CC 2017-04-11_12a Sidewalk Concrete Condition Assessment Report
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GEOFF ENGLISH, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF SIDEWALK INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT
AND REPLACEMENT REPORT
DATE: APRIL 11, 2017
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council receive and provide comments and direction on the
Sidewalk Infrastructure Assessment and Replacement Report and suggested policy
modifications related to the City’s sidewalk infrastructure.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
No financial impact at this time. Information assembled in this report will assist in
prioritizing funding requests for the development of future budget recommendations.
The estimated cost to repair all sidewalk defects following the assessment completed by
the Public Works staff in the summer of 2016 was $1,346,250. The Fiscal Year 2017-18
Capital Improvement budget has $100,000 proposed for East Grand Avenue sidewalk
repair, plus $60,000 for general sidewalk repair work.
BACKGROUND:
During the development of the Fiscal Year 2015-2017 Biennial Budget, the Public
Works Department submitted a budget request for $25,000 from the City’s Sales Tax
Fund to cover the cost for unspecified equipment and infrastructure replacement and
repairs for a variety of general fund supported infrastructure such as parks, government
building and ADA improvements. At the special City Council Budget hearing for Capital
Improvement Projects and Non-General Fund Programs held on May 12, 2015, the
Council declined the unspecified budget line item requests and directed City staff to
return with budget requests for defined projects in future budget cycles. In addition, the
City Council declined the funding of similar unspecified equipment and infrastructure
replacement and repair budget requests.
As a result of this direction, an effort was initiated to inventory and assess the condition
of the City’s General Fund supported infrastructure and assets in the following general
categories:
Parks, Landscaping and Open Space
Government Buildings
Drainage Facilities
Sidewalks and Pedestrian bridges
Roads
Bridges
Item 12.a. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF SIDEWALK INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT AND
REPLACEMENT REPORT
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 2
The City Council determined that “Supporting City Infrastructure” was one of the top
eight (8) goals established during the Goal Setting Workshop on July 18, 2016.
Previously, staff presented to the Council infrastructure assessment reports for
Government Buildings, Drainage facilities, Roads and the City’s Parks, Landscaping
and Open Space system. The following are general findings of the four previous
infrastructure assessment reports:
City’s Parks, Landscaping and Open Space system:
Approximate value of existing infrastructure and improvements: $ 4,900,000
Approximate annual depreciations and replacement costs: $ 210,000
Government Buildings:
Approximate value of existing infrastructure and improvements: $ 4,700,000
Approximate annual depreciations and replacement costs: $ 121,000
Drainage facilities:
Approximate value of existing infrastructure and improvements: $ 32,200,00
Approximate annual depreciations and replacement costs: $ 238,000
Roads:
Approximate value of existing infrastructure and improvements: $180,000,000
Approximate annual depreciations and replacement costs: $ 3,023,000
This is the fifth City infrastructure assessment report and lifetime replacement schedule
presented to the City Council in this series. The final report on the condition of the City’s
bridges will be presented to the Council at a future date.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The City of Arroyo Grande has approximately 88 miles of sidewalks in the public right of
way. Sidewalks have historically been maintained by the City using several repair
techniques including remove and replace, concrete grinding and concrete slicing.
Residents have periodically been required to repair or replace a sidewalk segment that
was damaged as a result of a privately owned and maintained tree. Sidewalk repair
and replacement resulting from general decay or deterioration has generally been
completed by the City. City initiated repairs are completed using City crews or by
utilization of a private general engineering contractor.
According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), sidewalks require regular
maintenance to reduce the damage caused by the effects of weather and use over time,
and according to FHWA have a useful life cycle of 80 years before complete
replacement is necessary. This useful life cycle is based on normal weathering and
deterioration over time and does not include repairs that are required as a result of
damage from tree roots, which is the primary cause of damage to Arroyo Grande
sidewalks. In preparation for this report, the Public Works Department completed a
comprehensive field inspection of all sidewalk segments in the City. Teams of two
employees walked all streets in the City and measured all existing sidewalk deviations,
Item 12.a. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF SIDEWALK INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT AND
REPLACEMENT REPORT
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 3
and determined the replacement area necessary for the repair. A sample list of the
sidewalk displacement locations is attached (Attachment 1) along with a map that
shows the “hot spots” of sidewalk damage throughout the City using a density analysis
process (Attachment 2). For the purposes of assessing total value and asset
replacement costs, Public Works staff also determined the total amount of concrete
sidewalk within the public right of way as detailed below.
