My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
CC MIN 1972
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1972
>
CC MIN 1972
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2016 8:26:31 AM
Creation date
7/29/2016 12:07:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
1/3/1972
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
382
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
69 <br /> so that it might be possible to do this work: in the next year . In <br /> particular , some proposed lighting would be dependent upon cooperation <br /> by the School District , and if those funds were not used , it would <br /> be available for other areas . In response to question from the audience <br /> concerning expansion of night baseball facilities , City Manager advised <br /> that expansion of McGarvey Field would provide that opportunity . He <br /> then reviewed the ensuing fiscal year proposals . Councilman Williams <br /> expressed concern regarding three items not included , an addition to <br /> the Community Activities Building , reconstruction of the Recreation <br /> Center Building , and new building for the swimming pool . City Manager <br /> advised that provision had been made in the 1972 -73 budget for modification <br /> to the Recreation Center , but it had not been anticipated in this program <br /> to rebuild any of the buildings . Most improvements proposed were for <br /> outside utilization of the Park , rather than the buildings , with the <br /> exception of maintenance . <br /> Second priority was Canyon Park , and it was anticipated to acquire <br /> additional acreage during the ensuing five years and to develop the <br /> park . It was hoped to review Park and Recreation element on a regular <br /> basis , and that Council could give guidance as part of that review as <br /> to how large Canyon Park should be . The park represented a different <br /> situation from the Community Park with respect to terrain , and should <br /> be developed differently . <br /> Stulsaft Park . Due to the size , there was possibility of federal or <br /> County financial assistance and they will receive information on what <br /> is proposed . <br /> Councilman Henderson indicated that as one who had opposed over -- <br /> development of Community Park , she wondered if allocation of $ 10 , 000 <br /> for _preparation of development plan was necessary . City Manager <br /> responded that it was not anticipated that either Stulsaft or Canyon <br /> Park would ever be developed to the extent the Community Park is , <br /> being different types of. facilities . <br /> Street Trees . These are proposed to be inventoried and planned . Many <br /> trees in the older neighborhoods are inappropriate to their purpose , and <br /> City Manager noted there is greater sophistication in ability to carry <br /> out a street tree plan than formerly . In 1975 -76 and 1976-77 , X15 , 000 <br /> is proposed for each year to replace trees In accordance with the adopted <br /> plan . <br /> Easter Bowl . City Manager noted portions of this area were used for <br /> people - ori e nted activities , and it was being proposed to take into <br /> consideration whether. City would want to develop an amphitheater or <br /> 6- 17 -72 <br /> Ad j . Re g . Mttg . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.