Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
April 7, 2026

City of Carmel-By-The-Sea
Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

Encl.

Cc:

Client
Sincerely,

HUDSON MARTIN PC
Christina Goebelsmann, Esq.

Senior Litigation Attorney
ATTACHMENT 4

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Planning Commissioners Mel Ahlborn, Erin Allen, All meetings are held In the City Council Chambers Stefan Karapetkov, Michael LePage, Stephanie East Side of Monte Verde Street Locke Between Ocean and 7th Avenues
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, December 10, 2025
TOUR � 3:00 PM
MEETING .. 4:00 PM

HYBRID MEETING ATTENDANCE OPTIONS
This meeting will be held in person and via teleconference ("hybnd•1 ). The public is welcome
to attend the meeting in person or remotely via Zoom, however, the meeting will proceed as normal even if there are technical difficulties accessing Zoom. The City will do its best to resolve any technical issues as quickly as possible. To view or listen to the meeting from home, you may also watch the live stream on the City's YouTube page at: https://www.youtube.com/@:CitvofCarmelbvtheSea/strea!l1§. To participate in the meeting via Zoom, copy and paste the link below into your browser. https://ci-carmel-caus.zoom.usfi/8507 527 4055?gwd=xjGuf1 VHPManTYPLVc94aalwt24Tld.1 To attend Zoom webinar via telephone, dial +1 (669) 444-9171, Webinar ID: 850 7527 4055,Passcode:001916

HOW TO OFFER PUBLIC COMMENT
The public may give public comment at this meeting in person, or use the Zoom teleconference module, provided that there is access to Zoom during the meeting. Zoom comments will be taken after the in-person comments. The public can also email comments to [email protected]. Comments must be received at least 2 hours before the meeting in order to be provided to the legislative body. Comments received after that time and up to the beginning of the meeting will be made part of the record.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL - TOUR

TOUR OF INSPECTION
The Board/Commission will meet and convene the public hearing at the first location listed below on the Tour of Inspection. The public is welcome to join the tour. The tour is intended only to give the Board/Commission an opportunity to view project sites scheduled for a public hearing later that day. No deliberations on the merits of projects will take place during the Tour ATTACHMENT 4

of Inspection. Following completion of the tour, the Board/Commission will recess and return to the Council Chambers to reconvene the public hearing at 4:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

A OS 25126 (Chroman): Mission Street 2 northwest of 2nd Avenue B. OS 25139 (Kshire Property Investments LLC): Monte Verde Street 4 southwest of 3rd Avenue
C. OS 25244 (Del Santo): Northwest corner of Casanova Street and 8th Avenue
D. APP 25328 (Coria): Mission Street 3 northeast of 10th Avenue

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLLCALL-CHAMBERS

PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Members of the public are entitled to speak on matters of municipal concern not on the agenda during Public Appearances. Each person's comments shall be limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise established by the Chair. Persons are not required to provide their names, however, it is helpful for speakers to state their names so they may be identified in the minutes of the meeting. Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. If a member of the public attending the meeting remotely violates the Brown Act by failing to comply with these requirements of the Brown Act, then that speaker will be muted.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

CONSENT AGENDA
Items on the consent agenda are routine in nature and do not require discussion or independent action. Members of the Commission or the public may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of Board/Commission discussion and/ or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. 1) November 12, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes
2) Monthly Activity Report: November 2025

ORDERS OF BUSINESS
3) Director Referral: Continued from the October 8, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, discussion on the determination of the AW.

Shucks Use Permit.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
ATTACHMENT 4

4) APP 25328 (Coria): Consideration of an Appeal (APP 25328 {Coria)) filed by Jerome and Rose Politzer for the approval of Landscape Plan Check, LO 24106 (Coria), for the approval of a fence and retaining wall on the southern property line and associated landscaping located at Mission Street 3 northeast of 10th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District. APN: 010-076-014-000
5) OS 25126 (Chroman): Consideration of a Track 1 Design Study referral, DS 25126 (Chroman), for the installation of an arbor, fence, and driveway gate in the front setback located at Mission Street 2 northwest of 2nd Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District, Park (P) Overlay, and Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District. APN:
010-121-015-000
6) OS 25139 (Kshire Property Investments LLC): Consideration of a Concept Design Study, OS 25139 (Kshire Property Investments LLC), for the demolition of an existing 1,248-square-foot, one-story singlefamily residence and 192-square-foot shed, and the construction of a 3,292-square-foot, one-story single-family residence inclusive of a 449- square-foot attached garage located on Monte Verde Street 4 southwest of 3rd Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District and Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District. APN: 010-223-009.

The project additionally includes a detached 800 square-foot accessory dwelling unit.
7) DS 25244 (Del Santo): Consideration of a Track 1 Design Study Referral, OS 25244 (Del Santo), for the replacement of windows, reroof, repainting siding, adding a stone veneer, installation of new skylights, installing new tile, and replacement of a glass railing in kind on an existing single-family residence located on the northwest corner of Casanova Street and 8th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District. APN: 010-262-006-000
8) SI 25276 (Halore): Consideration of a Sign Permit, SI 25276 (Halore), for three (3) hanging signs on existing brackets in the Carmel Plaza. One (1) sign is proposed to be located at the upper-level entrance, facing the main Carmel Plaza courtyard, and two (2) signs are proposed to be located at the lower-level entrances, facing Mission Street, located between Ocean and 7th Avenues in the Central Commercial (CC) District. APN: 010-086-006-000

DIRECTOR'S REPORT

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
ATTACHMENT 4

9) Next Regular Meeting: January 21, 2025

ADJOURNMENT
This agenda was posted at City Hall, Monte Verde Street between Ocean Avenue and 7th Avenue, Harrison Memorial Library, located on the NE comer of Ocean Avenue and Lincoln Street, the Carmel-by-the-Sea Post Office, 5th Avenue between Dolores Street and San Carlos Street, and the City's webpage (http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us) in accordance with applicable legal requirements.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda, received after the posting of the agenda will be available at City Hall located on Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues during regular business hours.

SPECIAL NOTICES TO PUBLIC
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 831-620-2000 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting (28CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Trtle II).

ATTACHMENT 4

TO:

SUBMITTED BY:

APPROVED BY:

SUBJECT:

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Planning Commission
Staff Report
December10,2025

ORDERS OF BUSINESS
Chair LePage and Planning Commissioners
Anna Ginette, Community Planning & Building Director
Anna Ginette, AICP, Director of Community Planning and Building Director Referral: Continued from the October 8, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, discussion on the determination of the A.W.

Shucks Use Permit.

Appllcatlon: Director Referral Applicant: NIA
APN: 010-146-017-000
Block & Lot: Block: 79 Lot: All Lots 3 & 4
Owner: TSO Cannel Properties LP
Location: Ocean Ave 3 Southwest of San Carlos Street
Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider additional information provided by staff, consider the potential permit options and deliberate on the permit and operation history of A.W. Shucks Cocktail & Oyster Bar.

Summary, Background, and Project Description:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On October 8, 2025, the Planning Commission was presented with the permit and operation history of AW. Shucks Cocktail & Oyster Bar (A.W. Shucks). Specifically, is AW. Shucks operating outside of what is permitted (Use Permit, Building Permits and Business License) and if so, what is the correct vehicle to achieve compliance. During this hearing the Commission received comments from the property manager and operator of A.W. Shucks, which are detailed in the Staff Analysis discussion below.

Specifically, both expressed their disinclination to amend their Use Permit to change the allowed use from a drinking place with limited food service to a full line restaurant.

During the Commission's deliberation, several considerations were expressed, such as a permitted use should either be a full line restaurant or a drinking establishment, the operation appears to be a full line restaurant, the operation seems to be neither but more of a mix of the two and compliance with existing permits. At the end of the deliberation, the Planning Commission's direction was for staff to return with options to ATTACHMENT 4

allow A.W. Shucks to operate as they currently are.

BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A detailed discussion on permit history was provided in the October 8, 2025, Planning Commission staff report (linked here) for the Commission to consider, weigh the facts before them and provide staff with direction on moving forward.

The discussion below provides a synopsis of the October 8, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, the history of alcohol in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and identifies potential permit options for the applicant.

Staff Analysis:

Property Owner and Business Operator Testimony
During public testimony at the October 10, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, the property manager of A.W. Shucks, John Plastlni, provided historical information relative to site's operation as a drinking establishment and testified to how "a straight drinking establishment poses a lot of problems" and "they (the owners) made the determination to soften it on Ocean Avenue and the Commission and City embraced ir (referring to the Planning Commission's approval of Use Permit No. UP 93-45). He further stated that with the added food service, the adverse behavior associated with drinking was reduced. Subsequently, a request to expand the food service was submitted to the city and through working with the Planning Division and Building Division, the expansion was approved. Plastini also identified that in 2015, A.W. Shucks was "established as a drinking establishment" (referring to the 2015 Planning Commission determination) and when ownership changed in 2023, the Director of Community Planning and Building determined that the use was legal nonconforming and the new owner could continue to operation. In conclusion, Plastini stated that "there is value in the Use Permit" and losing it would be "a major concern".

The owner of A.W. Shucks, Karen Basi, also testified. She stated that when she purchased the business from the previous owner, the was no change in the operation.

Basi expressed concerns with how a change in a permitted use could result in a negative impact to the value of her business and investment. In summary, Basi testified that the Use Permit for a drinking place was a component in determining the value of the business and her purchase price, and "taking" that use from her will affect her and her investment.

History of Alcohol In Carmel
The Commission found it important to consider the City's history of limiting the number of allowed drinking establishments. A more detailed discussion can be found in Attachment 1 - Alcohol VVhite Paper. In summary, Carmel's restrictions on alcohol go back to the late 1880's where it initially began as "marketing tool" for financial purposes, it progressed into fulfilling a moral responsibility. Property deeds were encumbered by restrictive language prohibiting the sale, exchange or gifting "intoxicating liquor". This language was so restrictive it included a clause allowing the property to revert back to the grantor if the covenant was breached. In 1936, the California Supreme Court found that Carmel's general plan vision of being a "bone dry townn is considered abandoned.

ATTACHMENT 4

Subsequently (195D's), two liquor licenses were issued for a bar and restaurant and a liquor store by the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). However, City Ordinance No. 122 NS limited the sale of liquor downtown between 6
th and 7
th streets and Mission and
Monte Verde, unless liquor sales were in conjunction with another business. ABC found that the City's ordinance was outside of the city's police powers by implementing regulations under ABC's jurisdiction. The white paper identifies that the restriction on the number drinking places was for the purpose of implementing LUP Policy P1-22.

However, it does not discuss how the city came to the decision that three was the appropriate number.

The white paper discusses combining uses within the confines of the CMC (see discussion on page 15 of Attachment 1). This discussion is noteworthy as it Is the basis of Option 1 discussed below. Simply put, if a full line restaurant provides more than 20% of its seats at a bar, the CMC classifies the use as a drinking place as the primary use and restaurant as an ancillary use.

Potential Permitting Options
As directed by the Planning Commission, the options below are provided for consideration. It is important to note that the property owner is well within their right to request a proposal that suits their needs and no formal application has been submitted to Community Planning and Building.

Option 1 - Amend Use Permit No. UP 93-45 to omit llmlted food service and add full line restaurant as anclllary use that Is greater than 10% of the primary use.

As discussed in the white paper, CMC section 17.14.040.1.3.d- Restaurant, Full Line, states that no more than 20% of the total number is seats shall be located at the bar and if this standard cannot be met, the standards contained in 17.14.040.1.2 - Drinking Places, shall apply. Essentially, the code language regulates full line restaurants as a drinking place in this case.

Based on Business License BL 23-041, the total number of seats in A.W. Shucks is 45, 14 of which are at the bar. The remaining seats are at high-top tables. The bar seats equate to 31% of the total seats. Therefore, CMC section 17.14.040.1.2 shall apply and A.W. Shucks would be classified as a drinking place as the primary use and full line restaurant as ancillary.

Pursuant to CMC section 17.14.040.B.3, a Use Permit granted by the Planning Commission is required for establishing an ancillary use greater than 10% of the primary use. Applying the bar seating percentage, it would be appropriate for the applicant to request a Use Permit for a full line restaurant as an ancillary use of 69%.