ASSET REPLACEMENT COSTS
Staff determined the total quantity of sidewalk in Arroyo Grande to be approximately 88
miles and approximately 2,327,500 square feet of sidewalk surface area based on an
average sidewalk width of approximately five (5) foot. Below are asset replacement
statistics based on a useful lifetime of 100 years for concrete sidewalk.
Linear Feet of Existing sidewalk 465,500 LF
Square Feet of Existing sidewalk 2,327,500 SF
Total Replacement cost for all Existing sidewalk $ 34,912,500
(based on a replacement cost of $15 per SF)
Annual Depreciation set-aside (based on 100 year life) $ 232,750 per year
As was presented in the previous infrastructure reports, the total replacement cost
(valuation) and the annual depreciation for all the sidewalks is provided for prospectively
in comparison to the City’s other unfunded liabilities and future needs. This information
can also be used comparatively by the City Council when determining funding
requirements for all General Fund related liabilities, including other asset replacement
needs.
The field assessment of the condition of the City’s existing sidewalks by City staff
determined the amount of existing damage to all sidewalk segments using a field survey
that collected the following information:
Item 12.a. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF SIDEWALK INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT AND
REPLACEMENT REPORT
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 4
Based on this assessment and a calculation of the per square foot repair costs, the
following cost estimates were determined and divided into three categories of
displacement:
Using the information gathered, during the sidewalk condition field evaluation, Capital
Improvement Projects of prioritized sidewalk repairs will be developed for consideration
in the up-coming and future budget adoption processes. Several factors are used
during the prioritization of sidewalk repair needs including, but not limited to the
following;
Size and severity of the sidewalk displacement
High pedestrian traffic areas
School zones and City facilities
Complaints & Trip and Fall histories
Geographic grouping for cost effectiveness
The future responsibility for sidewalk repair may also be addressed through policy
considerations. Following are three potential policy changes for consideration by the
City Council that may reduce the City’s future sidewalk repair costs and liability:
1. Prepare a Sidewalk Master Plan and Establish Sidewalk In-lieu Fees: Such a
plan could be used to guide future installation of sidewalks in the City.
Installation of frontage improvements including sidewalks along the entire
property frontage is currently required as a condition for building permits for all
Zoning Districts except for Agriculture, Residential Estates, Residential Hillside
and Residential Rural zoning districts. A map showing the current locations of
sidewalks in Arroyo Grande is attached. (Attachment 3)
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.68.020(F)(2) provides guidance
on the requirement for the installation of sidewalks upon application for a
building permit.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, upon an application for a building
permit, the installation of concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along the full
frontage of the parcel to which the building permit applies, to the grades and
locations approved by the director of public works, shall be required in any district
other than the A, AG, RE, RH and RR districts. This subdivision shall in no way be
construed as to preclude the city's right to require concrete curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, street paving, and necessary dedications in any district within the city. If
an exception is requested for any permit, regardless of the district within which the
Item 12.a. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF SIDEWALK INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT AND
REPLACEMENT REPORT
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 5
construction is permitted, it shall not be considered effective without the written
approval of the director of public works, pursuant to this section.
By City Municipal Code, the Public Works Director may require sidewalks as a
condition of a building permit in these zones where appropriate. A Council
adopted Sidewalk Master Plan would assist staff in determining the specific
properties where sidewalks would be required. A Sidewalk In-lieu fee may be
established for those properties where sidewalks are not warranted. Revenues
from the Sidewalk In-lieu fees could be allocated to sidewalk installation and
repair projects in other areas of the City. It is recommended that the City Council
direct staff to prepare a report for future consideration to adopt a Sidewalk
Master plan and to prepare options for a Sidewalk In-lieu fee.
2. Consider adoption of State of California Streets & Highways Code Section 5610:
Staff may research and provide recommendations for future Council
consideration for potential adoption by Ordinance of the State of California
Streets & Highways Code Section 5610 which imposes the obligation for
sidewalk repair on adjacent property owners. A large number of California Cities
have passed ordinances and developed sidewalk repair programs that require
the participation of the adjoining property owner. Attachment 4 provides a
summary of the sidewalk repair policies for some of the San Luis Obispo County
municipal agencies.
In addition, the League of California Cities prepared an informative guide for
cities when considering options for sidewalk repair (Attachment 5). This report
provides a variety of options that may be considered to transfer some of the
responsibility for sidewalk repair to the adjoining property owners in accordance
with State law and common municipal practice. It is recommended that the City
Council direct staff to prepare a report for future consideration to potentially adopt
by Ordinance the State of California Streets & Highways Code Section 5610 and
to provide options for implementation.
