeting that the city has just begun a multimillion-dollar effort to place utility lines underground and remove hundreds of utility poles.

“So why spend this huge amount of money . . . when the sky is going to be obscured by gigantic billboards?” White said. “This is all about greed.”

The arguments on both sides have been as passionate as ever. But so far, one glaring difference in this effort to lift the ban is that no billboard company has come forward to publicly spearhead the drive, bucking a trend that started even before the matter first became a hot public issue.

A Times computer search of city campaign records shows that since 1984, billboard companies, their owners, employees and trade associations have donated more than $73,600 to Anaheim council and mayoral campaigns.

Ehrle received the most in donations from those interests, $14,665. Hunter received $13,550, Pickler $11,250, Daly $8,100 and Simpson $3,300. Orange County Supervisor Don R. Roth received $10,275 from billboard firms between 1984 and 1986 while a member of the Anaheim council. The remainder, more than $12,500, went to candidates for Anaheim mayor and City Council.

The contributions came from seven billboard firms plus the Outdoor Advertising Assn. of California. The biggest contributor by far was Regency Outdoor Advertising Inc., a Los Angeles-based firm that contributed more than $55,500 to Anaheim candidates.

In 1986 and 1988, the council failed to approve Regency’s proposals, and in January it withdrew a proposal to overturn the ordinance and allow it to build 15 freeway billboards. A Times Orange County Edition story had shown that the company was misrepresenting four letters of recommendation it had received from local businesses and charities purportedly endorsing its plan. The letters, it turned out, had either been written by previous representatives of the businesses and charities or did not accurately reflect the firms’ current opinion of the plan.

This time Regency says it will stay away from the battle.

“In some ways, this ordinance is much more restrictive than our earlier ordinances, so we would have to see what exactly the council decides,” said Frank Elfend, a lobbyist who represents Regency.

He added that Regency officials do not want to have to go before the council to get every billboard erected and then return to have the boards re-approved every 10 years.

Pickler said it would make financial sense for the city to overturn the ban. The city, which has eliminated 200 jobs in the past two years, would benefit from the fees, even if they amount to only a few thousand dollars, he said.

“With the shape the city is in now, any extra money has to help,” Pickler said.

But Mayor Fred Hunter, a billboard opponent, said the signs are a visual blight that cannot be justified by the financial gain. He said the city receives only $24,000 in permit fees from the approximately 140 billboards in the city.

“The only people who make money from billboards are the cigarette and liquor companies that advertise on them and the sign companies themselves,” Hunter said.

Despite the ban against freeway billboards in Anaheim, six billboards exist, according to the city.

Five are in formerly unincorporated areas that the city annexed over the years and have been allowed to remain. The sixth was built by the city at Anaheim Stadium, and the revenue it generates is being used to pay for the Amtrak train station located there, officials said.

Times staff writer Mark Landsbaum contributed to this report.