AgdaPkt 2000-10-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

'� -3-A3 6. Redwood City, would not oppose annexation of parcels two and three and Airport Way and will adopt a resolution consenting to de-annexation. 7. Redwood City staff would present the proposal to the Redwood Shores Homeowners Association (RSHA) and the Redwood Shores Owners Association (RSOA) and seek their approval of the proposal in concept. 8. Spieker Properties would submit the proposed landscaping plan for both parcels one, two and three plus a design for the entry/directional sign to Redwood City for review and approval. Spieker Properties would coordinate construction of the landscape plan and entry/directional sign subsequent to approval. � 9. Both cities will work cooperatively on agreements, resolutions and other measures to implement the plan. City Manager, Ed Everett met with presidents of RSHA and RSOA in August, 2000. There was concurrence with the proposal based on some clarifications and some questions. 1. Question — Who would be responsible for the maintenance of the parcels two and three after Redwood City de these to San Carlos? Answer — The City of San Carlos. 2. Question - With annexation to San Carlos, is Redwood City giving up just parcels two and three (2.3 acres) or all parcels? Answer — Just parcels two and three. Parcel one will remain in Redwood City. San Mateo County will maintain the 1.2 acre property (parcel one) once it is landscaped. 3. Question — Will the conditions that prohibit development (other than signage) and retain design review authority with Redwood City remain once the land is annexed to San Carlos. Answer — Those two conditions will remain through an agreement adopted by both cities. The associations stated that they felf they had protection of the properties with agreements for no development and Redwood City having design review authority. Fiscal Impact There will be no loss in property tax revenue to the City since all three parcels are in public ownership. Given community interest to retain the area as a landscaped entryway, it is unlikely that the City of Redwood City (owner of parcel two) would make this 1.6 acre parcel available for revenue producing purposes. Thusly, there is no loss of potential sales or property tax revenues. The de-annexation of the roadway and City owned parcel is a financial benefit to the City by elimination of the maintenance and code enforcement responsibility. ^ � : l ��t � �, ,�( ;� �=�� , Deborah Nelson Ed Everett Community Development Director City Manager DSN:js Attachment Map of area to be Quit Claimed and de-annexed 3 _. _ _ _ _ . . . _ � - _. _. _.. _ _ . _ . __ ... . __ �. .�._. . ---- -� - _._ . _ _.