PRC MIN 1976-10-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

could assure the Commission that the Council placed great value on the Commission ' s input . He further stated that the Connnittee ' s action was based on the belief that the Commission had supported the bill while it was in the Legislature and that the decision to support Proposition 2 was more a matter of timing than a conscious desire to act without the benefit of the Commission ' s thinking . Commissioner Schlesinger inquired as to what would happen if the Commis- sion disagreed with the Council ' s position . He said that the Council ' s action put the Commission in an awkward position of being unable to say anything if it was in disagreement with the Council ' s position , refer- ring to the problems that developed with respect to the Mid- Peninsula Regional Park District . Mr . Weeks indicated that the Commission was free to take whatever position it felt obliged to take . He reminded the Commission that the problems involved in the Regional Park issue stPnHed from the Commission taking a definitive supportive action as opposed to an advisory action to the Council . Commissioner Weintraub said that while she was serving as Chairman of the Commission , she had suggested that it would be beneficial if the Commission were to have representation at each and every Council meet- ing . She referred to the case in point as one more reason why it would be important for Commissioners to attend the Council meetings . Mr . Weeks asked Chairperson Pound if she wished him to prepare , for her signature , a letter which would bring the Commission ' s concern in this matter to the Council . Chaiperson Pound responded in the affirmative . In discussing the relative merits of the letter , Commissioner Weintraub commented that she would like to make the minutes a stronger vehicle for communicating the Commission ' s feelings to the Council . Chairperson Pound agreed that the situation should be clearly outlined in the minutes , but felt that a letter would be a more direct and forceful method of making this concern known to the Council . Mr . Ferrando responded to a question from Commissioner Knecht as to the difference between AB 1321 and AB 2948 , the Z ' berg Coastal Conservation Bond Act of 1976 . He indicated that both were introduced as bond issue bills , but that during the legislative process , AB 2948 was radically amended . By the time it was approved by the governor , the bill had no bond issue provisions , and was merely a vehicle to further define and amend certain provisions of the California Coastal Act of 1976 . Mr . Ferrando then briefly reviewed the following legislation : SB 443 , which gives first priority for parks and recreation purposes in the sale or lease of surplus school district lands ; AB 1530 , which permits school districts to sell or transfer surplus school sites for parks and recreation purposes at less than fair market value ; SB 1664 , which requires school districts to make financial reports regarding expendi - tures of monies collected for community service purposes ; SB 576 , which allows cities and counties to exercise the power of eminent domain for -4-