Sidewalk Ordinance Moving Forward

Community Alert
City of Los Angeles Sidewalk Ordinance coming to committee this Wednesday!

File Number: 05-1853
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=05-1853


Meeting Notice
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING and SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH BUDGET AND
FINANCE COMMITTEE.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2011
ROOM 1010, CITY HALL - 3:00 PM
200 NORTH SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

05-1853 CONTINUED FROM 2-20-08, 5-20-09 AND 4-15-10 Bureau of Street Services (BOSS ) and City Attorney reports and draft Ordinance relative amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code in connection with a point of sale plan for sidewalk repair and related matters.

Fiscal Impact Statement Submitted: No
Community Impact Statement Submitted: Yes Against Proposal: Granada Hills South Neighborhood Council Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council Harbor Gateway North Neighborhood Council Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council Northridge East Neighborhood Council Studio City Neighborhood Council.

UPDATE: CITY OF LOS ANGELES
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

DATE: July 19, 2011

TO: Public Works and Budget and Finance Committees of the Los Angeles City Council

Attn: Office of the City Clerk
Room 395 City Hall


FROM: Nazario Sauceda, Interim Director
Bureau of Street Services

SUBJECT: Sidewalk Repair Options (C.F. 05-1853 and 05-1853-S1)

This report is an update to the April 8, 2010 Bureau of Street Services (BSS) report previously discussed by a joint meeting of the Public Works and Budget and Finance Committees in April 2010. This report should be considered together with the attached City Attorney report and proposed Ordinance, dated March 31, 2011.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Public Works and Budget and Finance Committees:

1. Forward the attached City Attorney report and proposed Ordinance to the City Council, recommending adoption of the proposed Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) change and associated California Environmental Quality Act finding.

2. Identify up to three implementation options which are most feasible and instruct BSS to report back in 120 days with a detailed implementation plan(s) including funding requirements; staffing needs for a pre- and post-inspection program, assessment processing if directed work is not done, and program administration.

DISCUSSION

LAMC Amendment

State Law (Improvement Act of 1911, aka California Streets and Highways Code – Division 7) and City Code (Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 62.104) already place the responsibility for sidewalk construction, reconstruction and repair on the adjoining property owner. However, in 1974, because of available federal funding, the City accepted responsibility for repairs to curbs, driveways or sidewalks required as the result of tree root growth. This limited exception is still effective today, despite the absence of funding.

The accompanying City Attorney Report (City Attorney Report No. R11-0132 dated March 31, 2011) transmits a Draft Ordinance which recommends:

• repealing the tree root growth exception, effectively returning the responsibility for repair of curbs, driveways and sidewalks damaged by any cause, including by tree root growth, back to the adjoining property owner,

• increasing the time required for adjoining property owners to commence the work of repair and/or reconstruction of sidewalks from “two weeks” to ninety (90) days, and

• adopting a California Environmental Quality Act – Categorical Exemption Finding in conjunction with the LAMC amendment.

Staff recommends that the City Attorney report and proposed Ordinance be forwarded to the City Council and Mayor for approval at this time, while the details of a selected implementation plan are developed over the next several months.

Implementation Options Following Repeal of the Tree Root Growth Exception

In 2008, BSS presented a comprehensive plan for implementing a Point of Sale Program, which was developed by a task force comprised of numerous City Departments and private interests. The Public Works Committee instead instructed BSS to present implementation options. The following are options for enforcing L.A.M.C. 62.104 and the “1911 Act”. The first five were presented in the April 8, 2010 BSS report previously considered by your Committee, promote a City-wide approach and are:

1. Explicit enforcement
BSS investigators would be required to inspect sidewalks and cite property owners, directing that repairs be started within ninety days. The entire City would be covered in a time frame directly related to the resources allocated for the program.

2. Point-of-Service (or Sale) and Building Permits
“Point-Of-Service” would require the buyer of a property to obtain a Safe Sidewalk Certificate from BSS prior to utility connection, versus “Point-Of-Sale”, which would require certification prior to the close of escrow. This effort would be combined with the requirement for a Safe Sidewalk Certificate to be obtained from BSS when any building permit is issued for repairs/improvements valued over $20,000 (or other specified value).

3. Point-of-Service (or Sale) and Explicit Enforcement in Commercial Zones
With “Point-Of-Service” alone, sidewalk improvements would lag in commercial zones because commercial properties are not transferred as often as residential properties are. Explicit enforcement in commercial zones would place a priority on commercial zones which generally have higher pedestrian usage.

4. Point-of-Service (or Sale) and 50-50 Voluntary Sidewalk Repair Program
The challenges include establishing whether City funds should be used to help facilitate repairs that are the responsibility of private property owners and whether the City can reliably reserve sufficient funds to sustain a “50/50” program.

5. Compliance Based on Liability Risks
The inspection and citation effort would be targeted at trip and fall claim locations and other known hazardous areas combined with a complaint driven effort.

Subsequent to the previous report, additional options were discussed with options for limited and/or targeted sidewalk improvements in the City including:

6. Explicit Enforcement along Major and Secondary Highways
Major and secondary highways are major commuter and public transportation routes comprising approximately 25% of the sidewalk network. A limited repair program as such would require significantly less resources or can be completed in a proportionately shorter period of time. The presumption is that these sidewalks accommodate much more pedestrian traffic and a targeted effort would benefit a greater number of people. More information would be needed from LADOT on pedestrian traffic volumes to substantiate the assumption. This approach would also be consistent with the City’s Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan, which places a higher priority on public transportation corridors.

