Strict Ordinance Limits Hillside Building : Development: A months-long stalemate concerning proposed guidelines for building in the Sierra Madre foothills came to a rapid, although temporary, resolution.

In a swift chain of events that unfolded like a drama, the City Council has adopted an ordinance that imposes what may be the strictest guidelines on hillside development among foothill cities in the San Gabriel Mountains.

But city officials and both sides agree that the guidelines probably will be modified.

The rush of events included an end-of-year revelation by an attorney of a City Hall error that allowed the unexpected expiration of a building moratorium and resulted in civic chagrin, a hastily called special council meeting last week and the last-minute failure Tuesday of hillside property owners to agree to a self-imposed building moratorium.

The ordinance adopted unanimously by the council Tuesday was originally drafted by the City Planning Commission. It imposes requirements ranging from five to 40 acres per house by dividing the hills into five zones stretching vertically up the mountainsides. Buildings are limited to one story and a maximum height of 20 feet. The previous foothill density guidelines were much less strict--one house per 15,000 square feet.

After the council meeting, property owners and preservationists, who had clashed since September in overflow meetings at City Hall, smiled uncomfortably at each other with the realization that now they will have to work together if they want to amend the ordinance.

“I think it was the most wonderful thing that happened,” said preservationist Gurden Miller. “The ordinance that nobody really likes and that has to be amended will bring people together.”

When first proposed in September, the ordinance pleased many of the town’s 10,800 residents. But it enraged some of the about 15 hillside property owners. They and their attorneys accused the city of, in effect, confiscating their land.

The City Council then proposed modifications that, in turn, outraged the town’s informal preservationist group, the Hillside Coalition. Coalition members said the revisions weakened the ordinance, and they threatened to withdraw their support of three council members who proposed the changes and who are up for reelection in April.

The council’s version was referred back to the Planning Commission last fall for further study. Then came the sudden turn of events that ended the stalemate and punched the solution of the controversy into fast-forward.

The catalyst was land-use attorney Mark Steres, who represents hillside property owners Annette and Lawson Martin. When preservationists discovered in 1988 that the Martins had purchased 100 acres in the foothills of Monrovia, Arcadia and Sierra Madre, they realized the foothills could be developed.

At their urging, the council passed a hillside building moratorium. Multiple extensions were approved while the city tussled with an ordinance to govern hillside development.

At the end of December, city officials thought that moratorium extensions were still in effect. Steres’ research showed otherwise.

“They thought the moratorium was expiring in March of 1990,” Steres said. “But according to my analysis, it expired September, 1989.

In a dramatic move at 4:50 p.m. on Dec. 29--the last day of business for the city in 1989--Steres delivered to City Hall a request to subdivide 11.3 acres of the Martins’ land into 10 lots. He sent a cover letter that said the request had to be honored because the city had no moratorium in effect.

After City Atty. Charles Martin (no relation to Annette and Lawson Martin) confirmed that Steres was correct, those involved went into a frenzy of action. Phones began ringing all over the city.

“It was an absolute shock to the Hillside Coalition,” coalition member Caroline Brown said. “We were under the impression that all the procedural matters had been handled correctly by the city administration . . . but basically they goofed. We thought we were left without hillside protection.”

A special meeting of the City Council was called for 5:30 p.m. on Jan. 4, a Thursday. The council usually meets on Tuesdays at 6:30 p.m. Because many residents were still away on holiday vacations, only about 25 people attended the meeting--considerably fewer than had attended previous meetings about the hillside development ordinance. As many as 200 people attended some of those meetings.

City Atty. Martin advised the council to adopt the Planning Commission ordinance as a stopgap measure because no further building moratorium extensions could legally be imposed.

Following assurances that it will amend the ordinance, the council then reluctantly introduced the strict version of the hillside ordinance. Shocked property owners left the meeting saying they were resolved to impose a voluntary building moratorium on themselves that would make unnecessary the city’s passage of the strict building restrictions.

But by the regularly scheduled council meeting on Tuesday, the property owners had not reached an agreement. Without discussion, the council then unanimously adopted the strict measure, which took effect immediately.

“They did it as a knee-jerk reaction to protect themselves,” Steres said after the vote. “This story isn’t close to being finished.”

Steres said he believes that the new ordinance won’t affect the Martins’ subdivision request, which was submitted before the measure was adopted.

Amendments to the ordinance will be worked out in voluntary meetings now being planned by members of the Hillside Coalition and hillside property owners such as the Passionist Fathers, who operate a 65-acre religious retreat, and Mike Heflin and David Willis, whose families each own 100 acres.

Likely to be considered are the modifications proposed earlier by the council, which reduced the acreage requirements and created three horizontal zones. Coalition members also said they are researching a hillside development ordinance in Rancho Cucamonga that restricts development on all slopes of 15% or more.

In the meantime, the Sierra Madre hills are protected, Brown said.