This option requires a discretionary decision by the Planning Commission but is within the confines of the CMC. In addition, this option supports the desires of the property owner and operator of the business establishment.

Option 2- Uphold the Planning Commission's 2015 designation that A.W.

Shucks Is a drinking establishment.

As discussed in the October 8, 2025, Planning Commission staff report, the ATTACHMENT 4

Commission fonnally considered and designed A.W. Shucks as a drinking establishment. Upholding this decision would require no application by the property owner or action· by the Planning Commission. However, it leaves little clarity in terms of the permit record.

Option 3 - Consider A.W. Shucks as a nonconforming use.

As presented by staff and the property manager, the Director of Community Planning and Building provided an email to the property manager on August 28, 2023, stating that the city memorialized the additional cooking equipment and approved the current menu as part of the approval of Building Permit No. BP 08-168C. As defined in CMC Section 17 .68-090 a •non-conforming use• is " [a] use of a structure or land that was lawfully established and maintained, but that does not conform with the currently applicable use regulations for the zoning district in which the use is located by reason of adoption or amendment of this title or by reason of annexation of territory to the City." If it is determined that the current operation of the business is a "non-confirming use•, this option is similar to Option 2, as no action would be required.

Option 4 - Revert the ancillary use to limited food service.

This option would require A.W. Shucks to pull back their food service, obtain any necessary building permit(s) to removing kitchen/cooking equipment and amend their business permit (including revision to their menu offerings).

As testified by Basi, this option would be detrimental to her operation and would be inconsistent with the business components she purchased and invested in. Although not typically a land use issue, the economic impact of this option could be considered.

Option 5 - Amend Use Permit No. UP 93-45 to convert the allowed use from a drinking place to a full llne restaurant.

This option was presented to the Commission on October 8, 2025 for consideration.

Based on the testimony of Plastini and Basi, this Is not a viable option. In addition, the percentage of bar seats is over the 20% limitation resulting in Option 1 as superior.

Other Project Components:

Environmental Review
This item is limited to a discussion and no action is required by the Planning Commission. Therefore, it is not a project under CEQA as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CECA Guidelines Section 15378.

Attacl1rnents:

1. Attachment 1_Alcohol Whitepaper_S-10-22
ATTACHMENT 4

EXHIBIT9
ATTACHMENT 4

Docusign Envelope ID: A90E0134-6513-4881-B12f-5CE435fF63B3

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-04

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DETERMINING THAT THE DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT AT A.W. SHUCKS COCKTAIL & OYSTER BAR (UP 93-45 MURRAY/WEAVER) LOCATED AT OCEAN AVENUE 3 SOUTHWEST OF SAN CARLOS STREET, IN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (CC) ZONING DISTRICT, APN 010-146-017-000,

HAS BEEN ABANDONED AND FINDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT UNDER CEQA AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21065 AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15378, AND ASSUMING IT IS A PROJECT, IT IS EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15061(b)(3) (COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION), 15301 {EXISTING FACILITIES), 15305 (MINOR ALTERATIONS IN LAND USE LIMITATIONS) AND NONE OF THE

EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTIONS APPLY IN THIS CASE
WHEREAS, on December 8, 1993, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. UP 93-45 (Murray/Weaver) authorizing the addition of limited food sales to an existing drinking establishment (formerly Maxwell McFly's, now A.W. Shucks Cocktail & Oyster Bar) and whether or not the operation is consistent with the use approved under Use Permit No. UP 93-45; and WHEREAS, Condition of Approval No. 2 of UP 93-45 states that "the sale and service of food shall [be] limited to the menu submitted with this application. The permittee shall not be authorized to establish a full kitchen with stove, grill or oven. Food services shall be limited to a microwave oven, gas steamer, soup preparation and refrigeration facilities."; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 1994, the City issued building permit No. 94-47 for a commercial interior remodel allowing installation of the following: soup warmer, prep sink, refer, display rack, prep refer, small steamer, large steamer, stock pot, Type II hood, sink, dishwasher and coffee maker; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 1995, an application for building permit No. 96-81 to allow a commercial kitchen remodel was submitted. On November 20th a correction list was provided indicating that an application to amend the Use Permit was required. An additional note was added on December 5, 1995, stating that the owner was required to submit a new application for a business license for a full-line restaurant. The correct list was updated crossing out "use permit" and writing in "business license only" and indicated that compliance was done April 22, 1996. On May 7, 1996, the city issued the building permit and on June 14, 1996, it was finaled.

This permit allowed the installation of a stock pot burner and gas fryer; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2008, an application for building permit No. 08-168C allowing a commercial kitchen remodel, including the installation of a salamander, char broiler, griddle with 2 burners and an over, a fryer and stock pot burner was filed. This permit was issued August 15, 2008 and finaled February 11, 2009; and
ATTACHMENT 4

DocusIgn Envelope ID: A90E0134-6513-4881-B12F-5CE435FF6383 .

WHEREAS, on September 23, 2015, at a duly noticed meeting, the Planning Commission determined that A.W. Shucks Cocktail & Oyster Bar (A.W. Shucks) was one of the 3 drinking places in the city. A.W. Shucks originally operated strictly as a drinking place and by approval of UP 93-45, ancillary food service was allowed, the establishment is permitted to be open until 12:00 a.m., and the majority of the floor space is occupied by the bar. The Commission memorialized this designation with a vote of 4-0-1; and WHEREAS, on July 1, 2023, ownership of A.W. Shucks changed from M & M Coastal Enterprises (Mike and Michelle Sapon) to A.W. Shucks LLC (Karen Basi). Business License No. BL 23-041 was issued on August 8, 2023. This license approved a use classified as a full-line restaurant as the primary use and a drinking place as an ancillary use; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 2023, correspondence was sent to the property manager of the subject parcel stating that the city memorialized the additional cooking equipment and approved the current menu as part of the approval of Building Permit No. BP 08-168C and that A. W. Shucks can continue to operate under UP 93-45, provided there was no change in its then current use and operation; and
WHEREAS, in February 2025, the Director of Community Planning and Building received an inquiry asking if A.W. Shucks is operating consistent with the use as approved and conditioned under Use Permit No. UP 93-45 (Murray/Weaver); and
WHEREAS, at the October 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission received a Director's Referral to discuss the permit and operation history of A.W. Shucks, and a potential amendment to Use Permit No. UP 93-45. Subsequent to their deliberation, the Commission directed staff to return with options to allow A.W. Shucks to operate as they currently are while potentially retaining their Use Permit for a drinking establishment; and WHEREAS, at the December 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, staff returned to the Commission as directed and provided potential options: 1) amend Use Permit No. UP 93-45 to omit limited food service and add full line restaurant as ancillary use that is greater than 10% of the primary use, 2) uphold the Planning Commission's 2015 designation that A.W. Shucks is a drinking establishment, 3) consider A. W. Shucks as a nonconforming use, 4) revert the ancillary use to limited food service, or 5) amend Use Permit No. UP 93-45 to convert the allowed use from a drinking place to a full line restaurant. Staff's recommended Option 1 as it was consistent with the applicable policies of the Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Program and the applicable requirements contained in the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code (CMC); and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2025, having considered all the written and documentary evidence, the administrative record, staff report, oral testimony, and other evidence presented, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission expressed the view that the drinking establishment use has been abandoned and the use shall come into conformance. In addition, the Commission identified that Options 5 would fit the existing model of the business operation; ATTACHMENT 4

Docus1gn Envelope ID: A90E0134�513-4881-B12F-5CE435FF63B3 •
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CMC Section 17.54.010.C, the findings and actions of the Planning Commission shall be final and conclusive from and after the date of final action unless an appeal is filed with the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the above findings and evidence, Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby:

1. The facts ("Facts") set forth in the recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. Find the proposed action by the Commission is not a project under CEQA as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, and assuming it is a project, it is exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) and none of the exceptions to the exemptions listed in section 15300.2 apply in this case. The subject property does not contain a hazardous waste site or a historic resource, nor is it within an officially designated state scenic highway. Implementation of the Commission's action would result in no change to baseline conditions which substantiates that there would be no foreseeable cumulative impacts or significant effects as a result of the action.

3. Determine that the drinking establishment at A.W. Shucks Cocktail & Oyster Bar (UP 93-45 Murray/Weaver) has been abandoned for more than six months in accordance with Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code Section 17.56.050.C based upon the Facts and following findings:
(1) Use Permit 93-45 (UP 93-45) was adopted on December 8, 1993 to authorize the addition of the sale of food to an existing drinking establishment for a business then known as Maxwell McFly's and now known as AW Shucks ("Business") located at Ocean SW of San Carlos Avenue ("Property").
(2) Condition 2 of UP 93-45 stated: "The sale and service of food shall [be] limited to the menu submitted with this application. The permittee shall not be authorized to establish a full kitchen with stove, grill or oven. Food services shall be limited to a microwave oven, gas steamer, soup preparation and refrigeration facilities." (3) Condition 8 of UP 93-45 stated: "This use permit shall become void and of no further force or effect upon termination or discontinuance of the use for any period of time exceeding six months."
(4) Since 1993, building permits have been issued to this Business for a commercial kitchen including the installation of a salamander, char broiler, griddle with 2 burners and an oven, a fryer and stock pot burner.

ATTACHMENT 4

Ooa.ialgn Envelope ID: A90E0134-6513-4881-B12F-5CE435FF6383 (5) On August 8, 2023, Business License No. Bl 23-041 was Issued which authorized a use classified as a full-line restaurant as the primary use and a drinking place as an ancillary use.
(6) For at least the last six months, AW Shucks has not operated as a drinking establishment with the sale of limited food as approved by UP 93-45. (7) The uses of the Property where the Business is located are subject to the conditions of UP 93-45.
(8) A Use Permit may only be amended upon application to the City which is approved by the Planning Commission.
(9) UP 93-45 has not been amended since December 8, 1993. (10) A building permit does not amend a Use Permit.
(11) A business license does not amend a Use Permit.

4. A.W. Shucks may continue to operate under Use Permit No. UP 93-45 for a period of up to six months from the date of this decision in order to allow acquiring a new use permit.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THESEA this 11th day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

Ahlborn, Karapetkov, Locke, LePage
Allen
ATTEST:
tfW'llffl�e
Chair
�fflfflin
Planning Commission Secretary
ATTACHMENT 4

FFR 2 6 2026
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPEAL F������1
Appeals to a Board or Commission must be made by completing and submitting an Appeal Form with the City Cieri<. Appeals shall be filed wfthln 10 calendar days fol/owing the date of action and paying the required fHlng fee as established by City Council resolution.

Appeals to the City Council must be made by completing and submitting an Appeal Form with the City Clerk.

Appeals shall be flied within 10 working days following the date of action and paying the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.

A.W. Shucks, LLC (aka A.W. Shucks Cocktail & Oyster Bar) Name of Appellant
c/o Fenton & Keller, PO Box 171, Monterey, CA 93942
Mailing Address of Appellant
(831) 373-1241
Phone Number
[email protected]
Email address
Send correspondence to the following party (if different than Appellant):

Derric Oliver, Esq., Fenton & Keller
Name
PO Box 171, Monterey, CA 93942
Mailing Address
(831) 373-1241
Phone Number
Planning Commission
[email protected]
Email address
Commission, Board, Official or Department whose action is being appealed Ocean Ave 3 SW San Carlos St Physical location of property involved (street location or address): _______________ _ Lots 3-4 Block 79 010-146-017
Lot Block APN
February 11, 2026 Date of decision being appealed: ____________ _ Planning Commission Res. No. 2026-04 determining that Specific action or decision being appealed: ______________________ _ the "drinking establishment" use (UP 93-45) has been abandonded.

