BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2231
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
AB 2231 (Fuentes) - As Introduced: February 24, 2012
SUBJECT : Sidewalks: repairs.
SUMMARY : Shifts responsibility and liability for dangerous or
inoperable sidewalks from adjacent property owners to local
agencies, and prohibits local agencies from imposing assessments
on adjacent property owners for repairs. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires that when any portion of any sidewalk is out of
repair or pending reconstruction and is in a condition to
endanger persons or property or is in a condition to interfere
with the public convenience in the use of that sidewalk, a
city, county, or city and county shall repair that sidewalk,
if a) that sidewalk is owned by that city, county, or city and
county, or b) the repairs are required as a result of damage
caused by plants or trees.
2)Imposes liability on the city, county, or city and county for
any injury resulting from that entity's failure to perform the
required repairs.
3)Prohibits any city, county, or city and county from imposing
an assessment against the private owner of the property
fronting on any portion of a sidewalk for sidewalk repairs
under this section.
4)Makes findings and declarations that these provisions
constitute a matter of statewide concern, and shall apply to
charter cities and charter counties. Such provisions shall
supersede any inconsistent provisions in the charter of any
county or city.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on
any portion of a public street or place to maintain any
sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger
persons or property and maintain it in a condition that will
not interfere with the public convenience in the use of those
AB 2231
Page 2
works or areas, except as to those conditions created or
maintained by persons other than the owner.
2)Requires the superintendent of streets, as defined, to provide
specified notice to the owner or person in possession of the
property fronting on that portion of the sidewalk so out of
repair or pending reconstruction, to repair the sidewalk.
Under existing law, if the repair is not commenced within two
weeks after the notice has been provided, the superintendent
of streets shall make the repair and the cost of the repair
shall be imposed as a lien on the property.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal and a
state-mandated local program.
COMMENTS :
1)This bill is intended to speed the repair of damaged sidewalks
by declaring cities, counties and city and counties to be
financially responsible and liable for damaged or inoperable
sidewalks, while prohibiting those local entities from
assessing adjacent property owners for repair costs. AB 2231
is author-sponsored.
2)According to the author, "in October 2011, the Los Angeles
City Council angered homeowners by considering a plan to
repeal a 1974 ordinance that made the city responsible for
sidewalk repair. For the last 30 years, the City assumed
responsibility for most sidewalk repairs, but has not
maintained the sidewalks or the trees. Almost half of L.A.'s
sidewalks are in some state of disrepair, mostly due to tree
roots pushing through concrete and causing cracks."
The California Association of Realtors supports the measure,
contending that "California's older neighborhoods are
suffering from high levels of sidewalk disrepair due to trees
planted by local governments. Governments seeking to cut
costs are unfairly considering transferring the responsibility
of sidewalk repair and the liability for trip-and-fall claims
to private property owners fronting the sidewalk. AB 2231
(Fuentes) rightfully stops local governments from shirking
responsibility for these sidewalks and protects property
AB 2231
Page 3
owners from huge repair and legal costs for damages they did
not produce."
3)According to a November 2011 Los Angeles Times article, the
City of Los Angeles voted to assume responsibility for
sidewalk repair in 1973, allocating $2 million for the work.
The federal money ran out in 1976. Since 2000, the city has
spent about $95 million to replace 550 miles of sidewalk.
According to an October 20, 2011 report by the Daily News, the
City of Los Angeles has nearly 11,000 miles of sidewalks,
about 4,700 miles of which still need repair.
Beginning in 2010, the Los Angeles City Council began
considering a variety of proposals for addressing the backlog
of broken sidewalks, including a requirement on home owners to
make repairs, as well as requiring repairs as a condition to
the close of escrow when a home is being sold, and continuing
the current policy of making temporary repairs using asphalt.
According to the author's office, the city has not yet taken
action on this point, but public discussion and debate over
the matter continue.
Under current law, the responsibility for repairing sidewalks
lays with the owner of the adjoining property, unless the
dangerous condition was created by another. The locality's
superintendent of streets is empowered to notice the adjoining
property owner of the damage, and if it remains unfixed after
two weeks, the local entity may commence repairs and impose
the cost as a lien on the property. Legal liability for
injuries caused by a broken sidewalk will differ based on the
specific circumstances.