3. Allow for a “No-fee” Encroachment Permit for sidewalk repair: Proposed revisions
to the Community Tree Program Ordinance are being prepared in which a
recommendation will be presented to waive the Encroachment Permit fee for
property owners who are directed to repair sidewalk sections along the frontage
of their property where the damage was caused by a private tree or where other
defects exist that were not caused by a City-maintained street tree. The current
cost for an encroachment permit is $619.00. It is recommended that the City
Council consider including a “No-fee” encroachment permit for sidewalk repair
provision when proposed revisions to the Community Tree Program Ordinance
are brought before you.
Item 12.a. - Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF SIDEWALK INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT AND
REPLACEMENT REPORT
APRIL 11, 2017
PAGE 6
ADVANTAGES:
The preparation of the sidewalk condition assessment and lifecycle replacement
schedule may be used by the City Council for comparison purposes when determining
funding priorities in future budgets for all General Fund related liabilities, including other
asset replacement needs.
DISADVANTAGES:
Some of the recommended liability transfer options presented in this report may not be
well received by Arroyo Grande property owners.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Receive and provide comments and direction on the Sidewalk Infrastructure
Assessment and Replacement Report and suggested policy modifications related
to the City’s sidewalk infrastructure; or
2. Provide direction to staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Not applicable.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Sample list of sidewalk displacement locations
2. Sidewalk displacement density analysis. “Hot spots” map
3. Current sidewalk locations map
4. San Luis Obispo County municipal agencies sidewalk survey
5. League of CA Cities- Sidewalk repair and liability report
Item 12.a. - Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1
Sidewalk Condition Assessment - Field Results
Item 12.a. - Page 7
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SIDEWALK INVENTORYCITY OF ARROYO GRANDE SIDEWALK INVENTORYDG PathExistingNon-existingTotal LF of existing sidewalk: ~465,533.23 LFThis map displays the locations of existing sidewalk, non-existing sidewalk, and decomposed granite pathsas of October 2015.:::00.510.25MilesCreated by: Camilla Greenbach, GIS TechnicianMarch 20, 2017ATTACHMENT 2Item 12.a. - Page 8
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiArroyo Grande Sidewalk DisplacementDensity by Spatial Distributionli> 1" Displacementli1/2" - 1" Displacementli1/4" - 1/2" DisplacementliMissing Sidewalk²This map displays the 2016 sidewalk inventory datasymbolized by the size of the displacement. The heat map shows the density of the displacements by spatialdistribution (where they are located), to highlight areas of the City that may need to be prioritized for replacements.Figure 1OCTOBER 2016Created by: Camilla Greenbach, GIS Technician, City of Arroyo Grande00.510.25MilesLowHighDensity by Spatial DistributionATTACHMENT 3Item 12.a. - Page 9
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiArroyo Grande Sidewalk DisplacementDensity Weighted by Cost Estimateli> 1" Displacementli1/2" - 1" Displacementli1/4" - 1/2" DisplacementliMissing Sidewalk²This map displays the 2016 sidewalk inventory datasymbolized by the size of the displacement. The heat map shows the density of the displacements weightedby the estimated cost to repair it, to highlight areas of the City that may need to be prioritized for replacements.Figure 1OCTOBER 2016Created by: Camilla Greenbach, GIS Technician, City of Arroyo Grande00.510.25MilesLowHighDensity by CostATTACHMENT 3Item 12.a. - Page 10
Sidewalk Repair Programs By City
San Luis Obispo:
Sidewalk repair is the responsibility of the property owner.
http://www.slocity.org/living/neighborhood/sidewalk-and-parkway-maintenance
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12.16.020
Atascadero:
Sidewalk maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner.
http://qcode.us/codes/atascadero/
Atascadero Municipal Code 6.4.6.04
Paso Robles:
Sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, or utility damage from private property trees shall be the
responsibility of the property owner.
http://www.prcity.com/government/departments/publicworks/streets/curbs-sidewalks.asp
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/el_paso_de_robles/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId
=16335
El Paso de Robles Municipal Code 10.04.080 (Trees)
El Paso de Robles Municipal Code 11.12.040 (?)
Morro Bay (2013):
“Although the California Street & highways Code assigns sidewalk maintenance responsibilities
to adjoining property owners, the City continues to provide repair operations to maintain safe
and usable sidewalks.”
http://www.morro-bay.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1769
Grover Beach:
“The Street Division maintains, repairs, and rebuilds streets, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.”
http://www.grover.org/index.aspx?NID=148
ATTACHMENT 4
Item 12.a. - Page 11
League of California Cities® 2014 Spring Conference
Renaissance Esmeralda, Indian Wells
But It’s Your Sidewalk! Sidewalk Repair
and Liability
Thursday, May 8, 2014 General Session; 2:15 – 4:15 p.m.