See attached "Grounds for Appeal" Grounds for appeal (attach additional pages if necessary): _________________ _ Signature of Appellant
Reference Chapter 17.54 of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code "Appeals" revised 1/2020 ATTACHMENT 5

CHRISTOPHER E PANETTA
JOHN [ KCSCCKER
£LIZABETH R LEITZINGER
ANDREW 8 t..RE[FT

KENNETH S KLEINKOPF

ALEX J LORCA

OERRIC O OLIVER
\4ARCO A L�CIDO
CHRISTOPHER \4 LONG
GLADYS RODRIGll[Z-MORALtS
CAROL S HILBUaN

BRADLEY J LEVANO

CHRISTOPHLR J NANNINI
TARA L CL[\tENS
[\.fMA?,,iUEL PEREA Jl\iEf'wEZ
REBECCA J '40NROE
ALYSSA CARBONLL '4ATSUHARA
KALI N S\.flLEY
ELIZABETH A H[H
NEGIN P aOTH

DERRIC G OLIVER

FE TO & KELLER

A PR OFF SSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTOR EYS AT LAW
2801 MONTEREY-SALINAS HIGHWAY
POST OFFICE BOX 791
MONTEREY CALIFORNIA 93942-0791
TELEPHONE (831) 373-1241
FACSIMILE (831) 3"3-7219
v.�·"' Fcn100Kcllcr com
February 26, 2026
LEWIS L. FEN'IO�
192" 200S
Of COUNSEL
CHAI.LLS R t..ELLER

SARA B BOYNS
TROY A KINGSHAVtN

BRIANO CALL
DOhvcr(!',fcntonkcller com
ext 207
VIA HA D DELIVERY A D EMAIL ([email protected]) Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
c/o City Clerk
P.O. Box CC
Cam1el-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Re: A.W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal (attachment to Appeal Form) Appeal of Planning Commission action, Feb. 11, 2026, Agenda ftem #5 (UP 93-45) Our File: 60621.71033
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Member
Thi firm repre ents A.W. Shucks, LLC, the owner-operator of A.W. Shucks Cocktail & Oyster Bar ("A.W. Shucks") located at it leased premises on Ocean Avenue 3 SW San Carlos Street ("Premises") in Carmel-by-the-Sea ("City"). This letter provides A. W. Shucks' "Grounds for Appeal" attachment to the City Appeal Forni filed to appeal the City' Planning Commission ("Commission") action on agenda item #5 of its public meeting held on February 11, 2026.

A.W. Shucks' appeal primarily challenge the Commission's adoption of Resolution o. 2026-04 ("Resolution"), thereby revoking the Premi es' "drinking establi hment" use permit# UP 93-45 ("Use Pe1mit") upon which A.W. Shuck relied, stripping A.W. Shucks and its landlord of their respective rights to continue the multi-decade use of the Premise as a "drinking establishment," and compelling the parties to apply for a new u e permit and transform A. W.

Shucks into ometbing it is not and has never been: a full-line re taurant. The e actions flow from the Commi ion's findings and detem1inations that the "drinking e tablishment" u e of the Premise and the Use Permit were abandoned by some unidentified party(ies) at some unspecified time, due to City-approved minor expansion of food service and related equipment at the Premi es, the centerpiece of which i ... a bar.

A. W. Shucks di putes and object to the Commission's finding , determinations, and action a contrary to the evidence and law. and therefore, re pectfully a ks the City Council to grant the appeal and reverse the Commission' actions, including the Resolution.

ATTACHMENT 5

A.W. Shuck , LLC's Grounds for Appeal
February 26, 2026

I. SUMMARY GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
In addition to the rea ons et forth in A.W. Shuck ' public comment letter to the Comm is ion on February 11, 2026, and the rea ons stated on behalf of A. W. Shucks during the public comment period of the Commis ion public meeting that ame evening, A.W. Shucks' grounds for appeal are summarized a follows:

A. The Commission's finding and determination that the Premi es' "drinking establi hment" u e and the U e Permit were abandoned conflict with City Code and the express, authorized determinations of the City's Planning Director; B. The Commission' finding and determination that the Premi es' "drinking establishment" use and Use Permit were abandoned are contrary to the evidence; C. A.W. Shucks i lawfully entitled to continue it "drinking establi hment" use of the Premise without a use permit;
D. A.W. Shucks' existing use of the Premi e comport with the City' general plan and land use goals, and is not injurious to public health, afety, or welfare; E. The Commission's action, including the Resolution, violate constitutional principles of due process, equal protection, and "taking" private property "without ju t compen ation;" and
F. A.W. Shucks will sustain damage arising from the Commis ion's Resolution.

For these reason and those discussed below, A. W. Shucks urge the City Council to rever e the Commi sion's action and Resolution adopted on February 11, 2026.

Finally. A.W. Shucks respectfully reque t that the City Council direct City taff to refund the $2,190 appeal fee paid by A. W. Shucks, consistent with the Comm is ion's repeated acknowledgement , during the public bearing on February 11, 2026 that A.W. Shucks, at all relevant time , followed the rule and properly communicated with City official . (See Cammi sion hearing video located at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00j3gGN2Hoc, po ted on the City's Official YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@CityofCarmelbytheSea), both of which are incorporated here by this reference for inclusion in the administrative record. * * * * *
4919-5918-9650, V. 1
ATTACHMENT 5

A.W. Shuck , LLC's Grounds for Appeal
February 26, 2026

11. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL - DISCUSSIO
A. The Commission's findings and determination that the Premises' "drinl<lng e tablishment" use and e Permit were abandoned conflict with City Code and the express, authorized determinations of the City's Planning Director I. A.W. Shucks ha more bar seat than full-line restaurants, per City Code and taff Carmel Municipal Code ("CMC") section I 7.14.040(I)(3)(d) defines a full-line restaurant, in relevant part, as, "no more than 20 percent of the total number of seats are at a bar," and, "If the u e doe not meet thi tandard, the tandards in sub ection (1)(2) of this ection, Drinking Place , shall al o apply to the use." Consistent with that definition, City planning staff explain, in the Commi ion taff Report, dated December I 0, 2025: "As discussed in the white paper, CMC section 17.14.040.1.3.d - Restaurant - Full Line, states that no more than 20% of tbe total number i [ ic, of] eats shall be located at the bar and if this tandard cannot be met, the standard contained in 17.14.040.l.2 - Drinking Place , shall apply.

Essentially, the code language regulate full line restaurants a a drinking place in this case." In that same Staff Report, City planning staff further explain , "the total number of seats in A. W. Shucks i 45, 14 of which are at the bar. The remaining seat are at high-top tables. The bar seats equate to 31 % of the total seats. Therefore, CMC section 17.14.040.I.2 shall apply and A.W. Shuck would be cla sified as a drinking place a the primary use and a full line re taurant as ancillary." Ba ed on the foregoing, the Commission' determination of abandonment of the "drinking e tablishment" u e and the U e Pem,it was in error and contrary to the CMC.

2. A. W. Shucks' alcoholic beverages offerings relative to its food serv ice offerings
exceed the limit impo ed on full-line restaurant , per the CMC CMC section 17.14.040.1.3.a, applicable to full-line re taurants, provide : "Any sale of alcoholic beverages shall be subordinate to th[e] primary use [i.e., a full-line restaurant]." In that regard, A.W. Shuck ' menu offer a far more extensive array of alcoholic beverages than food item , meaning A.W. Shuck ' food ervice i ubordinate to its "drinking establi hment" use and business operation. Further. A.W. Shucks' alcoholic drinks menu offering are more extensive than full-line restaurants in the City, further confirming A.W. Shucks' primary u e of the Premi e i as a "drinking e tablishment." See A.W. Shuck ' drinks menu, enclo ed and incorporated here a Attachment 1. Therefore, the Comm is ion' directive, per the Re olution, that A.W. Shucks apply for a use permit to operate as a full-line restaurant, conflicts with the CMC and the evidence.

3. either the "drinking e tablishment" use nor the Use Permit were "abandoned," as validly and finally determined by the City's Director, per the CMC CMC ection 17.56.050.C define "abandonment of u e" a a "di continued" u e and authorizes the City Director of Community Planning and Building ("Director") to make "abandonment" determination , ubject to appeals to the Commission. Toward that end, in Augu t 2023, the City's then-Director (now City Administrator), Brandon Swan on, confirmed, 4919-5918-9650, V. 1
ATTACHMENT 5

A. W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal
February 26, 2026

in two eparate email enclo ed and incorporated here a Attachment 2, that neither the "drinking e tabli hment" use nor the U e Permit had been abandoned by virtue of the Cityapproved additional cooking equipment in tailed and utilized at the Premises.

Specifically, in his email dated August 14, 2023, and as authorized by CMC section

17.56.050.C, Director Swanson explained, "my detennination is that the City memorialized the additional cooking equipment and restaurant by approving a building permit on August 15, 2008 (Permit# 08-168C). In this case, even though the original use permit [the U e Permit] set a limit on the type of equipment and menu, the City took an official action to approve the updated kitchen and the menu it was meant to prepare, thereby creating a legal nonconforming situation that i allowed to continue under Chapter 17.36 of the City's Municipal Code." Similarly, in bi email dated Augu t 28, 2023, Director Swan on wrote, in relevant part, "this email erve as confirmation that the menu you provided (attached), were also approved August 151\ 2008, a part of Permit # 08-l 68C. These menus maintain the same legal nonconfon11ing status that r referenced in my previous email ent August 141\ 2023, therefore they are allowed to be erved in whole or in part. Please note that our past practice bas been that minor modifications to re taurant menus may be made without the need for City approval." 1n um, a expressly authorized by CMC section 17.56.050.C, Director Swanson determined the additional food offering by A.W. Shucks con tituted "minor modification " to, not an "abandonment" of, the "drinking place" use of the Premises or the Use Permit.

Pur uant to CMC ection 17.56.050.C, the Director's "abandonment" determination, as confirmed by the above referenced email correspondence, wa appealable to the Commis ion.

However, no appeal of that determination was timely filed, rendering the Director's deci ion final and legally binding on the City. As uch, the City i e topped from rever ing the Director' deci ion. (See, e.g., City of Long Beach v. Man ell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462: Cal. Evidence Code 623.) Therefore, the Commission's attempt (via the Resolution) to untimely disavow and reverse the binding decision by the Director are legally mi placed, con titute an abuse of discretion and an action that exceeded the City's jurisdiction, not to mention highly unfair and prejudicial to A. W. Shuck , including financially, such as by lo t revenue and bu ine opportunitie potentially amounting to hundred of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

4. A. W. Shucks is entitled to rely on the Director' valid and final determination The legal authority and binding effect of the Director's "abandonment" detem1ination, pursuant to CMC section 17.56.050.C, is clear. Therefore, A.W. Shucks is legally entitled to rely on that determination, notwithstanding the Commission's comment , findings, determination , and actions to the contrary, including as et forth in the Resolution.

Beyond that, more broadly, if property owners and busine operator in the City cannot reasonably rely on written determinations of the City's Director (i.e., the City's senior-most planning manager) made in accordance with the CMC, then the City' word , rules, and proce ses, and the public's trust and confidence in them, are broken. In this case, unless the Planning Commis ion' actions are reversed, A.W. Shucks will be rendered a victim of that 4919-5918-9650, V. 1
ATTACHMENT 5

A. W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal
February 26, 2026

"broken" system, despite that, A. W. Shucks, at all relevant times, followed the rules and properly communicated with City officials, a the Commission acknowledged several times during the public hearing on February 11, 2026. For the e reasons alone, the Commission's action is in error, and the City Council should reverse.

8. The Commission's findings and determination that the Premises' "drinking establishment" use and Use Permit were abandoned are contrary to the evidence l. The Commission's express, irrebuttable admissions contradict the Commission's "abandonment" findings and detem,ination
As the Commission admitted in the ixth recital of the Resolution: "WHEREAS, on September 23, 2015, at a duly noticed meeting, the Planning Commission detem1ined that A.W.

Shucks Cocktail & Oyster Bar (A. W. Shucks) was one of the 3 drinking places in the city. A. W.

Shucks originally operated strictly as a drinking place and by approval of the Use Permit, ancillary food service wa allowed, ... and the majority of the floor space is occupied by the bar.

The Commission memorialized this designation with a vote of 4-0-l ."1 The City is legally precluded and estopped from now denying those admi sions, constituting evidence conclusively establishing: (1) A.W. Shucks originally operated as a drinking establishment without the need for a use permit; (2) the U e Permit merely allowed for the addition of food service, and did not, and could not legally, amend or revoke the pre-existing, legal nonconfonning "drinking establishment" use of the Premises; and (3) the majority of the floor space within A.W. Shucks consists of the bar area. Thi evidence contradicts the Commission's finding that A.W. Shucks abandoned its "drinking establishment" use.

