From: Lara Buelow
To: Council, City
Subject: crossing guards PAUSD
Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 11:50:05 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi.
I'd like to express my support for keeping all crossing guards for PAUSD. Cars drive way too fast and recklessly, especially in school zones during morning commutes. I worry about my 5 and 6yo constantly. I've literally been next to them in a crosswalk as a person basically turned right into us. With the crosswalk lights on!
PROTECT CHILDRENS LIVES. Slow cars the funk down.
Thank you for your hard work, Lara Buelow, mom of 2 @ Escondido Lara Buelow (she/her) Author / Career Coach
650.575.6785
@larabuelow
www.larabuelow.com/book
Click to schedule a meeting
Sent via Superhuman
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Lara Buelow
To: Council, City
Subject: crossing guards PAUSD
Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 11:50:05 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi.
I'd like to express my support for keeping all crossing guards for PAUSD. Cars drive way too fast and recklessly, especially in school zones during morning commutes. I worry about my 5 and 6yo constantly. I've literally been next to them in a crosswalk as a person basically turned right into us. With the crosswalk lights on!
PROTECT CHILDRENS LIVES. Slow cars the funk down.
Thank you for your hard work, Lara Buelow, mom of 2 @ Escondido Lara Buelow (she/her) Author / Career Coach
650.575.6785
@larabuelow
www.larabuelow.com/book
Click to schedule a meeting
Sent via Superhuman
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Meri Gruber
To: Council, City
Subject: May 4, 2026, Item 4: FY 2027 Budget Study Session, Utility Rate Increases and Affordability Date: Thursday, April 30, 2026 8:01:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Members of the City Council,
I've been following the utility rate proposals closely this budget cycle and I am concerned about the impact on affordability.
The City uses profits from its utilities to fund city services, unlike a private utility where profits go to shareholders. This is good.
But the story changes if the City raises rates specifically to sustain that transfer. Then it becomes a regressive tax, one that hits every ratepayer equally regardless of income.
Has the story changed for us in Palo Alto? Voters authorized a transfer to the General Fund of up to 18%. But we didn't authorize making the maximum transfer a guarantee, paid for by ratepayers. Each year's increase builds on the last, growing both the dollar amount of the General Fund transfer and the Utility Users Tax simultaneously.
Electric +6%, Gas +9%, Water +8%. These are significant increases. We are a captive market; residents don't have other options. Council and staff should weigh heavily that these increases are regressive. The Utilities Advisory Commission voted to recommend a lower gas rate, explicitly citing the burden on ratepayers.
I would ask Council not to approve the proposed budget until it has a full review of the utility rate increases and a full accounting of the tax burden.
Thank you for your consideration of these affordability concerns and for your service to our community.
Best regards,
Meri Gruber
Palo Alto
From: Richard Stolee
To: Council, City
Cc: ctraboard
Subject: Crossing Guards near Escondido School
Date: Thursday, April 30, 2026 5:06:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing on behalf of the College Terrace Residents Association to urge you to retain funding for crossing guards at Escondido Road & Stanford Avenue and Stanford Avenue & El Camino Real.
These are two of the most heavily used school crossings in our neighborhood. Students and families rely on them daily to walk and bike safely to school. As you know, these streets carry high volumes of fast-moving traffic, which makes safe crossings especially dependent on active management.
Crossing guards are not interchangeable with signage or striping. They actively manage conflicts, create predictable gaps in traffic, and give children the confidence to cross safely.
When guards are removed, driver yielding becomes less consistent and families shift toward driving, increasing congestion and reducing safety for everyone.
If the City is considering reductions, these locations should be among the last considered.
Removing guards here would have immediate, visible impacts on student safety and travel behavior.
We understand the City is facing difficult budget decisions. We respectfully ask that you prioritize retaining crossing guards at these intersections and identify alternative areas for cost savings.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard M Stolee
President, College Terrace Residents Association
650-468-9000
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: [email protected]
To: City Mgr
Cc: Council, City; Friends of Foothills Preserve
Subject: Cutting Costs
Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 9:15:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
City Manger proposed reducing irrigation in Foothills Park/Nature Preserve. Why stop there? Why not stop the irrigation in Tramps Valley entirely. City Council changed the name of Foothills Park to Foothills Nature Preserve.
