Signs Could Become Crimes in San Marino

Those tiny security company signs--the placards warning would-be robbers that there will be an “armed response” if they try to break into a home--are as common as mailboxes and flowerpots in Southern California.

But some residents of San Marino fear that the signs have become eyesores in their town’s landscape of lush lawns and stately manors.

In a safety-minded community where every other household contracts with a security company, a virus loosely known as security overkill seems to have broken out: Many homes have two or more signs.

In response, the City Council is scheduled to consider an ordinance tonight to limit most homes to one visible security sign no more than 10 feet from the structure.

“One is OK and in a few cases two,” San Marino City Councilman Paul Crowley said. “But not five signs on a front lawn.”

The proposed ordinance brings into conflict two time-honored San Marino ideals: a homeowner’s right to protect his property and the city tradition of strict aesthetic regulations that require permits for tree trimming and citations for people who let their lawns die.

Security companies are warning that reduced signage will weaken the crime deterrent of their security systems. San Marino’s four largest firms have written to their customers, urging them to oppose the ordinance.

“We believe the signs are the first line of defense. Once a follow-home robber or burglar enters a property they are committed,” said Kirk MacDowell, general manager of the Post Alarm security company. “A burglary can turn into a lot worse crime.”

Jerry Lenander, executive director of the California Alarm Assn., says no other city has imposed such a restriction.

Supporters say that they are not trying to outlaw the signs, only to limit their number and stop what they say amounts to security company advertising.

“Oversigning is like tagging for security companies,” said resident Joe Petrillo, who owns a security firm that protects businesses and homes in nearby cities. “For years people have been complaining in San Marino. Enough is enough.”

*

The community has long banned all yard signs with the exception of the truly essential: real estate signs. Security signs were politely overlooked until 2 1/2 years ago, when the City Council began talking about a similar proposal.

About the same time, an air of mystery entered the debate: A vigilante began stalking the plush neighborhoods, stealing security signs from lawns. Piles of the signs turned up at City Hall and behind a local restaurant.

“I would have to step over a stack of them outside City Hall each morning,” said City Manager Debbie Bell.

Then-Mayor Bernard LeSage said representatives of the security companies told him they had videotaped the person who was removing the signs, and threatened to take the tape to police.

In effort to prevent an embarrassing scandal, LeSage said, he relayed that message in an open City Council meeting. “We didn’t have a problem after that,” he said. The vigilante was never publicly identified.

The security firms met with the city and agreed to limit the number of signs they placed in residents’ yards. With that, the sign limitation proposal died.

But earlier this year, council members said, it seemed that the signs were creeping back onto lawns, and a similar ordinance was quietly introduced, passed by the city’s Planning Commission and sent to the council.

If the ordinance is approved, homeowners will be allowed one sign for each street their house abuts. The ordinance limits the face of the sign to one square foot and says it cannot be farther than 10 feet from the house or closer than 10 feet to the property line. If the house has more than 100 feet of frontage, two signs are allowed.

The number of homes that exceed the proposed ordinance is unclear; the city has never surveyed the number of homes that have more than one sign.

City Manager Bell says that the proposal is in line with the spirit of the 11,000-resident enclave that demands higher standards of its property owners than other cities.

In lobbying its customers, one firm, San Marino Security, wrote that “some properties are situated such that one and even two signs would not be visible upon entering the property. This [ordinance] confines you to what the city feels is proper security, not you or your security expert.”

*

If the proposal passes, some angry residents say, the city should be held responsible for any property crimes.

“I was burglarized twice before I got an alarm system--in one instance my teenage son was alone in the house,” said resident Jack Wainschel, a doctor who believes the sign law should be put on the municipal ballot as a referendum. “Security signs need to be visible at the perimeter of a property.”

Councilman Crowley said he doesn’t understand all the fuss.

“In San Marino,” he said good-naturedly, repeating an oft-heard local saying, “virtually everything is illegal.”

*

Times staff writer Nicholas Riccardi contributed to this story.