As the Commission admitted in the eighth recital of the Resolution: "WHEREAS, on August 28, 2023, correspondence wa sent to the property manager of the subject parcel stating that the city memorialized the additional cooking equipment and approved the current menu as part of the approval of Building Permit o. BP 08-168C and that A.W. Shucks can continue to operate under the Use Pem1it, provided there was no change in it then current use and operation." See above referenced emails f
r
om then-Director Swanson (Attachment 2).

The City is legally precluded and estopped from now denying those admissions, constituting evidence establishing: (I) the additional cooking equipment approved by City Building Permit o. BP 08-I 68C was consistent with, and not an "abandonment" of, A. W.

Shucks' "drinking establishment" use, as detem1ined by then-Director Swanson; (2) the additional cooking equipment approved by City Building Permit o. BP 08-I 68C was consistent with the Use Permit, as determined by then-Director Swanson; and (3) A.W. Shucks' "drinking establishment" use, as augmented by food service per the Use Permit, can continue so long as A. W. Shucks does not change its cun-ent u e and operation, as determined by the Director. 1 Sec also, History and Policies on Alcohol in Carmel-by-the-Sea, dated August I 0, 2022, p. 12, incorporated herein by this reference.
4919-5918-9650, V. 1
ATTACHMENT 5

A.W. Shuck , LLC' Ground for Appeal
February 26, 2026

The evidence in the record e tablishes that A.W. Shuck 'current use of the Premises has not changed since Augu t 28, 2023. As such, no evidence exist to support the Commission's findings and determination that the "drinking establishment" use of the Premises, or the additional food ervice and equipment authorized by the Use Pennit, were abandoned.

2. either the U e Permit nor the CMC impo e upon "drinking establishments" any income limits on food sales relative to alcohol ales
The Use Pennit does not impose any revenue, unit, or volume limit on A.W. Shucks' ale of food relative to alcohol. Similarly, no uch limits on "drinking e tablishments" or "fullline re taurant "are impo ed by CMC chapter 17.56 (restricted commercial use ), CMC chapter

17.68 (use classifications), CMC section 17.14.040.1 (additional use regulations), or CMC chapter 17.36 (nonconfonning u es and buildings). As uch, neither the U e Pennit nor the CMC upports the Commission's "abandonment'· finding and detem1ination based on A.W. Shuck ' food ales relative to it alcohol sales.

Similarly, as noted above and further detailed below, A.W. Shuck ' alcoholic beverage offering far exceed its food offering . Whether A. W. Shuck ' primary source of revenue-from day to day, week to week, or month to month, ba ed on ever-changing con umer and economic trend -is alcohol sale or food ales ha no bearing on the U e Pennit and the above-cited CMC ections. The fact remain , although A.W. Shucks' alcoholic beverages offerings far exceed its food offerings, A. W. Shucks can "lead a horse to drink" but cannot make it do o. To the extent A.W. Shucks' customers choose to con ume more alcohol than food-or vice versa-has no impact on whether the "drinking establi hment" u e or U e Permit were abandoned.

3. A.W. Shucks did not "abandon" (i.e .. "discontinue") its "drinking e tablishment" use of the Premi es or the Use Penn it
either the "drinking e tabli hment" u e of the Premises, nor the Use Permit, were "abandoned" or "discontinued." In fact, A.W. Shucks' "drinking establi hment" use of the Premise continue today, as it has for year , and as con finned by the evidence.

Indeed, A.W. Shucks' food preparation facilities are dwarfed by other full-line restaurant in the City, further evidencing the fact that A.W. Shuck is not a full-line restaurant.

For example, A.W. Shucks' limited food menu and food preparation facilitie -primarily u ed for preparing oysters and salad , frying calamari and fish and chips (French fries), and wam1ing soup and tuna melts-consists of a mere 8' x IO' (approx.) area, tucked into the front comer of A.W. Shuck ' bar. See photograph and City-approved plan beet enclo ed and incorporated here as Attachment 3 and Attachment 4, re pectively. In stark contrast to A.W. Shucks, the full-line re taurant, The Grill on Ocean Ave, boa ts of a significantly larger, walk-in, back-ofhou e, full-line kitchen, despite The Grill' comparable size to A.W. Shuck ' Premise . See photographs of The Grill on Ocean Ave enclo ed and incorporated here as Attachment 5. 4919-5918-9650, V. 1
ATTACHMENT 5

A.W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal
February 26, 2026

Similarly, A.W. hucks' menu offer literally hundred of alcoholic beverage option - far more than Sade' bar ever offered-including 128 Scotch whiskeys, 99 bourbons and whiskeys, 68 tequila and mezcal , 39 gin , 36 vodkas, 31 wine and port , 22 rums, 22 beer , 17 lri h wbi key , 8 cognacs, 9 martinis, 9 pecialty cocktail , and 3 oy ter shooters, plu 4 mocktail . See A. W. Shucks' drinks menu (Attachment I) and photographs (Attachment 3 ).

Again, in stark contrast, A.W. Shucks' bar and array of alcoholic beverage offerings dwarfs those of the full-line restaurant, The Grill on Ocean Ave, whose restaurant bar service area i a f
r
action of the size of A. W. Shuck ' and who e menu identifies only "beer by the bottle" and "draft beer." See photograph of The Grill on Ocean Ave (Attachment 5) and The Grill on Ocean Ave's menu, enclosed and incorporated here as Attachment 6.

Beyond that, the admini trative record i devoid of any evidence bowing that the Cityapproved minor expansions of food service and related equipment at the Premises converted the Premi es or A.W. Shuck 'u e into a "full-line restaurant." C. A.W. Shuck is lawfully entitled to continue its "drinking establishment" use of the Premises without a use permit
I. The Commis ion' "abandonment" finding and determination are contrary to CMC Chapter 17.36 and the related evidence
CMC Chapter 17.36 regulates nonconforming u e and buildings within the City. (CMC § 17 .36.0 I 0.) "Occupancie and u es lawfully e tablished that do not conform with the current u e regulations ... may be continued." (CMC § 17.36.020.B.) As admitted by the Commission and Director Swan on, the "drinking establi hment" use of the Premise wa lawfully establi hed prior to the City's use permit requirements. A such, A.W. Shucks i not legally required to obtain or maintain a use permit to continue its "drinking e tab Ii hrnent" u e of tbe Premi es.

Moreover, the Use Permit, adopted by the Commission on December 8, 1993, confirm the Use Permit i unrelated to the legally pre-exi ting "drinking establi hment" use and merely authorize , "the addition of the ale of food to an existing drinking e tab I ishment," con i ting of "an existing bar use that has been in continuous use for many year "that "was legally established prior to the need for a use permit." (Use Pem1it, p. I.) ln addition, as relevant here, CMC section 17.36.050 ( onconforming Uses), ubsection A, provide : " o building that contains a nonconfom1ing use hall be enlarged by increa ing the noor area or building envelope or exterior volume. Repair , remodeling, alteration or maintenance, in any 12-month period, hall be limited to IO percent of the value of the building, or IO percent of the value of the portion of the building containing the nonconforming use. The value of improvements shall be detem1ined by the Building Official." Further, CMC section

17.36.050.B provides: " o nonconfom1ing u e may be expanded or extended into an exi ting portion of a building that wa not previously occupied by the ame nonconforming use." 4919-5918-9650, V. 1
ATTACHMENT 5

A. W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal
February 26, 2026

The Premises has undergone no such prohibited enlargements, expansions, extensions, repairs, remodels, or otherwise, nor bas any contention or evidence to the contrary been offered.

Based on this infonnation and other evidence in the record, A.W. Shucks' nonconfonning use of the Premises remains legally valid, per the CMC, and is based on a legally established vested right, not on a City-issued use permit. Therefore, a use pennit is not necessary for A.W. Shucks to legally continue its "drinking establishment" use at the Premises.

D. A.W. Shucks' existing use of the Premises comports with the City's general plan and land use goals, and is not injurious to pubUc health, safety, or welfare I. The Citv's "police powers" to regulate land use must relate to public health, safety. and welfare
Local municipalities' authority to regulate land use derives from the general police powers, as set forth in the California Constitution and California's Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code §§ 65000-66499.58), and must promote and protect public health, safety, and general welfare. (Carlin v. City of Palm Springs (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 706, 711.) Otherw ise,
local municipalities, such as the City, lack jurisdiction to regulate land use.

2. The Re olution doe not promote or protect public heath. safety. or welfare No evidence in the record supports finding that A.W. Shucks' existing use of the Premises (e.g., current mix of food and drinks service; permissible hours of operation; signage) are incompatible with the City's general plan or land u e goals, or are injurious to the health, safety, or welfare of the City, its residents, property owners, business owners, or tourists.

For example, the Commission did not produce, nor does the Resolution cite to, any evidence to support any findings that A.W. Shuck ' existing use of the Premises:
a. "generate odors, fumes, dust, I ight, glare, radiation or refuse that [are] injurious to surrounding uses or to the district" (U e Permit, Finding #2); b. "generate levels of noise that adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties or u es" (Use Permit, Finding #2); c. "increase traffic noise in excess of the "normally acceptable" range identified in the General Plan" (Use Permit, Finding #3); d. "make excessive demands on the provision of public services, including water supply, sewer capacity, energy supply, communications facilitie , police protection, and fire protection" (Use Permit, Finding #4);
e. "conflict with the City's goal of achieving and maintaining a balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non-local populations" (Use Permit, Finding #6); 4919-5918-9650, V. 1
ATTACHMENT 5

A.W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal
February 26, 2026

f. conflict with the City's finding, "the operation of a drinking place is functionally equivalent to an eating place in terms of altering the balanced mix of u es" or "increase the impact of such u es on Ocean A venue" (U e Permit, Finding #6); g. are not "compatible with urrounding land uses" or "conflict with the purpo e e tabli bed for the di trict within which it [is] located" (Use Permit, Finding #7); h. "conflict with the City' General Plan" (U e Permit, Finding #8);

1. "injur[e] public health, safety or welfare" (Use Permit, Finding #9); j. conflict with City's finding, "no other drinking place in operation located on Ocean A venue do not have authority to sel I food" (Use Permit, Finding# IO); k. increase the "existing non-conformity" a to "parking to accommodate the long-term parking needs of employee or bu ines owner " (U e Permit, Finding# 11 ); or I. exceed "the capacity of surrounding streets" to "serve the automobile and delivery truck traffic generated by [A.W. Shucks' existing] use" (Use Pennit, Finding #12). [n addition, ignificantly, in paragraph 2 of the Re olution, the Commi ion admit , "Implementation of the Commission' action would result in no change to ba eline condition which sub tantiate that there would be no foreseeable cumulative impacts or significant effect a a re ult of the action."
Finally, as stated in the ninth recital of the Resolution: "WHEREAS, in February 2025, the Director of Community Planning and Building received an inquiry [from Parker Logan] asking if A. W. Shucks is operating con istent with the use a approved and conditioned under Use Permit o. UP 93-45 (Murray/Weaver)." However, and equally ignificantly, neither of Mr.

Logan' two public comment emails to the Commis ion, submitted on February 11, 2026, allege any public health, safety, or welfare reason for his request that the Commis ion strip A.W.

Shuck of its "drinking e tab Ii hment" use of the Premises or the Use Permit. Indeed, ba ed upon the record, it appears the sole basis and motivation for Mr. Logan' request is to privately gain by the City "taking" from A.W. Shuck and it landlord.
rn sum, there is no public health, safety, or welfare ba is to support the Commi ion's "abandonment" findings and determination.

E. The Commission's action, including the Resolution, violates constitutional principles of due process, equal protection, and "taking" private property "without just compensation"
A local municipality' authority to regulate land use is further limited by the protection guaranteed by United States Constitution (e.g., Fifth Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment) and the California Con titution (e.g., Art. I,§§ I, 7, 19). Those protection apply to A.W. Shucks' and it landlord's vested rights to continue the "drinking establishment" use of the Premise , 4919-5918-9650, V. 1
ATTACHMENT 5

A.W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal
February 26, 2026

which protections the Cammi sion violated in arbitrarily and capriciously adopting the Resolution. (See, e.g., Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa ( 1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1529; Halaco Eng. Co. v. S. Central Coast Reg. Comm. ( 1986) 42 Cal.3d 52, 63; G & D Holland Cons tr. Co. v. City of Marysville ( 1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 989, 944.) Additionally, in ta_kjng away those rights, the Commission did not identify the party or parties who purportedly "abandoned" the "drinking establishment" use of the Premises and the Use Permit, nor did the Comm_j sion pecify the period during which the purported abandonment occurred. Such failures provide insufficient notice to A.W. Shucks and its landlord and lack substantial evidence required to support and enforce the Resolution.