If it’s a nature preserve, why is Trampas Valley being irrigated at all? You want to give biodiversity a boost? Restore Trampas Valley to native grasslands (Project for Acterra/Grassroot Ecology/Friends of Foothills, etc…).
Keeping it as irrigated, mowed turf is, and always has been, in my opinion, not in keeping with sound ecological management practices nor fiscally responsible.
From: Deborah Goldeen
To: City Mgr
Cc: Council, City; Friends of Foothills Preserve
Subject: Cutting Costs
Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 2:00:47 PM
City Manger proposed reducing irrigation in Foothills Park/Nature Preserve. Why stop there? Why not stop the irrigation in Tramps Valley entirely. City Council changed the name of Foothills Park to Foothills Nature Preserve.
If it’s a nature preserve, why is Trampas Valley being irrigated at all? You want to give biodiversity a boost? Restore Trampas Valley to native grasslands (Project for Acterra/Grassroot Ecology/Friends of Foothills, etc…).
Keeping it as irrigated, mowed turf is, and always has been, in my opinion, not in keeping with sound ecological management practices nor fiscally responsible.
From: Lara Anthony
To: Council, City
Subject: Crossing Guard Funding
Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 12:18:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Finance Committee Members,
I am the PTA Council Chair for Safe Routes to School, but I am writing today in my individual capacity to urge the Finance Committee to please direct City staff to find alternative budget cuts rather than reducing crossing guards, as currently proposed.
Our children and families depend on crossing guards to get to school safely. When crossing guards aren't present, the safety for our children is directly impacted. In addition, having fewer crossing guards results in more families choosing to drive their children to school because they feel less safe walking and biking. That in turn has numerous negative downstream impacts in our community, affecting the environment, traffic congestion, the physical and mental well- being of our children and young people who would otherwise enjoy active commutes, and it makes it less safe for others to walk & bike to school since there are more cars on the road.
I recognize and appreciate that you are juggling many important and competing priorities in a difficult budget year, but I implore you to please find alternative cuts as opposed to reducing critical safety infrastructure for our children.
Thank you for your service and for prioritizing our children's safety.
Best regards,
Lara Anthony
513-265-6447
[email protected]
From: Elizabeth Robinson Weingarten
To: Council, City
Subject: Crossing guard on Louis and North California
Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:32:40 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members:
I am writing in regard to the elimination of the crossing guard position—particularly the one at North California and Louis.
I live on Bret Harte St., and the traffic of Stratford School plus Greene Middle school creates a great deal of traffic at the corner of
Louis and North California. That four way stop is guarded well by crossing guard when both schools are getting out at the same time.
I am not a parent in either of these schools; just a driver who uses this path frequently.
Elementary schools may have your main interest, but middle school children on bicycles are not to be overlooked. The children can be absent minded and ride in groups overlooking everyone’s safety.
From my experience as a resident, the statistical evaluation of an intersection has the lowest pedestrian/motor vehicle exposure in the system and is not designated on the High Injury Network according to the July 2025 Transportation Safety Action Plan may not match with the real experience of being on the streets during school time.
I request that you reconsider the elimination of the crossing guard at North California and Louis.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Weingarten
1889 Bret Harte St.
Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Deborah Goldeen
To: City Mgr
Cc: Council, City
Subject: Palo Alto Online: Proposed Budget
Date: Monday, April 27, 2026 1:01:14 PM
How much money would the city save if the de-commissioned the HRC and the ARB? And why is the fact that Palo Alto has TWICE as many steps required from building project approval not up for examination? How much money in staff time could be saved, to say nothing of redoing the pain and aggravation of building in Palo Alto, by taking out, say, one or two of those steps?
Considering that some, if not all, of the staff positions that are proposed to be cut are truly essential, it serves to reason that the city/city manager has a fiduciary duty to propose tackling the root of the budget bleed.
Deb G.