AgdaPkt 2007-08-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 3 diversion rate, any such proposar must also include sIgnificant efforts to streamline the provisions of AS 939 to assist in compliance. In addition, existing League policy supports legislation to provide changes to AB 939 t.o place more emphasis on implementation of waste diversion prOgrams and less upon strict mathematical accounting (Le. bean counting); and expansion of market development activities, including the development of non-burn transformation technolOgies and providing funding for research and development of recyclable materials. As SB 1020 is amended or negotiations on alternatives progress, the League will keep city officials posted through updates in Priority Focus. AB 1338 Becomes a Two-Year Bill Measure Would Affect Local Coastal Programs AS 1338 (Huffman) failed passage in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on July 11. The bill would require a local coastal government to include a nonpoint source (NPS) pollution prevention element in its Local Coastal Program (LCP) when adopting or amending an LCP for approval by the California Coastal Commission. The measure is now a two-year bill, meaning it is effectively dead in 2007 and may be reconsidered some time in 2008. The League had initially supported AS 1338, as its language directly addressed concerns that the League had over a similar piece of legislation in 2002 that failed to pass. Upon further review by the Coastal Cities Issue Group, however, the group raised concerns that the bill would create unnecessary duplication and increased workload on the already understaffed California Coastal Commission and recommended that AB 1338 become a two-year bill. The League's Coastal Cities Issue Group meeting was held on June 1 in Santa Barbara. The meeting was attended by approximately 30 city officials and staff, including Judy Mitchell, chair of the League's Environmental Quality Policy Committee and council member of the city of Rolling Hills Estates. California Supreme Court Places Limits on liability Waivers Liability waivers have been a key asset in helping cities manage the risks associated with recreation programs and activities. A recent decision of the California Supreme Court in City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (Janeway) has now called into question whether those waivers still provide the protection upon which cities have historically relied. The California Supreme Court ruled that liability waivers cannot release a city from liability for its gross negligence, which in turn will encourage plaintiff attorneys to plead facts showing that the injury or death was the result of gross negligence. The case may also impact cities by increasing the liability costs associated with recreation programs. In the past, cities have relied on liability waivers to allow them to dispose of a personal injury or wrongful death case at an earty stage through the use of a motion for summary judgment. If a court finds that there is a factual dispute, the court will decline to grant a city's motion for summary judgment, and instead, set the case for jury trial. This will subject the city to additional litigation costs as well as settlement costs or jury verdicts for cases that previously may have been disposed of by a summary judgment motion. 3