F. A.W. Shucks will sustain damages arising f
rom Commission's Resolution
Currently, consistent with the U e Permit, A.W. Shucks' pem1issible hour of operation are Sunday through Thursday f
rom 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m., and on Friday and Saturday from I 1 :00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. To the extent the City compels any reductions to these hour arising from the Re olution, A.W. Shucks will consequently suffer damage, including in the fo1m of lost income and business opportunities, which may result in the economic unviability and unsustainability of A.W. Shucks' business.

Similarly, to the extent the City compels any other changes to A.W. Shucks' business operations (e.g., mix of food and beverage service, mix of bar and non-bar seating, signage changes) arising from the Resolution, A.W. Shucks will consequently suffer similar and additional damage, including loss of the value received in exchange for the purchase price premium paid by A.W. Shucks for a business benefitted by "drinking establishment" use rights.

These reasons further support the City Council's reversal of the Commission Resolution.

G. The City Council should refund the $2,190 appeal fee paid by A.W. Shucks A.W. Shucks re pectfully reque ts that the City, in fairne s, refund the $2,190 appeal fee paid by A.W. Shucks, con istent with the Commission's statements made during the public bearing on February 11, 2026.

Ill. co 1CLUSIO
As required under California law, the Cammi ion's findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record and by the relevant law, meaning the Commission "must set fo1tb findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate decision or order." (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 5 I 5.) However, the Com mi sion ha not ati fied its burden to do so here, as the evidence in the record and the relevant law (e.g., CMC) do not support-and, in fact, squarely contradict-the Commission's findings stated in the Resolution. Accordingly, the Commission abused its di cretion, lacked and/or exceeded its jurisdiction, and/or acted arbitrarily and capriciou ly, in adopting the Resolution.
4919-5918-9650, V. 1
ATTACHMENT 5

A. W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal
February 26, 2026
Page I I
Prior to, and during the more than three decades since the City issued the Use Permit, A. W. Shucks and it predecessor bu iness owners successfully operated a "drinking establishment" at the Premises and, over time, made minor additions to its food service capabilities pursuant to City-issued permits without i ue, objection, or complaint. Then, suddenly, with insufficient notice to, or communication with, A.W. Shucks as to its current operations and future business plans, the Commission unilaterally and without legal or evidentiary ba is "pulled the rug out" from under A. W. Shuck , threatening the economic viability and future of a business that bas long been a vibrant gathering and drinking place enjoyed and beloved by residents, workers, business and property owners, and tourists alike.

For these reason , A.W. Shucks urge the City Council to rever e the Commission's action, including the Resolution.

Very truly your ,

FE TO & KELLER
A Professional Corporation
Derric G. Oliver
Enclosures:

Attachment I: A. W. Shucks' drinks menu (February 2026) Attachment 2: City Planning Director's emails determining no "abandonment" (August 2023) Attachment 3: Photograph of A.W. Shuck ' use oftbe Premise (February 2026) Attachment 4: City-approved plans for food service equipment at the Premises ( 1996, 2008) Attachment 5: Photographs of full-line restaurant, The Grill on Ocean Ave (February 2026) Attachment 6: The Grill on Ocean Aven menu (February 2026) cc: Mayor, Dale Byrne - [email protected]
Councilmember, Bob Delves - [email protected]
Councilmember, Jeff Baron - [email protected]
Councilmember, Hans Buder- [email protected]
Councilmember, Alissandra Dramov - [email protected] CPB Director, Anna Ginette - [email protected]
City Administrator, Brandon Swanson - [email protected] TSO Carmel Properties, L.P., legal counsel - Jeanette Witten, [email protected]; Chri tina Goebelsmann, [email protected]; Sarah Devine, [email protected]
4919-5918-9650, V. 1
ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 1
A.W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal
(attachment to Appeal Form)
Appeal of Planning Commission action, Feb. 11, 2026,
Agenda Item #5 (UP 93-45)
ATTACHMENT 5

COME AS A VISITOR,
lrMV�a,r�
�
A.W. SHUCKS

OYSTER & COCKTAIL BAR
� CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
(831)624-6605
awsh uckscarmel.com
ATTACHMENT 5

A.W. SHUCKS

OYSTER & COCKTAIL BAR
MARTINIS -CAllMEL-IIY•TRE-&U

COCKTAILS
Espresso Martini ................................................... 16 Reposado Tequila/ Borghetti Espresso Liqueur/ Frangelico / Espresso/ Guinness Float
Lychee Martini ........... -............................ ._ .......... 16 Tito's vodka/ St. Germain/ Lychee Pur�e / Fresh Pressed Lime Juice
Bee's Knees ........................................................... 16 Empress Gin 1908 / Fresh Pressed Lemon Juice/ House•Crafted Honey Syrup/ Lemon Twist
Aviation ................................................................ 16 Empress Gin 1908 / Creme De Violette Liqueur/ Fresh Pressed Lemon Juice/ Maraschino Llqueur
Peach, Please! ........................................................ 15 Spicy Tequila/ French Peach Liqueur/ Fr1!$h Pressed Lime Juice Ruby Row .............................................................. IS Grapefruit Vodka/ Dry Curacao Citrus/ Fresh Pressed Lime Ju.ice / Cranberry Juice/ Ruby Red Grapefruit Juice
cucumber Pear Cosmopolitan ................................ 15 Pear Vodka/ Pear Liqueur/ White Cranberry Juice/ Fresh
Muddled Cucumber/ Fresh Pressed Lime Juice
Like it Spicy? AdJ Fresh 71aai Chili
Raz Lemon Drop ••·•••••••·-·•• .. ··• .. ••· .. •·•··• ... • •• • ... •.• ..... IS Raspberry Vodka/ Raspberry Liqueur/ Triple Sec/ Fresh Pressed LemonJuice
Pink Panties .......................................................... IS Tito's Vodka/ Watermelon Pucker/ Pineapple Juice
OYSTER. SHOOTERS
14 Bloody Mary Oyster Shooter
Chilled Vodka/ House Bloody Mary Mix/ Fresh Oyster
Peppar Oyster Shooter
chilled Pep par Vodh / Fresh Oyster/ Coclcuil Sauce/
Horseradish Salsa/ Serwd Up Marrini-Styk
Tequila Lime Shooter
Chilled Tequila / Fresh Oyster/ COclctail Sauce/ Horsenidish / Salsa/ 5ffw4 Up M11nini•Styk
BEER.

Draft Beer ................................. •· •··· •···•··········· ........ 8 Sbuckers Ale/ Allagash Wheat/ Sculpin Ballast Point IPA/ Union Jack IPA/ Kana Longboard Lager
Stella Anois ......................................................................................... 9 Guiness (22oi) .................................................................................... 9 Cbimay Trapiste (Setved in Goblet) ................................................. 9 Bottled Beer (Domestic) .......................................... 8 Coors Light/ Blue Moon/ Michelob Ultra/ Samuel Adams/ 805 Bottled Beer (lmported) .......................................... 9 Corona / Corona Light/ Heineken/ Modelo/ Dos Equ.is Lag� /
Dos Equis Amber/ Heineken 0.0 / Guiness 0.0 (Non•Aicoholic) Cider ..................................................................... ll Aspall: Dry English Cider
UQUIII.ED SY CAUPO�IASTATI! UW, WATEll U!&Vl!D UPON UQUl!ST.

PLEASE, NO HAU ORDU OF A/lY UVUAGE, THANK YOU.

COVBllNMBNT WA.I.NIHG:
(I) ACCORDING TO Tlll! SUllCl!ON GENERAL WOMEN SHOULD NOT DIUliK ALCOHOUC IEVEKAGES OUR.INC Pll.CNANCY Bee.A.USE. OP THE RJSJC OF enrrH DEFECl'S. (1) CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES !MPARS YOU'l AlltuTV TO DIIVE A CAR OR OPERATE MACHINERY.AND MAY CAUSE HEALTH PROBLEMS.

Banana-Infused Old Fashioned .............................. 18 lnfused with Fresh Banana, Vanilla Bean, and Cinnamon Sticks all used to create the base to this traclitional Whiskey Coclctail Cadillac Margarita ................................................. 17 Tequila Bianco/ Fresh Pressed Lime Juice/ Organic Sweet n' Sour /Gala Float
High 5 •••••••••••••••••••••••••• ......................................... 11 Highland Park 12 Year/ Demaine De Canton Liqueur /Pineapple/ Honey Syrup/ Fresh Pressed Lemon Ju.ice
Micbelada ............................................................. 16 Modelo /Tequila/ House.Crafted Michelada Mix/ Fresh Pressed LimeJu.ice/NUSbrimp (+5)
Hibiscus Mojito ..................................................... 16 Rum/ Mint/ House.crafted Hibiscus Syrup/ Fresh Pressed Lime Ju.ice/ Soda Water
St. Germain :Royal Spritz _ ..................................... 16 Elderflower Ro..! Gin/ St. Germain/ Fresh Pressed Lemon Juice/ Fever Tree Pinic Grapefruit Sparkling Rose
Whiskey Smash .................................................... 15 Whlskey / Muddled Lemons/ Honey Syrup/ Mint
Pomegranate Margarita ........................................ 15 Tequila/ Pama liqueur/ Orange Juice/ Cranberry Juice/ Fresh Pressed Lime Juice/ Organic Sweet n' Sour
A. W. Shucks "Best" Bloody Mary .......................... 14 Our House Specialty made with our House•Crafted mix!
EztTa htat? A,14 Pepp11r VodJui (+2)

MOCKTAILS
Hl"bi■cus Mule Mocktail ..... , .................................. 10 Hibiscus syrup/ Fresh Pressed Lime Juice/ Ginger Beer/ Soda Water
Lychee Spritz Mocktail .......................................... 10 Lychee Syrup /Fresh Pressed Lime Juice /Soda Water/ Ginger Ale
Mai Tai Mocktail ................................................... 10 Pineapple/ Orange Juice/ Fresh Pressed Lime Juice/ Grenadine/ Orgeat
Mojito Mocktail .................................................... 10 Mint/ Soda/ Fresh Pressed Lime Juice/ Fever Tree Grapefruit Soda/ Simple Syrup
BEVER.AGES
Bottled Water ......................................................... 8 Panna (Flat) or Pellegrino (Sparkling) 750ml
Soft Drinks/ Tea/ Coffee ........................................ 6 Coke/ Diet Coke/ Sprite / Ginger Ale/ Lemonade
Shirley Temple / Roy R.odgen .................................. 6 Gmger Beer/ Red Bull ............................................. 7 Henry Weinhard'■ Root Beer ................................... 6 Fruit Juice .. -.......................................................... 5 Apple/ Cranberry/ Grapdruit / Onnge / Pineapple

WE PROUDLY FEATURE
An Extensive and Unique Collection of
Scotch, Irish, & Bourbon Whiskey,
Rums, v�, Gins, Tequilas, &
Imported Liqueurs
Explore Our Full Spirit List on the Baclc
Ask Your Server For Recommendations&. Pricings!
ATTACHMENT 5

CHARDONNAY
(8 Bemardus, Carmel Valley, CA
A.W. SHUCKS
OYSTER & COCKTAIL BAR -CAllMIL-•Y-TH&-IU --- WINELIST
Oyster Symbol ( (8 ): Pairs Well
(8 Folie A Deux Chardonnay, Russian River Valley, CA
Kendal Jackson Vinmer's Reserve, CA
William Hill, North Coast, CA

SAUVIGNON BLANC
Qt Rombauer Sauvignon Blanc, Sonoma County, CA
(8 Bemardus, Sauvignon Blanc, Sonoma County, CA
(8 Matanias Creek Sauvignon B�anc, Sonoma County, CA
(8 Ferrari Carano, Fume Blanc, Sonoma County, CA
(8 Whitehaven Sauvignon Blanc, Malborough, New Zealand

