Road Repairs and Maintenance

I applaud the Public Works Department for doing the most they can with inadequate funding for road repair and maintenance. The city council often claims that road repair and maintenance is a priority, but you wouldn’t know that by the focus, and most importantly not by funding it gets.

Yes—current projects get presentation time at council meetings—and we get to see the good work of Public Works. But the city rarely shows you that in context with the big picture of all that needs to be done.

Despite the work that is being done—the city is getting deeper and deeper into a hole on needed road repair and maintenance. Not to mention other infrastructure projects. And yet—the city entertains the building of new $3M pickleball courts, and regularly spends money on what I consider less important items or things that can wait.

While not wavering from my support and funding for necessary fire, police, and public safety capabilities—I’ll put TOP PRIORITY on road repairs and maintenance.

Read more here: Maintained Roads and Infrastructure

Housing

The city has approved a few large housing projects in recent years. But they still miss the target on what many local residents need. Per measures set by the State of California, the city is still lacking housing in the ‘affordable’ housing ranges. More needs to be done that will result in more balanced housing options—that are affordable for our local resident workforce, families, and seniors. — More to come.

Managing Growth

Growth for growth’s sake is not the answer. Sadly, I too often hear our city leaders boast they are ‘pro growth’ without any thought of properly managing the growth so it is a good fit for our city. Or whether the increased growth will over stress our already stressed roads and infrastructure.

The city has serious road and infrastructure challenges that must be addressed to keep up with the growth in population, housing, business, and tourism. It’s already become difficult to commute in the city with bottlenecks in various sections of town. So far, we are seeing very little attention to these problems.

We need to put more attention to the mobility within the city—and making it easier to travel by car, foot (as a pedestrian), bicycle, and other forms of transportation and leisure. Through creative planning and implementation, and supportive transportation technology, we can make all forms of travel easier and safer.

The city via the Planning Commission and City Council are approving more projects that dump more cars into our downtown area—with no dedicated spaces for parking. I fear this will threaten the quality of life for people in the downtown core but also in the adjacent residential family neighborhoods. — I’ll work towards a sane and comprehensive parking policy with the goal of balancing the needs of business, residents, and visitors. It will also guide city development. No more intrusive paid parking technology.

And where is the revenue we need to address increasing city responsibilities that come with this growth? Any added revenue due to increased property tax, sales tax, and TOT must be used more wisely to address city needs caused by growth.

I’ll put more focus on managing our city’s growth. I’m pro-’sustainable growth’.

Increasing Costs for City Services

These costs are an integral part of ‘putting a roof over your head’. From my view of things, and I’ve been looking closely over the years, the city council can do more to manage the cost of city services. From water and sewer to waste management—I believe more can be done to reduce costs for the local ratepayer.

We get good service from Paso Robles Waste, but our waste management rates have often been the highest in the county.

I want the city council to review and potentially update the Franchise Agreement. How does it compare to other cities in SLO County? Is it legally up to date?

Should the city put the contract out for a competitive bid? The city just extended the current contract end date to the year 2032.

Find more information on this site under heading City Matters, Waste Management.

Other stories:

A few years ago, the city added the cost of waste pickup on downtown streets and all city parks to our residential waste rates. But did you see any sign of that in the rate increase notice you received in the mail? I didn’t.

During the last water rate increase, the city added a $6M project cost into our water rate calculations to pay for Automated Meter Readers. A nice to have feature maybe—but many, including myself, would prefer to put $6M towards road repairs where it is desperately needed. Automated Meter Readers can wait. The water rate payers we’ll be $6M poorer overall, and then will still have to pay more for roads repairs.

When I’m on the city council, I’ll rigorously review rate increases looking for ways to lower rates for the ratepayer. The goal is not to pinch city workers or franchise companies, but to look for smarter ways to do things and ways that might be more equitable to ratepayers. No more hidden add-ons.

Look for more information in this section as I post past work on this topic.

A More Diverse Economy

What’s happening in the city’s industrial parks can say a lot about a city. We have some good work happening in the city, but I feel the council and city government can do more to stimulate investment in the industrial areas.

