We support the right to a clean and healthful environment for all people and we support approaching all decisions based on the Precautionary Principle - when an activity potentially threatens human health or the environment, the proponent of the activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof as to the harmlessness of the activity. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. What can be done to better ensure that low-income residents in your area are not unfairly burdened by pollution, have improved access to open space and increased voice in decision-making in your community?
At this time, Palo Alto is not only impacted by the issues it created itself in the past decade, however, there is definitely harmful activities from actions from neighboring cities. Menlo Park approving more building for the Facebook site, adding residential multi-housing on Willow Road (already impacted) in exchange for money. Mountain View same with Google and LinkedIn. These cities should be giving conditional approvals for the building after circulation and mobility issues have been mitigated. As a matter of fact, if something has to be mitigated than it should not be considered or approved.
I oppose the VTA’s plan to eliminate the 35 and 88 bus which serves the low income & the disabled, elderly population.
The local shuttles/buses which services Palo Alto have to be better organized and coordinated in order to reach into neighborhoods so that it is convenient for people to use.
I want to ensure in as a citizen advisory member of the Comprehensive Plan update discussions that I am not supportive of measures of the reduction of ratio of parkland per person.
I do not support High Speed Rail, it adds to Palo Alto’s local negative impacts to traffic, as well as to creating a wall dividing the east and west parts of Palo Alto.
Back to top
Was this helpful?