CHAMPAGNE/ SPARKLING WINE/ ROSE
� Clone 236 Pinot Nair Rose SLH, Monterey County, CA
Personal Bottles (187ml):
� Moet & Chandon Imperial Rose Champagne, France
(8 Moet & Chandon Brut Champagne, France
(I) Canella Sparkling Brut Rose, Italy
(8 Canella Prosecco Superior DOCG
(8 Segura Viudas Reserve Bruit, Spain
Bottles (375ml):
(8 Taittinger La Francaise Brut Champagne, France
Roederer Estate Brut, Anderson Valley, CA
Full Bottle (750ml):

Piper Sonoma Brut, Sonoma County, CA
Bortolomiol Prosecco, Italy

PINOT GRIGIO / VERMENTINO
(8 Santa Margarita DOC Pinot Grigio, Italy
Susoregal Vermentino, Tuscany, Italy

PINOT NOIR
Jackson Estate Pinot Noir, Anderson Valley, CA
Hahn Pinot Nair SLH, Monterey County, CA
Belle Glos Pinot Noir, Arroyo Seco, CA

CABERNET SAUVIGNON / BLENDS
Hess Maverick Ranch, Cabernet, Paso Robles, CA
Carmel Road, Cabernet Sauvignon, Monterey County, CA
William Hill, Cabernet Sauvignon, North Coast, CA
Bernardus Marin us Red Blend, Monterey County, CA
Soul of Mendocino, Mendocino County Blend, CA
PORTS
DOW-20Year
DOW· JO Year

GLASS/BOTTLE
18 68
JS 52
14 48
13 48
16 58
15 56
IS 56
14 52
13 ◄8
15 56
24 24
14 14
13 84
32 48
66 17 6◄
IS 56
16 60
17 66
15 56
15 56
14 52
13 ◄8
21 79
16 60
28 16
IUIQlllllD llYCALJl'OaNIASTATBlAW, WATRSUVBD UPON UQUUT, Pt.EASII, NO HAI.I' own OP ANY BIMIIIAGE, TllANIC YOU. �0% GllAT\JlTY WILL BB ADDED TO
PAllTlES OF 8 01. MOllB
GOVUNMBNT WA&NUIG1
(I) ACCOWING TO TIii SUlGBON GIIMEIIAL WOMIIM SHOULD NOT DIJIOC ALCOHOIJC HVEIIAGES DUIING PllGNANCV Bl!CAUSB OflTIIE IUSIC OF BIHII Dl!F!CTS. (1) CONSUMmON OF ALCOHOLIC BIMIIIAGES IMP.USYOUI ABILJlY TO Dlt1VI! A CAJlOl OPERATI MAOIINllY, AND MAY CAUS& Hl!AI.TH PltOIILEMS.

ATTACHMENT 5

SPIRIT LIST
lOZPOUR

VODKA------------------------------
eELVEDERE / BELVEDERE CITRUS/ BELUGA/ BOYD & BLAJR /CHOPIN/ CHOPIN RYE/ CIROC / CROP ORGANIC MEYER LEMON/ FINLANDtA GRAPEFRUIT / GREY GOOSE / GREY GOOSE L 'CITRON / GREY GOOSE L 'ORANGE / HANGAR ONE / KET EL ONE / KETEL CITROEN / KETEL ORANJE / MEili / NEW AMSTERDAM / SEAGRAM'S (WELL) / SKYY / SQUARE ONE ORGANIC / SQUARE ONE ORGANIC BERGAMOT / STOLi / STOLi BLUEBERJ / STOLi ELIT / STOLl·HOUSE INFUSED PEPPAR / STOU OHRANJ / STOU RAiBERI / SVEDKA / SVEDKA RASBERRY/ 360 VODKA FUDGE/ THREE O\.IVES / THREE OLIVES

VANILLA/ TITO'S HANOMAOE / WHEATLEY / ZYR
GIN
AUTOMATIC HALFSHELL OYSTER GIN / AVIATION / BAINBRIDGE / BARR HILL HONEY / BARR HILL TOMCAT / BEEFEATER / BLADE / BOI.S GENEVER / BOMBAY/ BOMBAY SAPHIRE /BOOTHS/ BROKERS/ CAPROCK / CITY OF LONDON/ DAMRAK / EMPRESS 1908 / EMPRESS ROS�/ FARMERS/ FORDS/ GRAV WHALE/ HAYMANS OLD TOM/ HENDRICK'S/ MILLERS'/ MONKEY 47 / NO. 209 / NOLET'S / NOLET'$ RESERVE/ PLYMOUTH/ RE: FIND/ RUSTY BLADE/ 17 MILE GIN/ SIPSMITH LONDON ORV/ SIPSMITH LEMON DRIZZLE/ ST. GEORGE/ SPIRIT WORKS BARREL GIN/ TANQUERAV 10 / TANOUERAV /

THE BOTANIST/ UNCLE VAL'S
TEQ.UILA/MEZCAL-----------------------­ AVLON ANEJO, REPOSAOO / AZUNIA ANEJO / AZUNIA BLANCO / AZUNIA REPOSADO / AZUNIA 2 YR ANEJO / BACANORA OME NORTE MEZCAL / CABO

WABO REPOSADO / CASAMIGOS ANEJO / CASAMIGOS REPOSADO / CAZAOORES ANEJO / CAZAOORES BLANCO / CAZADORES REPOSADO /

CENTENARIO ANEJO / CHAMUCOS ANEJO / CHAMUCOS BLANCO / CHAMUCOS REPOSAOO / CHINACO REPOSADO / CLASE AZUL REPOSAOO /

CORRALEJO ANJEO / CORRALEJO BLANCO / CORRALEJO REPOSADO / CORRALEJO TRIPLE REPOSAOO / CORAZON / CORAZON WM LARUE WELLER BARREL ANEJO / DEL MAGUEY MAORECUIXE / oa MAGUEY MINERO / DEL MAGUEY SANTO DOMINGO ALBARRAOAS / DON DILLA EXTRA ANEJO I DON EDUARDO/ DON JULJO ANEJO / DON JUUO BLANCO/ DON JWO REPOSADO / DON JULIO 1942 / DON JULIO 70TH / EL JIMAOOR / AOENCIO MEZCAL /

FORTALEZA BLANCO, STILL STRENGTH / FORTALEZA REPOSADO, ANEJO / HERENCIA EXTRA ANEJO / HERRAOURA ANEJO / HERRAOURA BLANCO / LA FAMILIA RESERVE / LOS VECINOS ESPAD/N MEZCAL / MAESTRO OOBEL REPOSADO / MILAGRO SELECT BARREL: ANEJO / MILAGRO SELECT BARREL:

REPOSA DO / MILAGRO SELECT BARREL: SILVER / MILAGRO SIL VER, REPOSADO / MONTELOBOS MEZCAL / PATRON ANEJO / PATRON EXTRA ANEJO /

PATRON REPOSADO / PATRON SILVER/ PATRON GRAN BURDEOS ANEJO / PATRON GRAN PLATINUM/ PATRON PIEDRA ANEIO / PATRON ROCA SILVER/ PELETON MEZCAL / RESERVA 1800 / SAUZA / SAUZA COMMEMORATIVO / SAUZA HORNITOS / SUPERBIRO SPICY / TRES GENERACIONES ANEJO / TRES

GENERACIONES PLATA
R.UM --------------------------------

APPLETON ESTATE/ BACARDI/ BACARDI LIMON/ CAPTAIN MORGAN/ OIPLOMATICO RESERVA / OIPLOMATICO ANEJO RESERVA / DIPLOMATICO SINGLE VINTAGE 2000 / FLOR OE CANA 7 YR RESERVE 12, 15, 18 / KRAKEN / MALIBU / MYERS'$ / MVERS'S PLATINUM / MOUNT GAY / RON ZACAPA / RON

PROHISIDO / SAILOR JERRY/ TEN CANE / WHALER'S / ZAYA
COGNAC
COURVOlSIER VS / HENNESSEY VS/ HINE VSOP / MARTELL CORDON BlEU / MARTEU. VSOP / REMY MARTIN 1738 / REMY MARTIN VSOP / REMY MARTIN XO
IIUSHWBISKEY --------------------------- BUSHMILLs / BUSHMILLS BLACK BUSH / JAMESON / JAMESON 18 YR / JAMESON CHECKMATE / KILBEGGAN / KNAPPOGUE CASTLE 16 YR / MICHAEL COWNS / PADDY / RED BREAST 12 YR, 21 YR / TEELING / THE SEXTON / TULLAMORE DEW / TULLAMORE DEW SINGLE MALT 14 YR / TVRCONNELL /

UISCE BEATHA
BOUilBON "WHISKEY--------------------------
ANGEL 'ENVY / BAKER'S / BASIL HAYDEN'S / BASIL HAYDEN 10 YR / BELLE MEADE / BERNHEIM / BIB ANO TUCKER / BIG BOTTOM PORT CASK /

BLANTON'S/ BOOKER'S/ BREAKING & ENTERING/ BUFFALO TRACE/ BULLIET / BULLEIT BARREL STRENGTH/ BULLIET RYE/ DAD'S HAT RYE/ CHARBAV / CHARTER OAK / CREAM OF KENTUCKY 11.5 YR/ CROWN ROYAL / DICKEL / E.H. TAYLOR SINGLE BARREL/ E.H. TAYLOR SMALL BATCH / E.H. TAYLOR BARREL PROOF/ E.H. TAYLOR STRAIGHT RYE/ EAGLE RARE / EAGLE RARE 10 YR, 17 YR/ ELIJAH CRAIG SMALL BATCH/ ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF/ ELUAH CRAIG RYE / ELMER T. LEE / FOUR ROSES SINGLE BARREL/ FOUR ROSES SMALL BATCH / GARRISON SINGLE BARREL/ GARRISON SMALL BATCH / GEORGE T. STAGG/ GEORGE T. STAGG JR/ GENTLEMEN JACK/ HANCOCK'S PRESIDENT'S RESERVE/ HENRY MCKENNA/ HIGH WEST RYE/ HIGH WEST

CAMPARE / HIGH WEST PRAIRIE / HIGH WEST CASK COLLECTION / HIRSCH SMALL BATCH / HUDSON CORN WHISKEY / JACK DANIELS / JACK DANIELS