The city hasn’t maintained roads in some of our industrial areas; i.e., Paso Robles Street, Commerce Street, Linne Road. The roads in these areas are in rough condition and that sends a poor message to anyone looking to invest in these areas.

I love wine and tourism. But a diverse economy is important for a city. And it’s important for residents and those that want an opportunity to do what they do best in their work and in their business ventures.

I support the recent efforts to make the Paso Robles Airport a licensed Spaceport. It seems a win on all counts. It will bring more attention to the airport and could help stimulate more tech business to that area. I have a tech background (check my Professional Resume) and believe that a tech industry of some type here in Paso Robles is good for the city. It will give more opportunity for local Cal Poly engineering graduates to find work closer to home if they choose. Tech jobs in general require more training, and experience is often rewarded, so they can be a good avenue to higher paying jobs in the city. Expertise and experience in technical fields will often spawn entrepreneurship and new business start-ups in a city.

Solutions for the Homeless

Paso Robles Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness

Under construction

A City Council That Listens

See— A City In Tune and Responsive

City Budget

I’ll have more to say about this—but overall, I feel the city keeps adding more and more future priorities when the city doesn’t have the funds to do what we need to do now. That is, road repair and maintenance.

One example during the budget stays in my mind. It was stated that the city had no budget for trail maintenance. In response, it was arbitrarily given $20k in funding. I heard no discussion about what was actually needed to adequately maintain the trails—so, it is impossible to tell what impact $20K will have. While in the city manager’s budget, there is $50k for videos. These are the videos similar to the 2 already produced by the city manager. The topics are (1) the city water capabilities, and (2) street development paid with E20 sales tax with a pitch for Measure I-24. The city manager says these have been ‘well received’. Great—but are they necessary—and more important than maintaining our trails? Give the $50K to trail maintenance or other city maintenance need.

Overall—I’m not fond of how the city develops a budget. The city sets priorities from within; i.e. based on what the individual departments need. There is a public meeting and public input is taken—but this year, I don’t believe any public inputs were considered. And of course, the priority for many residents is road repair as it has been for many years.

Recently, there hasn’t been any budget for road repair or road maintenance outside the priorities of the supplementary sales tax funding. The need just gets set to the side—as an unfunded need—and then they set a budget. A city budget here is simply what they plan to do with the money they have. So road repairs get ignored (unfunded) as they have been for years.

This year was slightly different—as the 2 year budget allocated some budget for street repair to ensure that the level of repair provided by E-20 would be maintained should I-24 fail to be passed by the voters.

So when the city tells you they have ‘a balanced budget’ or that they are ‘living within their means’— take that information with a grain of salt. Because many of the city’s and resident’s needs are going unfunded. For example—one of the elephants in the room is the city’s $350M of road repair needs. Those are unfunded.

I would do my best to change this—and work towards getting a regular budget for street repair and maintenance in addition to any available supplemental sales tax. I would attempt to have the city set up a separate project breakdown, schedule, and funding budget for the needed road repairs and maintenance as part of the effort to get us out of the hole we are in with respect to road repairs.

Measure I-24

Overall, I am extremely disappointed with how the city manager and city council have developed and presented Measure I-24. They had the choice of presenting a comprehensive plan to address critical needs including the high priority of road and infrastructure repairs. And then show how the sales tax Measure I24 is an option for funding of these needs.

Instead the city has provided a vague description of our road and infrastructure needs. They tell us $350M in road and infrastructure needs—but have not outlined any details or priorities. They provide a vague thought of using the I-24 sales tax revenue as leverage for a bond loan. But the city has not provided any details of this loan, the public costs, and how it will address the city needs. Do you know exactly what I-24 will do for the city? For you?

Sadly, the city has decided to address the I-24 measure with scare tactics and threats of lost services—even in the fire and police budgets. I find this despicable. The city had the opportunity to present a good plan that would motivate people to vote for I-24 but instead has decided to use negativity and threats.

I feel in a bind over this. The city needs the revenue stream, but I do not like the ‘forever’ tax being offered by the city. I’m struggling with how I’ll vote on it.