7. Explicit Enforcement Adjacent to Sidewalk Trip and Fall
Sidewalk improvements would be enforced against adjacent property owners where “Trip and Fall” claims have been filed with the City Clerk. The size of this program would be determined by the claims filed within a set time interval, whether 3 years, 5 years or other. With approximately 2,000 claims being filed each year, a 3-year program would consider 6,000 locations, whereas a 5-year program would consider 10,000 locations. It would further be logical to cite other noncompliant property owners on the block where damaged sidewalk exists. Allocated staffing and resources would determine which of these alternatives would be feasible.

8. Explicit Enforcement Adjacent to Sidewalk Trip and Fall Lawsuit
For trip and falls unresolved at the claim level and which escalate to a lawsuit, this option would limit the targeted enforcement to property owners adjacent to those locations. The size of this program would be determined by the lawsuits filed within a set time interval, whether 3 years, 5 years or other. With approximately 200 lawsuits filed each year, a 3-year program would consider 600 locations, whereas a 5-year program would consider 1,000 locations. It again would be prudent to cite noncompliances on the remainder of the block.

9. Sidewalk Repair Assessment District
Property owners within the City can form an assessment district to repair their sidewalks using the procedures in the State Streets and Highways Code. These districts do not require that the properties be contiguous and the districts can be of any size. However, the State Constitution stipulates that property owners shall vote on any assessments imposed for the construction or maintenance of public improvements, thus this option carries a risk of not being approved by the voters after the City has expended considerable time and effort to form a district.

The cost to administer a district will run approximately 20% of the assessment amount for districts that assess $500,000 or more and up to 60% for smaller districts. If the amount owed is more than $150, the property owners can pay in installments, however interest will accrue on the balance.

The Bureau of Engineering has resources to process only a few small districts each year so the formation of a large Assessment District or a large number of smaller Assessment Districts would require significant additional resources to develop and bring forward for a public vote and, if approved, require more resources to administer the Program over an extended period.

10. No Implementation At This Time Option

Subsequent to the previous report, additional policy questions arose which require guidance:

1. City Counterclaims Against Homeowner’s Insurance
Where City has expenditures related to sidewalks claims and lawsuits, should City Policy include pursuing reimbursement with the adjacent property owner’s insurance company? The City Attorney would have to estimate any staffing and resource needs for this option. Homeowners having to pay deductibles and insurance premium increases could be contentious.

2. City Position Regarding Uncooperative Property Owners
Develop City Policy to address homeowners failing to take action after 90 days or are otherwise uncooperative. If the City were to effect repairs and seek reimbursement, a front funding source will be needed until monies are recovered. Staffing and resources will be needed to explore emulating the Weed Abatement program or other means.

3. City Position Regarding Property Owners Unable to Pay for Sidewalk Improvements
With assistance from other relevant City Departments, establish the criteria for low income, moderate income and hardship exemptions, and assess the feasibility for providing construction loans, payment plans or other types of financial assistance to property owners.

If you have any questions or if additional information is needed, please contact me or Assistant Director Ron Olive at (213) 847-3333.


UPDATE: The joint Public Works and Budget and Finance committee meeting began with the Nazario Sauceda, Interim Director of the Bureau of Street Services distributing a “Final Draft” report entitled “Sidewalk Repair Options” to the six City Councilmembers in attendance. Initially no copies were provided to anyone else, but a staffer was sent downstairs to make some copies. But discussion ensued in the meantime. The report recommended approval of the proposed ordinance making property owners responsible for tree root damage to sidewalks, curbs, and driveways (see original post) as drafted. Then the report listed ten implementation options:
1. Explicit enforcement (repairs within 90 days)
2. Point-of-Service (or Sale) and Building Permits (requiring a “Safe Sidewalk Certificate” prior to utility connection)
3. Point-of-Service (or Sale) and Explicit Enforcement in Commercial Zones (priority enforcement in commercial zones)
4. Point-of-Service (or Sale) and 50-50 Voluntary Sidewalk Repair Program (City matching funds)
5. Compliance Based on Liability Risks (target trip and fall claim locations with complaint driven effort)
6. Explicit Enforcement along Major and Secondary Highways (approximately 25% of the sidewalks)
7. Explicit Enforcement Adjacent to Sidewalk Trip and Fall (enforced against property owners where claims have been filed)
8. ???? (missing from copies provided to the public)
9. Sidewalk Assessment District(s) (20% cost to administer $500,000+ in size; 60% administrative cost for smaller districts)
10. No Implementation At This Time Option (self explanatory)

Additional policy questions raised in the report:
1. City Counterclaims Against Homeowner’s Insurance (City pursue reimbursement with property owner’s insurance company; premium increases???)
2. City Position Regarding Uncooperative Property Owners (up front funding source until “recovery” of monies from homeowners)
3. City Position Regarding Property Owners Unable to Pay for Sidewalk Improvements (construction loans, payment plans for low income, moderate income, and hardship exemptions???)

A motion by Alarcon/Parks to report back on all options was approved on a 2-1 Public Works vote (Alarcon and Huizar voted yes; Englander voted no) and the same vote to come back with the proposed ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. The Budget and Finance Committee votes on the same motions were 3-2 (Parks, Huizar, and Rosendahl voted yes; Englander and Koretz voted no). Huizar announced he would schedule for the “end of September.”

If your Neighborhood Council has not yet considered this issue, I suggest agendizing for your next meeting.

Also if your NC has taken action but have not yet filed a Community Impact Statement (CIS), please do so for BOTH Council Files: CF 05-1853 (Point Of Sale) and CF 05-1853-S1 (proposed ordinance revised by City Attorney March 31, 2011).