9 parcels adjacent to Garrett Park donated to Redwood City

in Community

Redwood City has accepted a donation of nine parcels of land totaling 1.88 acres adjacent to Garrett Park to be maintained as open space.

The parcels, located along the Canyon Lane dirt and gravel pathway west of Glenwood Avenue, had previously been slated for a 12-home development, but owners Mel and Marguerite Casey, trustees of the Casey Family Trust, “abandoned their development project for the purposes of open space,” according to the city.

“I have great hopes for what Garrett Park will become with this extra land,” Redwood City Councilmember Ian Bain said, adding he envisioned natural trails and places to hike and explore.

The land is valued at about $2.63 million. The city anticipates annual costs to maintain the park and to install pathway improvements. Fire mitigation is expected to cost the city  about $8,000 to $10,000 annually, city staff said.

City Council formally approved the donation at its meeting Monday. Next steps include completing of escrow, title, certificate of acceptance, record grant deal and, if escrow closes, the property will be added to the inventory or city-owned parcels.

At Monday’s meeting, residents praised the donation but some disagreed with the city’s decision to forgo accepting the donation of a 10th parcel from the Casey family. The city chose not to accept the donation of that parcel as it “is not contiguous with the other nine parcels.”

Image: Google Maps




  1. @Tim: as stated in the staff report, and shown in gray on the map above, the donated parcels are all just outside of city limits, therefore they would not have contributed to the city’s “supply and resources” if left vacant or developed.

  2. Tim, you are wrong. RWC has been expanding its population like crazy without expanding amenities like parks in proportion. This is absolutely needed.

  3. As Redwood City’s population has increased, the City has fallen well below it’s desired amount of open space per resident. Open space is important. Increasing the allowed density of housing would be a better solution than adding low density single-family homes on open space.

  4. As Tim says this would have been great for something other than expanding the park , especially low income housing or some sort of housing in general

  5. Thank you ,we do need to preserve open space in a very clustered city.. stop being greedy for more congestion.. learn to appreciate land and parks.

  6. The parcels are on extremely steep slopes adjacent to a canyon. They were never suitable for housing, and they’re marginal, at best for any sort of trails. Probably best to leave alone as they’re in a pretty out of the way spot to begin with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.