Monterey Park Council Rebuffs Mayor on Signs

The City Council has rebuffed Mayor Barry L. Hatch’s request for a study on the possibility of holding a referendum on how much English should be required on commercial and business signs.

A referendum, Hatch told the council, “would give the residents a chance to say how they feel about the language issue.”

Although the council voted 3 to 2 against Hatch’s idea, members unanimously referred the sign issue back to the Planning Commission. The commission had earlier recommended that language requirements in the city’s sign law not be changed.

Also, because of a request by Hatch, the city’s planning and legal staffs still will present to the council possible ballot measures that would give voters a range of percentages of English lettering the city might require on signs.

Possible Ordinances

At the request of council members Betty Couch and Christopher F. Houseman, the planning staff will also present possible ordinances on the language issue.

Hatch and Couch have supported requiring that a minimum of two-thirds of a sign be in English. But Monday night Couch did not support Hatch’s motion calling for a ballot measure. She said the Planning Commission needs to further study the sign law and the English-language section of the city’s architectural guidelines.

Councilwoman Patricia M. Reichenberger was the lone supporter of Hatch’s proposal, saying that she had seconded his motion as a courtesy.

The current law, enacted in 1985 after a series of bitter debates, requires that businesses post a sign that is at least partly in English and describes the businesses’ general nature. The city’s Design Review Board, as well as the Planning Commission, has recommended that the requirement not be changed. The commission’s chairwoman, Patricia A. Chin, has said the sign law “regarding language is adequate.”

Architectural Guidelines

There also are separate architectural guidelines that the city uses in making decisions about sign permits.

At the request of Commissioner Joseph Rubin, the Planning Commission agreed to review the English-language section of the city’s architectural guidelines. These guidelines, which some people feel are vague, recommend that “all new signs . . . in a language other than English, in some part be translated to English to maintain sign continuity.”

Couch said that one reason she voted against Hatch’s proposal was because it was premature. She said that the Planning Commission should be given another chance to consider the matter.

Rubin is the only one of the four planning commissioners who has given any indication that he thinks changes are necessary.

Rubin told the council that the commission needed another chance to closely look at the architectural guidelines and to hear testimony from a cross section of the community.

But Hatch complained that “the Planning Commission totally ignored the English issue on the signs. . . . They don’t want to deal with it.

“This council will be reluctant to vote on the language issue. Rather than to sit here and not have any action, let’s let the public speak,” he said, referring to a referendum.

One resident noted as he left the meeting that the sign issue is far from resolved.

“There are two factions that want a war,” said Irv Gilman. “It may have been deferred tonight, but it’s going to come back eventually.”