In 1966, my husband and I bought a little, forlorn house at the end of a dirt road, surrounded by heavily wooded, rolling open land.
Over the years, the Redwood City Council repeatedly rejected proposals to develop the site. I attended meeting after meeting where the council said “no;” the area was too fragile for development.
That made sense. Redwood City’s General Plan and California law protects natural, open space. Does this City Council think that cutting down all the trees, putting in a two-level road, and 16 large houses will be an improvement?
The hillsides are steep — constantly moving, and there is a creek that runs through the site, eroding the hillsides. People living below the site have reason to fear that landslides will result from the massive digging, grading and fill this project requires. How would nearby residents survive five years of continuous construction? I would be forced out of my home by constant noise and dust, not to mention the lack of access during construction of the road.
Turning a natural open site that can be restored into a crowded subdivision would constitute a failure of municipal government that is supposed to serve and protect its residents.
At my age (I’ll turn 90 in a few weeks), the destruction wrought by this project will be more than I can bear. After 47 years, I’ve became intertwined with the little house, the tall trees, the beautiful hillsides and even the deer. And, now I may have to leave it.