Cities to Limit Foothill Land Developments : Growth: Sierra Madre and Glendora are the latest San Gabriel Valley cities trying to slow the creep of suburban sprawl into pristine areas.

Anyone who drives along Foothill Boulevard through the cities of Monrovia and Arcadia can spot them: grandiose mansions looming from lots carved high in the San Gabriel Mountains. Then lower down, hugging the slopes, are clusters of red tile-roofed houses. Lower still, bulldozers are busy cutting into the foothills, clearing dirt away for what promises to be another housing project.

Suburban sprawl is creeping into the mountains. And some San Gabriel Valley cities want to slow it down.

From Claremont to Sierra Madre, cities are coming up with a host of hillside protection measures, including the setting aside of acres of undeveloped hillside land for conservation and banning construction outright on some slopes.

Local politicians, caught between the reality of nearly built-out flatlands on one hand and preservationist-minded constituents on the other, are scrambling to come up with measures that will appease all sides.

In some areas, restrictions have been in place for years that reduce mudslide and fire hazards associated with building on steep slopes and in the higher elevations. A few activists are arguing for stricter safety measures. But most say they have another goal in mind: just keeping the bulldozers out of their neighborhoods.

“It all boils down to an issue of aesthetics and values,” said Gurdon Miller, a Sierra Madre resident and member of the Hillside Coalition, a citizens’ group pushing for stringent hillside building restrictions in the city. “This is a quiet, conservative community in the best sense of the word, and we want to keep it that way.”

In response to escalating concerns among slow-growth proponents, Sierra Madre and another foothill city, Glendora, are considering strict hillside ordinances. Sierra Madre has imposed a moratorium on construction in the hills while it considers a measure allowing only one house per 40 acres in the highest elevations. Last week, Glendora established a private land conservancy. The city will ask voters in April to decide whether they’re willing to raise property taxes--$2 per $1,000 assessed land value--to purchase land for conservation purposes.

The fate of the tax measure is far from certain, however. The Chamber of Commerce has launched a petition drive against it. At a Glendora City Council meeting last Tuesday, chamber members packed the room and passed out stickers reading “Just Say No to Taxes.”

The slow-growth group Glendora Pride has countered by threatening to ruin the political future of any city official its members believe isn’t committed to protecting the hillsides. Recently, they targeted Councilman Bob Kuhn, who along with Councilman Larry Glenn voted against a proposed 45-day hillside building moratorium. Both said they would vote against the property tax increase on the April ballot.

“Kuhn’s running for reelection (in April), and it’s obvious we won’t be supporting him,” said Judy Lawford, president of Glendora Pride. “In fact, we’ll be actively campaigning against his views.” Lawford said the group also is considering the circulation of petitions in support of a voter initiative for a two-year moratorium.

Kuhn maintains that his critics don’t understand his position. He said he believes preservation measures should allow for some growth.

“What Glendora Pride wants is for the community to stay the same as it is now,” he said. “My point is the community doesn’t stay the same.”

In Sierra Madre, opposition to limits on hillside development has escalated into an issue of personal property rights. A strict zoning ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission was toned down by the City Council last month after several landowners--including the 65-acre Passionist Fathers’ retreat--complained that their property values would plummet if zoning restrictions were tightened.

The amended ordinance, which will be discussed this week during a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission, divides hillsides into three zones, with one house per 40 acres in the top zone, one per 10 acres in the middle and one per 15,000 square feet in the lowest.

The ordinance drafted by Planning Commission Chairman Ross Tyree was originally much stricter. It would have allowed one home per 40 acres in elevations above 1,200 feet, and progressively higher densities at lower elevations to a maximum of one home per five acres.

Currently, Sierra Madre allows one house per 15,000 square feet.

The changes in the proposed ordinance infuriated members of the Hillside Coalition, who accused the council of attempting to weaken the proposal. Coalition members say they will launch a petition drive in hopes of forcing the city to adopt the ordinance in its original form.

Councilwoman Lisa Fowler, who voted in favor of the changes, said the local activists are making too big a deal of the changes in the ordinance.

“The problem is the community felt the (original) ordinance was as good as gold and any variations were tantamount to bowing to developers’ pressures,” she said. “But the original ordinance was too restrictive and a bit unfair. There’s just so much desire to own and build here.”

Sierra Madre’s amended ordinance still would be stricter than those on the books in most San Gabriel Valley cities. In Arcadia and Pasadena, where hillside development started much earlier, there are no special limits on density, and projects are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In Claremont and Duarte, the law allows for “clusters” of houses in certain areas so that other land can be preserved as open space.

Monrovia’s foothills are divided into four planned areas with separate requirements to minimize construction there. The City Council adopted the plans 10 years ago, after residents initiated a referendum that temporarily halted the subdivision of the Gold Hill housing project.

“The development strategy at that time was contemplated without preplanning or neighborhood involvement,” said Monrovia Community Development Director Don Hopper. “People look around them and see development they don’t like and say they don’t want any for fear of that taking place. They take on almost an anti-development attitude. But we need a well-planned process, instead of just closing the doors.”

Meanwhile, the fight against hillside development has been an uphill battle in unincorporated communities, where development has proceeded at a more rapid pace.

In Altadena, a group of residents lost a fight to reduce a 272-unit hillside housing project recently approved by the County Board of Supervisors. The 220-acre La Vina site is located mainly in rural Angeles National Forest land and required a zoning change by the board. The group, Friends of La Vina, had argued that extensive grading required for such a project would spoil the bucolic atmosphere of the neighborhood.

To the south, in the unincorporated community of Hacienda Heights, residents’ attempts to control hillside growth also have been stymied.

On a sunny afternoon last week, Hacienda Heights resident Carol Mauceri shielded her eyes and looked toward the Puente Hills--site of a soon-to-be-built 35-home project.

Mauceri and her group, the Hacienda Heights Improvement Assn., tried to fight the development when it first was proposed in 1986. But the county approved the project anyway.

So now Mauceri worries that rains and fires will undo what construction workers put up. She recalls a fire in July that charred 1,500 acres of hillside land and gutted a dozen homes. She remembers mudslides in the mid-1970s, when homes on Montellano Drive slid down the hill.

“We’re talking about areas that have histories of being unstable, but the county has seen fit to go ahead with it,” she said. “The whole thing has gone on for years and years in one form or another, in one fight or another.”