Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />eligible for a monument plaque from the State of California <br />and that Union Cemetery should be preserved with a charm and <br />sentiment and respect that is due a cemetery. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />on MOTION of Commissioner Knecht, seconded by Commissioner <br />Gooding, the Secretary was asked to write to the San Mateo <br />County Historical Assn. asking that a study be made for devel- <br />opment of Union Cemetery as an historic cemetery site, the <br />motion being made with the understanding that the request would <br />place no emphasis on acting in this direction as far as the <br />priority list is concerned. Passed. <br /> <br />#21 - IIMuseum & Municipal Auditorium" - Mrs. Spangler told of <br />project being under way to preserve the IlManfield Housell at <br />627 Hamilton Street across from the Hall of Justice-which is <br />architecturally unique: that a non-profit group would acquire <br />the house and property, with funds from prmvate persons and <br />groups, for approximately $27,000-$28,000: that Mrs. Gladys <br />Woodhams and other interested people and groups feel its value <br />is for an art and music gallery; that the County is also in- <br />terested in the property for future expansion and that some <br />arrangement could be made at a later date for County purchase <br />of the land and re-location of the house. Mrs. Spangler in- <br />quired as to what was intended under #21 for IIMuseumll? <br /> <br />It was explai'ned by Commissioners that the item IIMuseumli was <br />intended to mean pertinent to the locale such as an electronic <br />museum where exhibits and conferences, etc., might be held and <br />which would attract people from other areas thereby gaining <br />esteem as well as revenue for the City. Commissioner Arnett <br />explained that the tieing in of an electronic museum operation <br />to an auditorium operation would subsidize itself through <br />public-private cooperation. <br /> <br />AGENDA: 1 - BOND ISSUES PRIORITIES - Dixon Arnett: <br />Discussion which followed included: That we must discuss the <br />general direction which the Commission would want to take7 de- <br />cide whether or not we would consider only current needs of the <br />City or project to the future of perhaps 5-20-50 years; that we <br />cannot look at only a year at a time: <br />Priority items 1 and 7 (1118 hold golf course-Redwood Shoresll <br />& 1136 hold golf course near college site II) - that golf courses <br />are going in anyway: City might lose jurisdiction and revenue <br />if not under its control ,in some manner; courses are easy to <br />fiaance through private capital. Commissioner Arnett noted that, <br />regardless of news stories emphasis re S.F. Water Dept. plans <br />for recreation use of its watershed property, that such recrea- <br />tion plans had' not progressed very far at this time and would <br /> <br />take 'a long time to fruition. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />-- ,,--------,--- <br /> <br />- _. -..- --- - <br /> <br />-..-..------- <br /> <br />.., --.,---~---- <br /> <br />--------- .~._---_...",----------'~-~--"- -----~. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. - <br /> <br />,..' . <br /> <br />, . <br /> <br />, - - <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />. <br />L__' , I.: <br />