This bill would shift the responsibility for repairing
sidewalks to the local entity in almost all cases, except for
where privately-owned sidewalks have been damaged by causes
other than trees and plants. That means this bill as written
will shift responsibility for repair and liability to the
local government for all sidewalks damaged by trees, whether
privately owned or not.
4)According to a Daily News article dated October 20, 2011, it
estimates that between "$4 million and $6 million is spent
every year on liability claims, and the total cost estimate to
repair the sidewalks is between $1.2 billion and $1.5
billion." A bond measure to fix the city's sidewalks was put
AB 2231
Page 4
before the voters in 1998, but was rejected by 60% of voters.
A November 2011 Los Angeles Times article stated that it can
cost $250,000 - $300,000
to repair a mile of sidewalk.
A separate May 2010 article by the Los Angeles Times stated that
"the city spends $3 million to $5 million a year to defend or
settle cases arising from sidewalk-related "trip and fall"
injuries.
5)The Consumer Attorneys of California oppose the bill because
of the sweeping nature of its liability provisions, which
shift the legal responsibility for any related injuries to the
local agencies.
"We believe current law relating to sidewalk liability is
working and changes are unnecessary. Under current law, a
person injured on a defective sidewalk has the option of
examining the facts specific to that incident and injury and
has the option of filing against the public entity and-or the
homeowner for her injuries, depending upon the situation.
Each factual incident is different so sometimes there may be
clear negligence on the part of the homeowner and sometimes
there may be clear negligence on the part of the public
entity. In addition, a homeowner may have insurance
available to cover the negligence. Each particular case and
injury is different and we do not believe a statutory change
is necessary or warranted."
6)The League of California Cities and the California State
Association of Counties oppose the bill primarily because of
the increased financial costs: "?mandating cities and counties
to incur sidewalk repairs would result in significant
financial losses, resulting in the diversion of funds from
projects that benefit the entire travelling public?It is
difficult to justify repairing a sidewalk for a homeowner in a
residential neighborhood instead of filling potholes on a
thoroughfare that serves as a primary route for the movement
of people and goods?"
Furthermore, AB 2231 would also interfere with local control
and the prioritization of limited funds: "ŬS]ome cities and
counties have programs scheduled years in advance to repair
sidewalks street by street at no expense to the homeowners.
AB 2231
Page 5
The level of fiscal commitment to the repair of sidewalks
should be left with cities and counties who are best equipped
to assess available resources and prioritize projects that
benefit the community as a whole?ŬS]hifting sidewalk repair
responsibilities and liability for injuries will likely result
in the reduction of new sidewalks built?Ŭand cause] additional
strain on local General Fund monies normally allocated to
public safety and other vital programs and services."
7)In 2008, this Committee heard AB 1985 (Stickland), which would
have repealed current laws regarding sidewalk repairs, and
held liable the owner of the property on which the sidewalk is
located - usually a local public entity - for all repairs and
maintenance of the sidewalk. Opponents criticized the bill as
disrupting local control of sidewalk repair and adding to the
fiscal strain felt by local agencies. The bill failed passage
(2-5) in this Committee on April 9, 2008.
8)This bill is keyed a state mandate which means that if the
Commission on State Mandates deems this a reimbursable
mandate, then the state could be responsible for all of the
notice and other costs associated with this bill.
9)Support arguments : According to the author, " In Los Angeles,
- and throughout California, homeowners should not be forced
to pay for maintenance, when trees that they did not plant
tear up their sidewalks. AB 2231 simply ensures that local
entities will remain responsible for sidewalk damage, rather
than trying to have property owners foot the bill."
Opposition arguments : According to the League of California
Cities, "Ŭt]he 'one-size fits all' approach outlined in AB
2231, would create a costly and inefficient maintenance system
that fails to take into account numerous considerations
relevant to the public safety of residents, infrastructure
planning, and limited resources."
10)This bill has been double-referred to the Judiciary
Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Association of Realtors
AB 2231
Page 6
California Apartment Association
Opposition
California State Association of Counties
City of Lakewood
Consumer Attorneys of California
Counties of Los Angeles, San Joaquin, and Ventura
League of California Cities
Analysis Prepared by : Hank Dempsey / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958