Engineers Weigh Puente Hills Plans : Development: The fate of 11 homes will depend on one of two proposals for stabilizing hill where landslide occurred.

It’s been almost seven years since a massive landslide tore through a section of the Puente Hills here and uprooted three houses on Montellano Avenue, leaving their owners homeless.

Stark reminders of the disaster are everywhere. A menacing pile of dirt, more than a ton of it, renders the street impassable. Black plastic sheeting stretches across the hillside to prevent erosion. And, awkwardly protruding from the sheeting are the remnants of what were once $200,000-plus homes, now reduced to heaps of rubble.

But for residents who continue to live in the upscale neighborhood, the unsightly mess at the bottom of the slope is the least of their worries. More unsettling to them is the fact that little has been done to stop the continual shifting and sliding that now threatens to send their homes crashing down the hill.

The reason? A long-running legal dispute between homeowners, a developer, and Los Angeles County over who is responsible for the slide and its aftermath. The controversy involves six lawsuits--five against the bank that owns the development company, and one against the county. Meanwhile, owners of 11 precariously situated homes have been prevented from selling their property during the litigation.

But the issue may be at least partly resolved Tuesday, when county engineers will consider two plans to make the area slide-proof by demolishing some or all of the 11 houses on the top of the hill and dramatically reshaping it. One of the plans also calls for buttressing the hill with steel and concrete reinforcements. Under either plan, the area would be transformed into a landscaped slope, and no new construction would be allowed.

“We’ve all been in limbo for the last six years,” said Gloria Brady, whose husband, Frank Brady, is the main plaintiff in a lawsuit against Great Western Bank, which acquired the company that developed the neighborhood. The Bradys’ suit was filed shortly after the March, 1983, landslide. It claims the bank should be responsible for repairing the hillside and compensating residents of the 11 houses facing possible demolition.

Three years ago, Great Western agreed to shoulder the financial burden. But it continues to name Los Angeles County as a cross-defendant in the lawsuits, arguing that the county is partly to blame for the disaster because it failed to ensure that the original developer followed building and land-grading regulations.

And to make matters even more complicated, the county has filed a suit against Great Western to get the bank to reimburse it for plastic sheeting used for erosion control after the slide and for damages to the sewer system and roads.

Although the slide’s exact cause is unclear, soil engineers and geologists agree that the original developer, Financial Federation Inc., now owned by Great Western, failed to properly drain natural ground water from the steep slope before homes were built, creating a hillside of unstable, jelly-like earth. The landslide was triggered, experts say, when construction workers cut into the “toe” of the hill on Montellano Avenue to make room for three new houses.

But there are differing opinions on how to make the area safer. The homeowners hired an engineering firm, Pasadena-based Converse Consultants, which came up with a plan six months ago calling for extensive excavation and a “structural support system,” in which holes would be drilled into the hillside and filled with concrete and steel reinforcements. The plaintiffs’ attorney, Thomas Rubbert, said the repairs could cost about $18 million.

Great Western has submitted its own plan, drafted by Douglas E. Moran Inc. and about half as expensive. It requires less digging and doesn’t include a support system.

The bank has agreed to implement whichever plan the county selects. And the plaintiffs have agreed to drop their suits against the bank once the plan is approved.

Both sides, however, blame the county for lengthy delays in deciding how to shore up the hillside. But Peter Anderson, an attorney for the county, said, “It’s a highly complex geologic area. It’s not a simple landslide. You just don’t review it in a week or two weeks.”

The wait has been long and frustrating for Joseph and Betty Costello, who live next door to the Bradys and also are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Since the 1983 slide, Joseph Costello said, he’s noticed ominous cracks in the front of the house. “When it rains, you really think about it,” Costello said.

“Three years ago we made plans to move out,” he said. “We started looking around for another home. We thought (Great Western) was going to buy us out. But we really can’t do anything until the decision is made.”

From the Bradys’ back yard patio, it’s easy to see what attracted the couple to the 3200 block of Heatherfield Drive 13 years ago. The four-bedroom, stucco and wood-shingled house commands a view of the San Gabriel Valley, with Mt. Baldy in the background.

“You can’t duplicate this view,” Frank Brady said.

But the property also hovers precariously over the ruins. The rubble is a constant reminder of what the Bradys and their neighbors fear might happen to them.

So they keep their eyes on the skies, always wondering what the next bad storm will bring.

“A few times, we’ve literally packed up and left the house,” said Anthony Nocella, another neighbor and plaintiff. “My blood pressure has gone up tremendously.”