RYE / JACK DANIELS SINGLE BARREL / JEFFERSON'S RESERVE / JOHNNY ORUM / KNOB CREEK / KNOB CREEK RYE / LEOPOLD BROS WHISKEY/ LITTLE BOOK / MAKER'S MARK / MASTERSON'$ 10 YR RYE 1 MICHTER'S STRAIGHT RYE / MICHTER'S SOURMASH / MICHTER'S 10 VR RYE / MICHTER'S AMERICAN WHISKEY / MONTEREY RYE / NOAH'S MIU. BOURBON / OLD CARTER BACH 2 / OLD FORESTER / ORPHAN BARREL FABLE & FOLLY 14 YR / ORPHAN BARREL SCARLET RYE 14 YR/ PAPPY VAN WINKLE 10 YR, 12 YR, 15 YR/ PENDLETON CANADIAN RYE/ P1KESV1LLE 6 YR RYE/ REOEMTION RYE/ RI (1) RYE WHISKEY / RITTENHOUSE RYE, RYE 25 YR/ ROCK HILL FARMS/ ROWAN'S CREEK BOURBON/ RUSSEU.'S RESERVE 6 YR, RYE 10 YR/ SAM HOUSTON/ SAZERAC RYE, 18 YR / SEVEN STILLS / SPIRIT WORKS RYE / STETSON BOURBON / TEMPLETON RYE / THOMAS H. HANDY SAZERAC RYE / WESTLAND / W.l. WELLER 12 YR/ W.L. WELLER SPECIAL RESERVE/ WELLER SINGLE BARREL/ WILLIAM LARUE WELLER/ WILLET RYE/ WILLET POT STILL RESERVE/ WISER'$ RYE/ WOODFORD RESERVE/ WOODFORD RESERVE RYE / WYOMING SMALL BATCH / UNCLE NEAREST SCOTCH
ABERLOUR 12 YR, 18 YR/ AROBERG UIGEAOAIL / AROMORE / AUCHENTOSHAN 12 YR/ AUCHENTOSHAN THREE WOOD/ BALVENIE 12 YR DOUBLE WOOD / BAL VENIE 14 YR CARIBBEAN CASK/ BALVENIE 15 YR/ BALVENIE OOUBLEWOOO 17 YR/ BALVENIE PORTWOOD 21 YR/ BANK NOTE/ BENRIACH 12 YR/ BENROMACH 10 YR / BOWMORE 12 VR, 15 YR. 18 VR, 25 VR / BOWMORE LEGEND / BRUICHLAOOICH BARLEY / BRUICHLADOICH SERE BARLEY / BRUICHLAOOICH LADDIE UNPEATED / BRUICHLAOOICH PORT CHARLOTTE/ BUNNAHABHAIN 12 YR/ BUNNAHABHAIN TOlTEACH / BUNNAHABHAIN 2006 / CADENHEAD CAMBELTOWN / CADENHEAD HIGHLAND/ CADENHEAD LOWLAND/ CADEN HEAD ORO 12 YR/ CAOL ILA 2005 CASK STRENGTH/ CAOL ILA 12 YR/ CHIVAS REGAL 12 YR, 18 YR/ CLVNELISH 14 YR/ CRAGGANMORE 12 YR/ CRAGGANMORE DISTILLERS EDITION/ OALMORE 12 YR, 15 YR, 18 YR / DALWHINNIE 15 YR/ OALWHINNIE DISTILLERS EOtTION / OEANSTON 12 YR/ FAMOUS GROUSE/ GEORGE & SMITH GLENLIVET 21 YR/ GLEN GRANT 15 YR, 18 YR/ GLENBURGIE 10 YR/ GLENORONACH 12 YR/ GLENFARCLAS 12 YR, 40 YR/ GLENAOOICH 12 YR, 14 YR, 15 YR, 18 YR, 21 YR,/ GLENKINCHIE 12 YR/ GLENLIVET 12 YR, 18 YR, 21 YR, 25 YR/ GLENMORANGIE 10 YR, 18 YR/ GLENMOAANGIE '92 LASANTA/ GLENMORANGIE NEC'TAR / GI.ENMORANGIE SIGNET/ GLENROTHES 1985 / GLENROTHES SELECT RESERVE/ HAKUSHU 12 YR, 18 YR/ HIBJKI HARMONY/ HIBIKI 21 YR/ HIGHLAND PARK 12 YR. 21 YR/ JOHNNIE WALKER BLACK, RED, BLUE. 18 / JOHNNIE WALKER RYE CASK/ JURA 18 YR/ KILKERRAN CAMPBELTOWN 12 YR/ KIKORI / LAGAVLILIN 16 YR / LAGAVULIN DISTILLERS EOITJON / LAPHROAIG 10 YR, 18 YR, 25 YR / LAPHROAIG CAIROEAS / LAPHROAIG QUARTER CASK / LAPHROAIG SELECT / LAPHROAIG TRIPLE WOOD/ LEDAIG 10 YR/ LITTLEMILL 12 YR/ MACALLAN 12 YR, 15 YR, 18 YR, 21 YR, 25 YR/ MACALLAN HARMONY/ MACALLAN RARE CASK/ MACKILLOP'S 15 YR CAOL ILA/ MACPHAIL 'S HIGHLAND PARK 24 YR/ MORTLACH 15 YR, 25 YR/ NIKKA 17 YR/ NIKKA COFFERV GRAIN/ OBAN 14 YR/ OLD PULTENEY 21 YR/ PINCH/ RATTRAY$ 21 YR BATCH #2 / SAMAROLI CAOI. ILA '83 / SAMAROLI EVOLUTION 2013 / SAMAROLI GLEN SCOTIA 21 YR '92 / SAMAROLI 'S PEATY/ SCAPA / SCAPA 15 YR 1993 / SCOTT'S BRUICHLAOOICH '90 NATURAL CASK/ SIGNATORY GLENUVET 1995 / SIGNATORY LONGMORN 1992 / SIGNATORY MACALLAN 1998 / SPEYBURN 10 YR/ SPEYMALT 35 YR MACALLAN '72 / SPEVSIOE 12 YR/ SPRINGBANK 10 YR. 15 YR, 18 YR/ TALISKER 10 YR/ TALISKER DISTILLERS EDITION/ TOBERMORY 10 YR/ TOMATIN 30 YR/ USQUAEBACH CERAMIC/ YAMAZAKI 12· YR, 18 YR EXTllEMELYLIMITEDAVAILABll.lTY -------------------­
HIBIKI 21 YR / LAPHROAIG 18 YR/ WELLER SINGLE BARREL/ WILLIAM LARUE WELLER/ CREAM OF KENTUCKY 11.5 YR/ RITTENHOUSE RYE 25 YR VERY RARE/ HANCOCK'S PRESIDENrS RESERVE BOURBON/ CORAZON "EXPRESIONES" TEQUILA (ROTATING) / WM LARUE WELLER BARREL AGED ANEJO / EAGLE RARE 17 YR/ SAZERAC RYE 18 YR GOYEaNMENTW.ilMINCt (1) ACCORDING TO TIIE SURGEON CEIIEaAL WOMEN SHOUU) NOT DRINICALCOHOUC BEVERAGES DURING PREGNANCYBECAUSl!OF THE RISXOF BIRTH DBPECl'S. (1) CONSUMmON OF ALCOHOLIC BliVEKAC&S IMPAJtS YOURA&UJTYTO DRIVE A CU Ok OPERATE MACHINERY, AND MAY CAUSE HBAl.111 PROBIBMS.

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 2
A.W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal
(attachment to Appeal Form)
Appeal of Planning Commission action, Feb. 11, 2026,
Agenda Item #5 (UP 93-45)
ATTACHMENT 5

From: Brandon Swanson <[email protected]>
Date: August 28, 2023 at 11 :25:02 AM PDT
To: John plastini <[email protected]>
Subject: AW Shucks LLC Menu
John,
Following up from our phone call just now, this email serves as confirmation that the menus you provided (attached), were also approved August 15th, 2008, as part of Permit# 08-168C. These menus maintain the same legal nonconforming status that I referenced in my previous email sent on August 14th, 2023, therefore they are allowed to be served in whole or in part. Please note that our past practice has been that minor modifications to restaurant menus may be made without the need for City approval.

Take care,
-Brandon
Brandon Swanson [he, him, his]
Director, Community Planning and Building
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
(831) 620-2024
Please take our Customer Satisfaction Survey.

ATTACHMENT 5

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 4:26 PM Brandon Swanson <[email protected]> wrote:

John,
Thank you for sending this. I have not had a chance to write you a formal memo, but I did want to at least respond to you today and confirm that based on the records that we have available, my determination is that the City memorialized the additional cooking equipment and restaurant operation by approving a building permit on August 15th, 2008 (Permit# 08-168C). In this case, even though the original Use Permit sets a limit on the type of equipment and menu, the City took an official action to approve the updated kitchen and the menu it was meant to prepare, thereby creating a legal nonconforming situation that is allowed to continue under Chapter 17.36 of the City's Municipal Code.

Take care,
-Brandon
Brandon Swanson [he, him, his]
Director, Community Planning and Building
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
(831) 620-2024
Please take our Customer Satisfaction Survey.

ATTACHMENT 5

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 1 :52 PM John plastini <[email protected]> wrote:

Brandon,
Per our conversation, please find email with attachment of A.W. Shucks menu.

Any questions please do not hesitate to contact me as always thank you for the assistance in this matter.

Best,
John Plastini
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Lisa Miller <[email protected]>
Date: August 14, 2023 at 1 :48:09 PM PDT
To: John Plastini <[email protected]>
Subject: AW Shucks LLC Menu
Hi John
Per your request, please find attached our current menu.

If there is anything else I can provide, just let me know! We appreciate all of your help!
Lisa
ATTACHMENT 5

Cocktails
Standard Cosmopolitan ........................................ 13 New Amsterdam Vodka/ Cointreau/
Fresh Pressed Lime Juice/ Cranberry Juice
1951 Martini .................................................... 14 Plymouth Gin/ Cointreau/ Anchovy Stuffed Olives
Organic Lemon Drop ............................................ 14 Crop Organic Meyer Lemon Vodka/ Cointreau/
Fresh Pressed Lemon Juice/ Simple Syrup
Naked & Famous ................................................. 14 Mezcal /Chartreuse/ Aperol / Fresh Pressed Lime Juice
Ruby Row ......................................................... 13 Finlandia Grapefruit/ Cointreau/ Fresh Pressed Lime Juice/ Cranberry Juice/ Grapefruit Juice
Buffalo Trace Manhattan ....................................... 14 Buffalo Trace Bourbon/ Sweet Vermouth/ Bitters
Agave Nectar Margatini ........................................ 14 Tres Generaciones Tequila/ Organic Agave Nectar/
Fresh Pressed Lime Juice/ (No Salt Please)
Raz Lemon Drop ................................................. 13 Sv
.
edka Raz Vodka/ St. George Raspberry Liqueur/
Tnple Sec/ Fresh Pressed Lemon Juice/ Cranberry Juice
Pink Panties ..................................................... 13 Wheatley Vodka/ Dekuyper Watermelon Pucker/
Pineapple Juice
Hawaiian Negroni ............................................... 13 White Ginger Gin/ Campari / Sweet Vermouth
Oirty Margarita .................................................. 14 Milagro Reposado /Cointreau/ Fresh Pressed Lime Juice/
Orange Juice/ Olive Brine/ Served Up with 2 Olives
RemySazerac .................................................... 14 Remy Martin 1738 Cognac/ Simple Syrup/ Bitters/ Absinthe Vesper ............................................................ 15 Tito's Handmade Vodka/ Nolet's Gin/ Lillet
Paper Plane Cocktail. ........................................... 15 Buffalo Trace Bourbon/ Aperol /Amaro/
Fresh Pressed Lemon Juice

WE PROUDLY FEATURE
135 Scotches/ 18 Irish Whiskeys/ 22 Rums
50 Vodkas/ 81 Bourbon & Whiskeys/ 36 Gins
64 Tequilas/ 45 Imported Liqueurs
Beer
Draft Beer
Sh uckers Ale/ Allagash Wheat/
Firestone Hopnosis IPA/ Sculpin IPA
Kon a Long board Lager/ Stella Artois .......................... 7 .5 Anderson Valley Oatmeal Stout .................................. 8.5 Chi may Trapiste (served in goblet) ............................... 8.5 Bottled Beer (Domestic) ...................................... 4.5 Bud/ Bud Light/ Coors Light
Bottled Beer (Hand Crafted Domestic) ..................... 6.5 Anchor Steam/ Blue Moon
Bottled Beer (Imported) ..................................... 6.5 Corona/ Corona Light/ Heineken/ Modelo/
St. Pauli's (Non-Alcohol)
Guinness Draft/ Fort Point Hazy IPA (Can) ................ 6.5 Angry Orchard Cider ........................................... 6.5 REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA STATE LAW, WATER SERVED Ul'ON REQUEST.

NO HALF ORDER OF ANY BEVERAGE.

