Homeowners Say Builder Burned Them on Fire Safety

Residents of a luxury housing tract in the heart of Topanga Canyon’s high-risk fire region have filed suit against Los Angeles County, charging that the county failed to require the builder to incorporate fire safety measures in 36 homes.

In the suit filed last month in Los Angeles Superior Court, four homeowners in Summit Pointe Estates accuse the county of “negligently failing” to enforce a 1988 government requirement that builders install indoor sprinklers and clear surrounding brush.

This is about “the lives and safety of myself and my neighbors,” said attorney Steven Berez, one of the plaintiffs in the case.

County officials refused comment on the suit, but said the builder will have to pay to bring homes into compliance with safety standards. They also said they did not know how the homes passed inspection.

The homes were built in the early ‘90s by Grupe Development Co. of Stockton. The tract lies east of Topanga Canyon Road along a ridgeline, in terrain that county fire officials list as a severe fire hazard area. The coastal scrub adjacent to the homes did not burn during the 1993 Malibu firestorm, and officials couldn’t recall a fire in that part of Topanga in decades.

“Take one look at the fuel down there,” said Berez, referring to the vegetation outside his hillside home. “One person playing with a sparkler on the Fourth of July, one cigarette butt out a window, one kid playing with matches, and it’s going to be a very ugly situation,” he said.

Attorneys for Grupe failed to return phone calls seeking comment.

Ginny Kruger, assistant chief deputy to Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, said the county also is concerned about the fire hazard. She referred to an 8-point Fire Department mitigation plan for Summit Pointe that proposes to equip homes with fire sensors linked to a round-the-clock monitoring station. It also would require annual fire inspections, markers that help firefighters identify pools from which they can draw water during fires, parking restrictions and an emergency preparedness plan.

“Whatever the ultimate decision” on the plan, Kruger said, the developer will foot the bill. She could not say when the county would act.

The Board of Supervisors approved Summit Pointe as an 83-unit, 79-acre subdivision in 1988. The county did not require the developer to file an environmental impact report. Nor did they provide two points of street access, as mandated by county regulations.

Instead of requiring a second road, the county ordered Grupe to install sprinklers and undertake other measures, including brush clearance and a prohibition on wood exteriors.

Two homeowner groups, the Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community (TASC) and the Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization, tried but failed to block the development in court, alleging that the county violated state and local environmental laws by allowing it to proceed.

Grupe developed only 36 homes before another company, Newcrest Development Corp., took over the tract. Berez is also suing Grupe, saying the homes contain construction defects and structural problems.

The development is “one of the most shocking instances of the county not doing its job,” said Rosemary Woodlock, an environmental and land-use attorney in Woodland Hills who is not involved in the Summit Pointe suit.

She said not forcing the developer to comply with the conditions “is really a crime.”

County officials could not explain how or why Grupe was allowed to complete construction before fulfilling county conditions.