Gerald C. Hicks, Supervising Deputy City Attorney, Sacramento
ATTACHMENT 5
Item 12.a. - Page 12
League of California Cities® 2014 Spring Conference
Renaissance Esmeralda, Indian Wells
Notes:______________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Item 12.a. - Page 13
BUT IT’S YOUR SIDEWALK!
This paper and presentation arose out of a desire to create a comprehensive summary of the law
concerning an adjacent property owner’s obligation to repair a defective sidewalk under Streets and
Highways Code section 5610. This effort was motivated to address the numerous objections and
threatened lawsuits from angry property owners upon receipt of a repair notice. The title was
suggested by the oft heard property owners’ mantra and perspective. Research into the history of
sidewalk repair for purposes of the paper led to research into the general history of sidewalks and
research concerning repair naturally delved into research concerning the interplay between sidewalk
repair and liability for unrepaired sidewalks. In sum, the paper and presentation deal with various issues
concerning the most pedestrian of infrastructure – sidewalks. Because understanding some of the
issues concerning sidewalk repair and liability may best be understood in a historical context, I begin
with a brief history of sidewalks.
I
A Brief History of Sidewalks
Sidewalks, perhaps the most ubiquitous yet inconspicuous of critical infrastructure, have a long history.
The first evidence of paved pedestrian paths dates from ancient Greece and Rome.1 Sidewalks, as
walkways separated from roads, disappeared during the Middle Ages. They reappeared during the
seventeenth century when the first governmental acts calling for the paving of pedestrian paths were
passed by Parliament a few years after the 1666 Great Fire of London, apparently as part of Christopher
Wren’s rebuilding and organization of the City of London.
In the nineteenth century, sidewalks were often constructed by adjacent property owners and
businesses and by the end of that century sidewalks had become an important aspect of urban
1 Loukaitou-Sideris and Ehrenfeucht, Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotiation over Public Space (2009) p. 15
Item 12.a. - Page 14
infrastructure. Because sidewalks were often the only paved aspect of streets, they were the easiest
place to walk, shop and carry out various economic and social activities. “In commercial areas, sidewalks
extended the realm of adjacent shops; shopkeepers displayed their merchandise on sidewalks and
stored deliveries and overstock on them as well. Street peddlers made a living outdoors while street
speakers and newsboys conveyed information to passersby. Sidewalks were also a realm for social
encounters where friends, acquaintances, and strangers mixed. The sidewalks were thus both a route
and a destination; a way to move through the city, but also a place of commerce, social interaction, and
civic engagement.”2 Sidewalks were also critical to the safety of a city and to establishing a sense of
community.
As sidewalks became more prevalent, cities moved to standardize their dimensions and the material
used to construct them. With standardization came a contraction of their use as cities focused on a
singular purpose for sidewalks – to move people. As a result, many cities imposed sidewalk regulations
with respect to the storage of material or products; public speaking; vending; and loitering. Jane Jacobs
lamented the reduction in value and physical contraction of sidewalks in her 1961 book, The Death and
Life of Great American Cities, “Sidewalk width is invariably sacrificed for vehicular width, partly because
city sidewalks are conventionally considered to be purely space for pedestrian travel and access to
buildings and go unrecognized and unrespected as the uniquely vital and irreplaceable organs of city
safety, public life, and child rearing that they are.”3 In her book, Jacobs relates numerous examples of
how a busy and vibrant sidewalk, even in the less affluent parts of a city, can decrease crime and
promote social discourse.
2 Loukaitou-Sideris and Renia Ehrenfeucht, Vibrant Sidewalks in the United States: Reintegrating Walking and a
Quintessential Social Realm (Access Magazine Spring 2010), p. 24
3 Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961)
Item 12.a. - Page 15
In recent years, sidewalks have gained renewed respect as planners seek to restore their status as
“public space” as opposed to a simple mode of transportation. The health benefits of walking are patent
but have been extolled by the Surgeon General and numerous health professionals as a means to
combat obesity, diabetes, and other diseases. In addition, as a result of concerns with climate change,
energy conservation and congestion, transportation planners view sidewalks as an important
component of sustainable and healthy communities and walking as an inexpensive and enjoyable
activity that reduces congestion and conserves energy.4
II
Sidewalk repair
A. Approaches to Sidewalk Repair and Maintenance
Despite their long history and ubiquity, sidewalks are often overlooked as non-critical infrastructure.
While listing bridges, dams, levees, ports, rails and roads, the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Report
Card for America’s Infrastructure does not mention sidewalks. While it is true that the catastrophic
failure of a dam or bridge would undoubtedly have calamitous results, the cumulative injuries and
consequent expenditure of municipal funds from the incremental decay of sidewalks can be equally
substantial.