If I-24 fails—the city can try it again in two years (2026) along with a viable plan to address the road repairs. That of course would depend on having a city council and a city manager willing to do that.

If I-24 passes—it keeps the tax revenue coming into the city. A good council and city manager could put together a plan to fix the roads. I-24 can be modified at a future date to include a sunset date; though right now that would need a council to put it on the ballot and then a public vote

Here is something I wrote for my response to SLO Tribune on their candidate questionnaire.

The city has framed I-24 as a continuance of the E-12 sales tax, their severely inadequate solution for road repair funding for the past 12 years. I-24 extends the tax forever, without a sunset date. There has been vague discussion of borrowing on the I-24 forever tax revenue with a long term bond loan.

This is not a thought-out or viable plan. This is a forever tax from a city that refuses to present details of a viable plan to repair and maintain roads and infrastructure. Instead, the city is putting voters in a bind with threats of reduced services and reduced fire and police safety.

The city needs more revenue for road repairs. A supplemental sales tax is one option. But I want to see a complete and detailed plan for repair roads that includes details of how I-24 will assist. If it's a 25 year plan, then sunset I-24 in 25 years. Until then, I can't voice support for I-24.

This is the type of poor planning and lack of visibility that I vow to change as a city council member.

<END>

Downtown Parking

What to say about downtown parking? Many people are tired of hearing about it. I could go on and on about the past 5 years of downtown parking—but I want to move on. The removal of incumbent Steve Gregory from the city council will go a long way towards moving on.

After finally succumbing to public pressure, and after he stubbornly defied what people in the city wanted—Council Member Steve Gregory said he didn’t want to talk anymore about parking. The Mayor said he was through with parking.

But that leaves many loose ends for the downtown and downtown parking. I’ll step up and address those concerns—so my opponent doesn’t have to talk about it.

This is one of those cases, along with the downtown parking discussion in general, where I seriously wonder why Steve Gregory is running again for City Council.

Short Term Rentals (STRs)

I want to thank a local resident for writing to me and asking about my stance on Short Term Rentals (STRs), specifically in the R1 zones. Here are excerpts from my response:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I've never been comfortable with STRs in R-1. --- So, I was happy to see a cap put on the number of STRs in R1. In my neighborhood, we had one STR sold and we have another for sale now. But we still have more STRs overall in R1 than the cap amount.

At the moment, I'm OK with the current situation--though not clear to me that the enforcement of STR violations is working as well as it should.

If I had my way--I would like to see the STR cap in R1 brought down to zero. And from there let the housing and tourism markets decide what happens with the R1 STRs.

I hope that helps you better understand my position on STRs. That may depend on whether you own an R1 STR or not.

The incumbent in District 3, Steve Gregory, is an owner of STRs. He must recuse himself on all STR discussions or votes in front of the council. That's a good thing because I would fear he has a conflict of interest and would not be objective. However, it also leaves me and everyone else without representation on the matter. That won't be the case when I'm the District 3 City Council member. I don't own a short term rental.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The resident replied with more details of his feelings about STRs in the R1 zone:

As you might guess, I'm opposed to SRTs/permits in our residential R1 Zones for the following reasons:

• They take permanent housing off the market that people and families need in our community.

• STR properties drive up the cost of housing due to less supply.

• They don't contribute to our permanent families and liveable neighborhoods.

• They add more traffic/parking due to multiple renters in homes.

• No one knows who the renters are.

• There have been issues with parties and noise.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I agree with his summary of the issues with STRs in R1. They are also true in other zones, though commercial activities in those zones appear to be more accepted and expected. This assumption should be reviewed.

While campaigning in an R2 zone within District 3, I heard complaints of STRs there. These complaints were similar to those in R1. I’ve recently heard complaints about the ability to transfer STR permits upon the sale of the property in some zones; i.e., with respect to what it does to property values and sale prices.

We must also acknowledge that STRs can provide a unique lodging option for visitors to the city. They are popular and bring needed revenues to the city via the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). At one time there may have been a shortage of rooms for visitors, but with new hotels in town and more being built—it will be interesting to watch the demand for STRs in the city once the new hotels are built and open for business. Will STRs lose favor and noticeable revenue when competing with the hotels?

