BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 22
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 10, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 22 (Blumenfield) - As Introduced: December 3, 2012
SUBJECT : Sidewalks: repairs.
SUMMARY : Prohibits cities and counties from repealing an
ordinance that requires them to repair or reconstruct streets,
sidewalks, or driveways that have been damaged as a result of
tree growth unless the repeal is ratified by the local
electorate. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits a city, county, or city and county from repealing an
ordinance that requires the city, county, or city and county
to repair or reconstruct streets, sidewalks, or driveways that
have been damaged as a result of tree growth, except with the
concurrence of the local electorate by majority vote.
2)Finds and declares that the above provision constitutes a
matter of statewide concern, and shall apply to charter cities
and charter counties, and that the above provision supercedes
any inconsistent provisions in the charter of any city,
county, or city and county.
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
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.
AB 22
Page 2
3)Allows cities that adopt charters to control their own
"municipal affairs," pursuant to the California Constitution.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)This bill prohibits cities and counties, including charter
cities and counties, from repealing an ordinance that requires
them to repair or reconstruct streets, sidewalks, or driveways
that have been damaged as a result of tree growth unless the
majority of the electorate concurs. The author has identified
four cities that have such ordinances in place and would be
affected by this bill: the City of Los Angeles, the City of
Placentia, the City of Oakland, and the City of Redlands. AB
22 is author-sponsored.
2)According to the author, "Sidewalk repair laws and ordinances
require homeowners to repair sidewalks in front of their homes
when necessary. However, the City of Los Angeles' ordinance
exempts homeowners from repairing sidewalk damages that
resulted from tree growth from trees planted by the city.
This ordinance dates back to 1974; however, the city has been
unable to adequately address the cost of repairs. Of Los
Angeles' 10,750 miles of sidewalk, more than 42 percent are in
disrepair - most as a result of tree growth. Since then, the
cost of sidewalk repairs in the City of Los Angeles has
accumulated during the past forty years to approximately $1.5
billion."
3)The City of Los Angeles assumed responsibility for sidewalk
repair in 1973, allocating $2 million for the work, according
to a November 2011 Los Angeles Times article. The federal
money ran out in 1976. A bond measure to fix the city's
sidewalks was put before the voters in 1998, but was rejected
by 60% of voters.
Since 2000, the city has spent about $95 million to replace
550 miles of sidewalk. The city has nearly 5,000 miles of
ruptured sidewalks with an estimated repair cost of $1.5
billion and spent $4 million in 2011 settling trip-and-fall
claims, according to a September 2012 Los Angeles Times
article. A November 2011 Los Angeles Times article stated
that it can cost $250,000 - $300,000 to repair a mile of
sidewalk.
AB 22
Page 3
In 2010, the Los Angeles City Council began considering a
variety of proposals to address the backlog of broken
sidewalks, including a requirement on homeowners to make
repairs, 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. More
recently, the city considered conducting a survey to document
the extent of the problem and form the basis for a bond
measure. This proposal was pegged at $10 million and
estimated to take three years to complete, which came under
fire in the press and the community. The city is developing a
revised proposal, according to the author's office.
4)Under current law, the responsibility for repairing sidewalks
rests 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 complete the repairs and
impose the cost as a lien on the property. Legal liability
for injuries caused by a broken sidewalk differs based on the
specific circumstances.
5)The voter ratification required by this bill applies only to
the repeal of a sidewalk repair ordinance. Amendments to an
existing ordinance that fall short of outright or constructive
repeal may not require voter approval.
6)As noted above, the California Constitution allows cities that
adopt charters to control their own "municipal affairs." In
all other matters, charter cities must follow general,
statewide laws. This bill applies to all cities, including
charter cities. The Committee may wish to consider whether
the imposition of a local ratification requirement for
sidewalk repairs and the manner in which a city pays for
sidewalk repairs are consistent with its understanding of the
municipal affairs doctrine.
7)This Committee heard a similar bill, AB 2231 (Fuentes, 2012),
twice. When first heard,
AB 2231 contained three major provisions:
a) It required a city or county to repair a sidewalk when
any portion of it 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
AB 22
Page 4
convenience in its use of that sidewalk, if the sidewalk is
owned by the city or county or the repairs are required as
a result of damage caused by plants or trees;
b) It imposed liability on the city or county for any
injury resulting from that entity's failure to perform the
required repairs; and,
c) It prohibited any city or county from imposing an
assessment for sidewalk repairs against the private owner
of the property fronting on any portion of a sidewalk.
This version of AB 2231 passed this Committee on a 7-0 vote on
April 18, 2012.
AB 2231 was subsequently amended on the Assembly Floor and
re-referred back to Committee pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.
When heard the second time, the provisions
of AB 2231 were substantially similar to AB 22. This version
of AB 2231 passed this Committee on a 6-3 vote on June 20,
2012. AB 2231 subsequently died in Senate Appropriations
Committee.
8)This Committee also heard AB 1985 (Strickland, 2008), 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 in this Committee on a 2-5 vote on April 9,
2008.
9)Support arguments : Supporters argue that local governments
should be held responsible for damage to sidewalks caused by
trees that the local agencies planted, and that property
owners also should not be held liable for trip-and-fall claims
in such circumstances. Supporters are concerned with the
uneven cost burden that would result if local governments
shift responsibility for sidewalk repairs to property owners.
Supporters also believe that the public should have the last
word on any policy changes in municipalities that assumed
responsibility for tree-growth damage.
Opposition arguments : Opponents argue that this bill creates
AB 22
Page 5
a dangerous precedent, undermines the role of local
jurisdictions, and creates a disincentive for local
governments to assist with the costs of sidewalk repairs.
Opponents point to the escalating cost of infrastructure
repairs, the reduction in local resources, and the challenge
local agencies face balancing the needs of property owners and
pedestrians with limited taxpayer dollars. Opponents assert
that local governments need the flexibility to update their
ordinances, which may include asking property owners to share
the cost of sidewalk repairs.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
Chatsworth Neighborhood Council
Reseda Neighborhood Council
Opposition
California State Association of Counties
Glendale City Employees Association
League of California Cities
Organization of SMUD Employees
San Bernardino Public Employees Association
San Luis Obispo County Employees Association
Santa Rosa City Employees Association
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958