The legal and fiscal impact of broken or displaced sidewalks and the responsibility for their repair has
been a constant, if inconspicuous, issue in many California cities for some time. The issue of repair
responsibility has obvious legal implications: liability for the existence of a dangerous condition and the
requirement to maintain an accessible sidewalk under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California
4 Loukaitou-Sideris and Renia Ehrenfeucht, Vibrant Sidewalks in the United States: Reintegrating Walking and a
Quintessential Social Realm (Access Magazine Spring 2010); American Planning Association, The Importance of
Sidewalks (The New Planner, Fall 2013)
Item 12.a. - Page 16
disability access laws. The repair obligation also creates political difficulties - both for those cities which
maintain an ordinance placing the repair obligation on property owners (and who consistently deal with
surprised and disgruntled property owners) and those cities that have not enacted such an ordinance
because of public opposition and which face a steady increase in damaged sidewalks and the potential
liability arising from those sidewalks.
Los Angeles provides a singular example. In 1974, as a result of a grant of federal funds, Los Angeles
passed an ordinance placing the obligation to repair sidewalks on the City. Since the federal funds dried
up a few years later, the City has had difficulty enacting legislation to place the repair obligation back on
the property owners. As of 2010, approximately 4,700 of the Los Angeles’ 11,000 linear miles of
sidewalk (approximately 43%) were in disrepair. The City estimated spending between 4 and 6 million
dollars in liability claims and the cost estimate to repair the sidewalks was between 1.2 and 1.5 billion
dollars.5 Los Angeles has been considering repealing the 1974 ordinance to shift responsibility back to
the homeowners. This effort has faced opposition from the homeowners and even unsuccessful efforts
in the State Legislature to require a public vote prior to placing the obligation back on the homeowner.
Sacramento also experimented with assuming the repair obligation. From 1943 through mid-1973, the
City’s policy was that property owners were responsible for the cost of all repairs except those caused
by City street tree roots for which the City shared responsibility. In mid-1973, the City adopted a new
policy making the City responsible for all sidewalk repairs. Not surprisingly, sidewalk repair requests
increased substantially. In mid-1976, finding the existing policy unworkable, the City elected to adopt a
policy making property owners responsible for all sidewalk repairs, including those repairs necessitated
by damage caused by City street trees. Other cities have backed away from an ordinance placing the
5 Brasuell, Where the Sidewalk Ends … In a Tree Root-Related Lawsuit, (Oct. 20, 2011)
<http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/10/where_the_sidewalk_endsin_a_tree_rootrelated_lawsuit.php>
Item 12.a. - Page 17
obligation of sidewalk repair on the property owner after a public outcry. Those cities that do have
sidewalk repair ordinances in place nonetheless face fairly consistent questions from the public as to the
fairness and legality of asking a property owner to repair the “public” sidewalk.
California, like numerous states, has provisions allowing municipalities to impose a repair obligation for
damaged sidewalks on adjacent property owners.6 Pursuant to these provisions, virtually every major
United States city has a sidewalk repair program that places a repair obligation on adjacent property
owners to varying degrees. For example, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Cincinnati make the
adjoining property owners fully responsible for adjacent sidewalks. Atlanta also makes the adjacent
property owner responsible and just faced a public backlash for sending out a number of repair notices
prompted by disability access pressures.7 Chicago operates a “shared cost” responsibility program by
limiting the repair cost to a set price per square foot and subsidizing any remainder. Washington D.C. is
responsible for repairing the sidewalks but “permanent repairs” may be subject to “available funding.”
California’s sidewalk repairs provisions are set forth in Streets and Highways Code sections 5600 et seq.
In 1935, Assembly Bill 1194 amended section 31 of the Improvement Act of 1911 to provide for the
repair and maintenance of sidewalks, curbing, parking strips and retaining walls by adjacent property
owners. Although the legislative history of Assembly Bill 1194 is no longer available, some possible
context for the measure may be gleaned from the time period of its passage. In his Inaugural Address of
January 8, 1935, California Governor Merriam, in speaking of the economic upheavals of the Great
Depression, said:
6 See Schaefer v. Lenahan, 63 Cal.App.2d 324 327-328 (1944), and cases cited therein. Research into the statutes
referenced in the twenty cited cases (a small and completely unscientific sample) revealed that the earliest
enactment date was 1856, the latest was 1937 and the average enactment date was 1903.
