BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2231
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2231 (Fuentes)
As Amended May 25, 2012
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 12-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Smyth, Alejo, Bradford, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Campos, Davis, Hueso, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Norby | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Ammiano, Hill, |
| | | |Lara, Mitchell, Solorio |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires that local ordinances placing responsibility
for sidewalk repair on the local agency may be repealed only by
majority vote, and prohibits local agencies from imposing
assessments on adjacent property owners for repairs.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires that if a city, county or city and county has an
ordinance that requires that city, county, or city and county
to repair sidewalks, a repeal of that ordinance shall become
effective only if the repealing ordinance is approved by the
majority of voters voting on that measure, in a consolidated
or general election.
2)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.
3)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
AB 2231
Page 2
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, if the Commission on State Mandates determines this
bill is a reimbursable mandate, the state will be liable for the
costs of the election and sidewalk repairs required to be made
between the decision to seek the election and the actual
election date.
COMMENTS : This bill is intended to prevent cities, counties and
city and counties from shifting financial responsibility for
damaged or inoperable sidewalks onto adjacent property owners
without a majority vote, while prohibiting those local entities
from assessing adjacent property owners for repair costs. This
bill is author-sponsored.
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
AB 2231
Page 3
for these sidewalks and protects property owners from huge
repair and legal costs for damages they did not produce."
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. Federal
money for that work 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. The Los Angeles Times
reports that it can cost roughly $250,000 to $300,000 to repair
a mile of sidewalk.
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 require that the repeal of an ordinance
requiring the local entity to repair sidewalks be approved by a
majority of voters, thereby preventing cities like Los Angeles
from shifting financial responsibility for sidewalk repairs back
onto adjacent property owners. Local entities would also be
barred from imposing assessments on adjacent property owners for
sidewalk repairs, leaving open the question of how local
entities would pay for the repairs.
Presumably, amendments to an existing ordinance that fall short
AB 2231
Page 4
of outright repeal would not trigger the voter approval
requirement, although the bill is silent on this point.
According to a Daily News article dated October 20, 2011,
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 before the voters in
1998, but was rejected. A 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.
The League of California Cities and the California State
Association of Counties oppose the bill primarily because of the
increased financial costs: "?�M]andating 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?"
In 2008, the Assembly Local Government Committee heard AB 1985
(Strickland), which would have repealed current laws regarding
sidewalk repairs, and held liable the owner of the property on
which the sidewalk is located for all repairs and maintenance of
the sidewalk. The bill failed passage (2-5) in the Committee on
April 9, 2008.
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.
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, "�t]he 'one-size fits all' approach outlined in AB 2231,
would create a costly and inefficient maintenance system that
AB 2231
Page 5
fails to take into account numerous considerations relevant to
the public safety of residents, infrastructure planning, and
limited resources."
Analysis Prepared by : Hank Dempsey / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
FN: 0003843