The city now has controls on STRs. I will actively monitor and review these controls to make sure they are working for all involved. Steve Gregory has already pushed attempts to disrupt the balance with (1) proposing an agenda item to lower the number of people on the waits lists; meaning more STRs; and (2) Olive Street Rezoning, which would transfer property including STRs from R1/R2 zones to T3 zone. T3 allows the transfer of STR permits upon property sale while R1/R2 does not.

I will not think of ever revoking STR permits, except in the case of the most extreme ‘bad actors’.

Olive St. Rezoning

This is a current event that I’ve been following since it was first introduced in the Housing Constraints and Opportunities Committee (HCOC) — to the recent Olive Street Rezoning Open House — to today.

The Olive St. Rezoning project would transfer property including STRs from R1/R2 zones to T3 zone. T3 allows the transfer of STR permits upon property sale while R1/R2 does not.

This project just recently held a workshop. This will be followed by meetings of an Olive Street Rezoning Ad Hoc Committee.

Here are my public comments from the April 16, 2024 City Council meeting where the council decided to go ahead with the hiring of a consultant to hold community outreach and assess the Olive St. Rezoning project. A Olive Street Rezoning Ad Hoc Committee was also approved at this time.

Public Comment—City Council Agenda Discussion Item 2: “Olive Street Area Rezoning”

This project just recently held a workshop. This will be followed by meetings of an Olive Street Rezoning Ad Hoc Committee.

Regarding the workshop—see this from an August 30, 2024 Facebook post at the page: Jeff Carr for Paso Robles City Council.

The Olive St Rezoning Project Open House hosted a good sized crowd last night. I was there because I've found the reasons for pursuing this project have been vague and conflicting, and I wanted to hear what residents thought. Local news channel KSBY was in attendance. Their interviews with residents here are consistent with what I heard in my conversations with residents.

Most everyone I spoke to believed this was an unnecessary change, a move that could negatively change the neighborhood, or a move to increase short-term-rentals in the area. Many people also told me they had expected a presentation style meeting vs. the casual discussion style meeting you can see in the video. Personally, I like the way the meeting was formatted, but I can see how it might have been confusing to attendees.

Some residents were clearly frustrated by this meeting. They didn't trust this to be left to a council vote--as they have too often felt ignored. More than one resident was adamant that this should go to a vote of city residents.

I'm again disappointed in our current incumbent city council member, Mr. Gregory. He stepped up to me as I entered the room, and didn't hesitate trying to sell me his version of why this project was necessary. He told me he was advised to stay in the back of the room, yet throughout the evening I witnessed him working the room talking to residents. That can be seen in the KSBY video. As I understand it, the city attorney sent out an email cautioning council and planning commission members to not attend, or not discuss the issue with the public. Or possibly the attorney did advise them to stay in the back of the room as Mr. Gregory stated. But then why didn't he stay there. He might have been confused by the meeting style as well.

As stated in the video, the next phase of the project should be public Ad Hoc meetings to review the public input and discuss next steps. It will be interesting to see the written public comments submitted at this meeting, and the city's take on those comments. I'll be keeping an eye out for notice of an upcoming Ad Hoc meeting.

KSBY Story: “'Why that part of Olive?': Residents react to rezoning that could bring more housing to Paso Robles”

<END>

Comprehensive Zoning Code Update

This is another project that I’ve been following for years now. Strangely, it has many similarities to the downtown parking discussion of past years—with respect to the lack of public visibility and the failure to acknowledge public input.

And now it has generated unnecessary controversy regarding it’s handling of Home Occupation zoning. The conflict has already spilled into the City Council meetings. This is one of those examples where I wish I could run for the city manager position. These problems and conflicts are unnecessary and easily avoidable.

Here are the written public comments I submitted to the city council on September 17, 2024 —- Public Comments Item Q-2 Comprehensive Zoning Code Update

The city council did approve the ‘pulling’ of the Home Occupation section and some other sections; e.g., Oak Tree Removal. The city will come back no later than 6 months with updates to address council direction. The remaining document was approved for first reading. A 2nd reading is expected in weeks.