7 http://archive.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=277146 (2/11/13)
Item 12.a. - Page 18
But as fondly as some may believe, and as earnestly as others may hope, government
itself cannot indefinitely assume the responsibility for meeting all the demands of this
depression and this emergency.
* * *
Of primary importance at this time, from the standpoint of an efficient
administration of State functions, is the need for placing the government of California
on a sound financial basis. This we must do without imposing intolerable taxes upon the
people and without undertaking obligations not absolutely essential to the public
service. As the first step in such a direction, we must adopt a program that will enable us
to keep out expenditures below our income.
Assembly Member Lyons presented Assembly Bill 1194 a little over two weeks later. Though
the Governor’s message does not explicitly reference an effort to place the sidewalk repair
obligation on adjacent property owners, it is consistent with the tone and content of the
Inaugural Address.
The primary provision requiring a property owner to repair a defective sidewalk is Streets and
Highways Code section 5610.
§5610. Maintenance by lot owners
The owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on any portion of a public street or place
when that street or place is improved or if and when the area between the property line
of the adjacent property and the street line is maintained as a park or parking strip, shall
maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or
property and maintain it in a condition which will not interfere with the public
Item 12.a. - Page 19
convenience in the use of those works or areas save and except as to those conditions
created or maintained in, upon, along, or in connection with such sidewalk by any
person other than the owner, under and by virtue of any permit or right granted to him
by law or by the city authorities in charge thereof, and such persons shall be under alike
duty in relation thereto.
Pursuant to the authority of section 5610, the majority of cities in California have passed
ordinances imposing the obligation for sidewalk repair on adjacent property owners. However,
there is some diversity as to the extent of the obligation and how it is imposed. Some cities, like
Sacramento, impose the entire repair cost on the property owner regardless of the cause of any
damage or displacement. Many cities exempt damage caused by city trees from the repair
obligation. Another option followed by many cities is a 50/50 sharing of repair costs.8 Some
cities, in addition to a general sidewalk repair program, have instituted a program which
requires a defective sidewalk to be repaired upon the sale of the property.9 This has the benefit
of allowing the cost of repair to be recovered or paid as part of the price of the property. One
means of imposing such a requirement is to require that the escrow documents include a
certificate of compliance with the sidewalk ordinance. In addition, some cities require the
sidewalk to be repaired as a condition of the issuance of a building permit above a set value.
One issue often overlooked is the secondary obligation of section 5610. After setting forth the
obligation of adjacent property owners to maintain the sidewalk “in such condition that the
sidewalk will not endanger persons or property . . . [or] interfere with the public
convenience,” section 5610 “except[s] . . . those conditions created or maintained in, upon,
8 This diversity appears to be present throughout the nation. A survey of 82 cities in 45 states found that 40
percent of the cities required property owners to pay the full cost of repairing sidewalks, 46 percent share the cost
with property owners, and 13 percent pay the full cost of repair. Shoup, Fixing Broken Sidewalks (Access , No.36,
Spring 2010) pp. 30-36
9 Both Pasadena and Piedmont have such programs in place.
Item 12.a. - Page 20
along, or in connection with such sidewalk by any person other than the owner, under and by
virtue of any permit or right granted to him by law or by the city authorities in charge thereof ,
and such persons shall be under a like duty in relation thereto.”
There are no reported cases interpreting or applying this language. The purpose appears to be
to impose on utilities which maintain facilities (poles, guide wires, vaults, etc.) in or on the
sidewalk, the same obligation as imposed on adjacent property owners. This is a somewhat
different conceptual obligation than that imposed on adjacent property owners because the
source of any defect or interference with the public convenience would be the utility facility, not
the sidewalk itself. Potentially, the primary importance of this aspect of section 5610 would be
with respect to accessibility issues. In many cities, utility entities maintain facilities, particularly
poles, which reduce the sidewalk width below the required three feet of the California Building
Code 10 and the four feet required by the ADA draft Public Right-of-Way Guidelines. 11
B. Legal Issues Involving Sidewalk Maintenance Obligation
One issue that adjacent property owners charged for sidewalk repairs often raise is whether the
sidewalk repair obligation of section 5610 applies where the sidewalk is displaced or damaged
due to trees located in the public right of way.12 Though no statistics exist, tree roots are
10 Title 24 2013 California Building Code, section 11B-403.5.1 Clear Width – “Exception 3. The clear width for
sidewalks and walks shall be 48 inches minimum. When, because of right of way restrictions, natural barriers or
other exiting conditions, the enforcing agency determines that compliance with the 48-inch clear sidewalk width
would create an unreasonable hardship, the clear width may be reduced to 36 inches.”
11 http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/public-rights-of-way/proposed-
rights-of-way-guidelines - R302.3 – “Continuous Width. Except as provided in R302.3.1, the continuous clear width
of pedestrian access routes shall be 1.2 m (4.0 ft.) minimum, exclusive of the width of the curb.”
12 The issue is one of substantial importance to the City of Sacramento - one of many cities claiming the moniker:
“City of Trees.” According to some estimates, as of 2005, Sacramento had more trees per capita than any city
except Paris. Jason Margolis, California’s Capital Sees Big Benefits in More Trees (11/25/05)
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5027514>.
Item 12.a. - Page 21
undoubtedly the predominate cause of damage to sidewalks.13 As noted above, many cities do
not impose the sidewalk repair obligation on adjacent property owners where trees located in
the right of way have damaged the sidewalk. Many do, including those with a 50/50 sharing
program.
Though there is a great deal of visceral appeal to the argument that an adjacent property owner
should not bear responsibility to repair a sidewalk caused by a tree in the right of way when the
property owner has no control over the tree’s roots, the statutory language and the reported
cases do not support this position.14
Initially, it should be noted that section 5610 makes no distinction as to the cause of a damaged
sidewalk in imposing a mandatory repair obligation on the adjacent property owner. Though not
expressly addressing the issue, Jones v. Deeter (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 798, supports the proposition
that the adjacent property owner is responsible where damage is caused by a tree located in the right-
of –way. In Jones, the plaintiff was injured when she tripped on a break in the sidewalk caused by a
Magnolia tree located in the “parkway.” 15 The plaintiff brought suit against both the property owner
and the city. The plaintiff appealed a judgment for the property owner. The Court, in affirming the
judgment, held that while the property owner had a duty of repair, even though the sidewalk had been
damaged by a tree in the right-of-way (parkway), liability could not be imposed against the property
owner on this basis. “Under section 5610 the abutting owner bears the duty to repair defects in the
13 Randup, McPherson and Costello, A Review of Tree Root Conflicts with Sidewalk, Curbs and Roads, (Kluwer
Academic Publishers) 2003
14 In Jordan v. City of Sacramento (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1487, at page 1492 footnote 2 , the court questioned the
legality of imposing repair responsibility on property owners for damage caused by city trees and suggested the
“City might wish to revisit its ordinance ...”
15 The Jones court defined “parkway” as the area “between the sidewalk and the public street.” Streets and
Highways Code section 5600 defines “sidewalk” to include “a park or parking strip maintained in the area between
the property line and the street line and also includes curbing, bulkheads, retaining walls or other works for the
protection of any sidewalk or of any such park or parking strip.” This portion of the right of way is also sometimes
referred to a as “mow strip.”
Item 12.a. - Page 22
sidewalk, regardless of whether he has created these defects. It was felt, however, that it would be
unfair for such an owner to be held liable to travelers injured as a result of sidewalk defects which were
not of the owner’s making.” (Id. at 827, italics added.) Thus, the case highlights the absolute nature of
the repair obligation (even when caused by trees located in the right-of-way) by contrasting it with the
absence of any liability exposure unless the defect is caused by the owner. Putting aside the legal
arguments, not all of the equities for imposing the cost of repair on adjacent property owners where
damage is caused by a tree in the right of way are on the side of the property owner. While property
owners may argue that they have no control over the direction of tree roots; neither does the city. In
addition, city trees typically provide great benefits to homeowners and for many the presence of large
trees is a factor in the purchase of their home. The trees are aesthetically pleasing and provide shade
which cools the home and helps keep other vegetation alive. They also enhance the monetary value of
the home. While obtaining these benefits, the homeowners do not incur the costs of maintaining the
trees (such as watering, trimming or fertilizing) or suffer the potential of liability for injuries caused by
the tree itself (falling limbs; low hanging branches; branches obscuring traffic signs or lights, etc.).
III
Sidewalk Liability
A. Tort Liability for Defective Sidewalks
Nine years after the passage of the predecessor to section 5610, the First Appellate District
decided Schaefer v. Lenahan (1944) 63 Cal.App. 2d 324 . Florence Schaeffer stepped in a hole in
the sidewalk in front of property owned by J.W. Lenahan. Lenahan was notified by the City and
County of San Francisco to repair the sidewalk but did not do so. The common law rule was that,
in the absence of statute, the owner or occupant of premises abutting a public street had no
duty to repair the sidewalk and consequently, no liability to those injured as a result of a
Item 12.a. - Page 23
defective sidewalk. Schaefer argued that the predecessor to section 5610 (as it existed in 1944)
imposed a duty of repair and a violation of that duty gave rise to a cause of action for those
injured by a defective sidewalk. The court rejected the argument, finding that the “obvious
purpose of the statute was to provide a means of reimbursing the city for the cost of the repairs.
To impose a wholly new duty upon the property owner in favor of third persons would require
clear and unambiguous language.” (Id. at p. 332.)
The limitation on liability to third parties for a defective sidewalk is commonly referred to as the
“Sidewalk Accident Decisions Doctrine.” (Contreras v. Anderson (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 188, 195
fn.6.) As noted by Lenahan, a liability obligation may be imposed on property owners by “clear
and ambiguous language.”
An ordinance with such language was approved by the Court in Gonzales v. San Jose (2004) 125
Cal.App.4th1127 . The San Jose ordinance approved by Gonzales provides that if an abutting
property owner fails to maintain a sidewalk in a non-dangerous condition and any person suffers
injuries as a result, the property owner is responsible to the person for the resulting damage
and injury. (Gonzales, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 1134 citing San Jose Municipal Code §§
14.16.220 and 14.16.2205.) However, it is important to note the limits of sidewalk liability
ordinances. Because municipal liability for torts is a matter of statewide concern, such liability
“may not be regulated by local ordinances inconsistent with state law as established by the Tort
Claims Act.” (City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 894, 899-900 citing Societa
per Azioni de Navigazione Italia v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 31 Cal.3d 446, 463.) This precludes
a city from absolving itself of liability but does allow concurrent liability of adjacent property
owners. Sidewalk liability ordinances “provide[] an additional level of responsibility for the
maintenance of safe sidewalks on the owners whose property is adjacent to and abuts the
Item 12.a. - Page 24
sidewalk.” (Gonzales, supra at 1139.) “These owners are often in the best position to quickly
identify and address potentially dangerous conditions that might occur on the sidewalks, as
opposed to [the city].” (Id.) Moreover, as the Gonzales court noted, in order to fully protect its
citizens, a city would have to have sidewalk inspectors circulating the city, day and night. (Id.)
B. Liability for Defective or Narrowed Sidewalks under the ADA and California Disability Access
Laws:
In 2002, in Barden v. City of Sacramento (9th Cir. 2002) 292 F.3d 1073, the Ninth Circuit, relying
in large part on statutory and regulatory interpretation by the United States Department of
Justice, determined that sidewalks constituted “programs” under the ADA. While the matter
was pending in the United States Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari, the parties settled the
case and conveyed this information to the Court. Certiorari was subsequently denied leaving
the Ninth Circuit opinion intact. The legal effect of the decision was that because maintaining
sidewalks was a “program” under the ADA and its implementing regulations, sidewalks needed
to be made maintained to be immediately accessible. According to the United States Solicitor
General, interpreted the holding and the Title II regulations to “require only that the City’s
system of public sidewalks – when viewed “in its entirety” – be generally accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities.”16
Subsequent to the Barden decision, federal agencies, particularly the United States Access Board
(the entity charged with creating public right of way guidelines) has taken the position in
16 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae of the United States Solicitor General in City of Sacramento, et al. v.
Barden, et al.(Filed May 2003).
Item 12.a. - Page 25
numerous publications, that sidewalks are “facilities.”17 This is also the conclusion reached by
the Fifth Circuit in Frame v. Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011 – cert denied 2012).
The drift from sidewalks as “programs” to sidewalks as “facilities” is notable. Under the ADA,
“programs” must be made immediately accessible; conversely, “facilities” are subject to a new
construction/alteration standard – in essence meaning that only newly constructed or altered
sidewalks must be made “accessible.” This is also the framework adopted by the ADA draft
Public Right of Way Guidelines. Though cities within the Ninth Circuit remain subject to the
Barden decision, the Frame decision, as well as the position taken by federal agencies, may form
the basis for a reexamination of the Barden decision.
Of course, it is important to recognize that California law has required that new constructed
sidewalks, whether constructed using private or public funds, have been required to be
accessible since 1971. (Government Code section 4450 and Health and Safety Code section
19956.5). Presumably, this has somewhat softened the impact of the 2003 Barden holding.
17 See e.g. United States Access Board, Proposed Rights-of-way Guideline, Part 1900. “The accessibility guidelines
for pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way are set forth in the appendix to this part.” < http://www.access-
board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/public-rights-of-way/proposed-rights-of-way-
guidelines/part-1190-accessibility-guidelines-for-pedestrian-facilities-in-the-public-right-of-way>
Item 12.a. - Page 26
League of California Cities® 2014 Spring Conference
Renaissance Esmeralda, Indian Wells
This page left intentionally blank.
Item 12.a. - Page 27
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 12.a. - Page 28