On the Rocks
A.W. Shucks "BEST" Bloody Mary ............................. 13 Our House Specialty made with our housemade mix is
simply the BEST! Extra Heat? Add House-infused Peppar
Stoli Vodka (+2)
Moscow Mule ..................................................... 13 New Amsterdam Vodka/ Ginger Beer/ Fresh Pressed Lime Juice. (Capper Hug available far purchase 29.95)
Cadillac Margarita .............................................. 15 Tres Generaciones Tequila/ Cointreau/ Fresh Pressed Lime Juice/ Sour Mix/ Grand Gala Float
Shucks Top Shelf ................................................ 14 Cazadores Blanco/ Cointreau/ Fresh Pressed Lime Juice/
Sour Mix
Pomegranate Margarita ........................................ 15 Tres Generaciones Tequila/ Pama/ Fresh Pressed Lime Juice/ Sour Mix/ Cranberry Juice
St. Germain Squeeze ............................................ 14 Hendrick's Gin/ St. Germain/ Grapefruit Juice
Long Island Iced Tea ............................................ 13 Vodka/ Gin/ Rum/ Tequila/ Triple Sec/ Fresh Pressed
Lemon Juice/ Simple Syrup/ Coca-Cola
Old Fashioned ................................................... 13 Knob Creek Rye/ Bitters/ Orange/ Cherry/ Sugar
Mai Tai ............................................................ 13 Myers Platinum Rum/ Pineapple & Orange Juice/
Grenadine/ Whalers Float
Moj;to ............................................................. 14 Myers Platinum Rum/ Fresh Pressed Lime Juice/
Sugar/ Fresh Mint/ Soda
Sunsplash ........................................................ 12 Stoli Ohranj Vodka/ Cointreau/ Orange Juice/ Sour Mix
Boulevardier ..................................................... 14 Basil Hayden/ Campari / Sweet Vermouth

OYSTER SHOOTERS
13 Bloody Mary Oyster Shooter
Svedka Vodka/ House Bloody Mary Mix/ Fresh Oyster
Tequila Lime Shooter
Chilled Sauza Tequila/ Fresh Oyster/ Cocktail Sauce
Horseradish/ Salsa
Served Up Martini-Style
PepparOysterShooter
House-infused Peppar Stoli Vodka
Fresh Oyster/ Cocktail Sauce/ Horseradish/ Salsa
Served Up Martini-Style
Beverages
Bottled Water .................................................. 4.95 Panna (Flat) or Pellegrino (Sparkling) 500ml
Soft Drinks/ Tea/ Coffee ..................................... 4.5 Coke/ Diet Coke/ Sprite/ Ginger Ale/ Lemonade
Shirley Temple/ Roy Rogers ................................. 4.75 Ginger Beer/ Red Bull ........................................ 4. 75 Henry Weinhard's Root Beer ................................. 4. 75 FruitJuice ....................................................... 4.5 Apple/ Cranberry/ Grapefruit/ Orange/ Pineapple
EXTENSIVE LIQUOR LIST INSIDE FLAP �
ATTACHMENT 5

STARTERS
Deep Fried Calamari ........................................... 17 Steamed Artichoke ............................................. 13 Jumbo Prawn Cocktail.. ....................................... 19 Crabmeat Cocktail .............................................. 22 Dungeness/Rock Crab
Bay Shrimp Cocktail ........................................... 13 Peel & Eat Prawns .............................................. 14 Smoked Salmon Plate ......................................... 17 Chilled Seafood Sampler ...................................... 30 3 Oysters, Bay Shrimp, Crab, Salmon, and Peel & Eat Shrimp Crab Cake a la Carte ........................................... 13

CHOWDER OR CHILI

8.50 CUP / 10.50 BOWL
Clam Chowder
New England (White) J Manhattan (Red)
or Rose (a special blend of both)
Spicy Vegetarian Chill (Vegan)
SALADS
Dressing: Ranch, Louie, Italian, Blue Cheese, Oil & Vinegar Shucks Garden Salad ........................................... 10 Caesar Salad ..................................................... 12 Add the following to above salads:

Chicken (+9) I Bay Shrimp (+8)
Jumbo Prawns (+15) I Dungeness/Rock Crab (+16)
Prawn Louie ..................................................... 26 Crab Louie Dungeness/Rock .................................. 29 Crab & Prawn Louie Dungeness/Rock ...................... 31 Crab Cake with Caesar Salad ................................. 21 #ONLY OTTERS EAT FRESHER OYSTERS"
OYSTERS on the HALF SHELL

FRESH OYSTERS
Selection Varies
Served with House-Made Cocktail Sauce & Mi9nonete
19 HALF DOZEN I 38 DOZEN
SALSA OYSTER SHOOTER 5

MOYSTERS SHUCKEFELLERW
Broiled in the Shell with Butter, Garlic, Wine,
Seasoning and topped with Parmesan Cheese
21 HALF DOZEN J 42 DOZEN
FRIED PACinC OYSTERS
Cornmeal-Panko Fried with our
House-Special Remoulade
21 HALF DOZEN
SPLIT CHECKS LIMITED TO TWO (2) PER TABLE
NO SUBsmtmONS PLEASE I MENU AND PRICES SUBJECT TO CHANGE All FRIED ITEMS PREPARED IN EXPELLAR PRESSED NON-GMO CANOLA Oil Consuming raw or undercooked meats, poult,y, seafood, shellfish, or eggs may increase your risk of foodbome illness.

Wt art unable to guarantH lttms art 100'1, fret of allergens.

A.W. Shucks ls not r,sponslble for lost or stolen items. *Requirtd by California state gw, wall!r serwd upon r,quest.

SEAFOOD
Fish, Shrimp, or Vegan Tacos.. ............................... 12 a la Carte, Soft Corn Tortillas
Beer Battered Fish & Chips (or Garden Salad) ............. 19 Alaskan Cod Saute with Garden Salad ....................... 20 Tomatoes, Capers and Garlic
Deep Fried Calamari & Chips ( or Garden Salad) ........... 20 Beer Battered Jumbo Prawns & Chips (or Garden Salad)
SIX (6) .................. 22 NINE (9) .................... 25 Beer Battered Fish Burger .................................... 19 with Fries or Garden Salad (Caesar +2)

FRIED COMBO PLATTER
28 Calamari, Fish, and Prawns
with Fries or Garden Salad

FROM THE GRILL
With Lettuce, Tomato, Onion, and Pickles on Grilled Sesame Seed Bun. Served with Fries or Garden Salad (Caesar +2) Half Pound Burger ............................................. 15 Marinated Chicken Breast Burger ........................... 15 Vegan Veggie Burger (Whole Wheat Bun) ................. 12 Add Grilled Onions, Cheddar or Jack Cheese to any of the above items (+2 ea)/ Blue Cheese, Avocado or Bacon (+4 ea)

PO'BOY SANDWICH
OYSTER or SHRIMP 21
Cornmeal-Panko Fried, Special-Blend Lettuce,
Tomato, and Mayo on a Rustic Ciabatta
with House-Made Shucks Sweet & Sour Slaw

SANDWICHES
Served on Toasted Italian Sourdough with Fries
or Garden Salad (Caesar +2)
Seafood Salad ................................................... 18 Rock Crab and Shrimp with Celery, Onions, Mayo &
Seasonings, Lettuce, Tomato, and Onion
Albacore Tuna Salad ........................................... 16 with Lettuce, Tomato & Onion
Albacore Tuna Melt (with Jack Cheese) ....................... 18 Smoked Turkey Breast.. ....................................... 16 with Jack Cheese, Lettuce, Tomato, and Onion
Grilled Cheese (with Cheddar Cheese) ......................... 14

SANDWICH COMBOS
HALF Sandwich: TUNA, TURKEY OR GRILLED CHEESE
(Seafood Salad or Tuna Melt +2.5) with choice of:

Soup .......................................... 16 CUP J 18 BOWL Fries ............................................................ 14 Garden Salad ................................................... 14 Caesar Salad ................................................... 16

SOUP AND SALAD COMBO
(Caesar +2)
Cup with Garden Salad ........................................ 15 Bowl with Garden Salad ...................................... 17 SIDES
French Fries ....................................................... 6 House-Made Sweet & Sour Cole Slaw ......................... 4

DESSERT

HOUSE-MADE KEY LIME PIE
with Graham-Pecan Crust 10.50
ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 3
A.W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal
( attachment to Appeal F onn)
Appeal of Planning Commission action, Feb. 11, 2026,
Agenda Item #5 (UP 93-45)
ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 4
A.W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal
(attachment to Appeal Form)
Appeal of Planning Commission action, Feb. 11, 2026,
Agenda Item #5 (UP 93-45)
ATTACHMENT 5

i
, I I I I '
! 1,
.......
___
----­
...
#
f
,.., I
a '
: I i
i
j
r ---
0_)1
-:.-:!
E)'
--
$
-
®
�
•
E
§
l
\,
➔
llo-q�, _ Ol(I ·­
-----·-···-
-- - &•-
i
�
fF ,
i
� f �
� \ 'l t
s
s
t� O f
:t •
I
�,i,-: i u; e :.: g,
H
� 1· I
i 1· � •
! f
: t .
le ◄,,H,, �d
t
.
i 1
1 t t
i
11 l
•• 1 \
' I
i
➔ J t
'
9 I 6 i �
!
i
J �
a ,;
l,
!I
j) '
� Ul! �� uu�.

ATTACHMENT 5

, [:I� rn I jVICINITY MAP
1::-".
.�
. �
·f�,. .. �,, .. ;
II t:r,
:J
EXISffiG BULDING ROOF PLAN . .,__ __ _
-•-•- r:-·­ -�
IC$�•• "� •• �· t7,1r,),/2i>;
fbO.<>aP\.AN �
,.
��
GENERAL NOTES ,.,,.._IM,Qt,,.•·•!•c--•
... ..,, ,. l;I!
.. � .... ....,, ... ,� .,., ... .._ .. �-- i..-1; .,,.. � -.l•.:• .,_ t,•• ,. 1,wr•11 , .. ,1,s.• c.•Lt..t -""" ��- .._ ..-•• l.f ''" \W''9'• �-
1 ft• IM••t
:" � ,�.::;::t._�t-- .... , • ...,...... - .-.-,
=:..· ,,.... •-• •• ,._ P..,h.,, .,. •-9';t 9' •f' _, 11 H , .. , ...... _ f• .,, ........ - "-\I'll! ..... _ ..... .... .,,,., :_..,..,..,. ... t, ...... , ............. .._.._ .-1 ..... , __ ,_ - - .... ,,. , •• , -�-. ... ,, • 1
•--�• - ...,.__. •1-- I tt1 � \.f'I, -�,,, ... _ ..... _�.t ..... -• .... ·i.ll\• .• - ... - ,_,.. - .... ., -'...., .. , .. ... __ , .. ._., .. ,. -- ., .... , .......... ..,._ .. ': ...�Y'I-:::-- ,., ..., ............. ,-., P"J""- • •-· , .. ,.,,.......,..,_�.._.,,.,,.t"" ... ,�.,,,p ... ,,
__ ,,.._ .... _.. ....
,_ ·--
n••
t
�""'i.,,-&"""9"
... ,,.
....... ""tl'l#'t<.Oirl'•
,1,<o(> If:! ... ,� .,_.,
OLt ,u..oorr
ttoc,rr" "'""' ttOQ•,,,_ ...... ,..,
�.::..i; .,
._ •• � , ......
,�...,...._... .,., ... -t •l U�"
'·
a r...CA' 1!.o11,,'Ulllt(lt N1Ai,. D.J
·f'b�-.;.-;..,,-,: ;··.!;:�;. ;,"i.J... • ..., r .. ·i. ,,...,._, ........ 11•
o.,. •• to
_ .. ,_.
.,,,,. "'"
•A'
... '.\14""'
"'.,.
--,,"'(·•·
1•-�·
-®SECTION THAU SHAFT r--. .c� ... __ �-:. •Q).�CJ]ON THRU HOOO/�AfT 1 COOKNG EQLR£Nr°SCHEDU.E 1· -���' I
flta>-; [�� .!._!
-=-�-----..;;;1
-- \II\
l�"W-tlt,I
PL' !� 111
I -
.....
-- ""'"1
- 1
ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5
A.W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal
(attachment to Appeal Form)
Appeal of Planning Commission action, Feb. 11, 2026,
Agenda Item #5 (UP 93-45)
ATTACHMENT 5

. N
ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 6
A.W. Shucks, LLC's Grounds for Appeal
(attachment to Appeal Form)
Appeal of Planning Commission action, Feb. 11, 2026,
Agenda Item #5 (UP 93-45)
ATTACHMENT 5

2/26/26, 9:41 AM
Home
Starters Menu I The Grill on Ocean I Carmel-by-the-Sea
Menus Reservation About Contact
Starters Menu
Starters
Spinach & Artichoke Dip 17
hroasted artichoke hearts I spinach I three cheese I pita bread Monterey Bay Calamari 18
locally caught calamari I tartar sauce
Spicy Meditteranean Cauliflower 15
organic cauliflower I aleppo pepper I coriander lemon tahini sauce Ahi Poke Tower 20
togarashi ahi tuna I sweet wasabi soy I avocado I cucumbers I edamame crispy wonton chips
https://www.thegrilloceanave.com/starters
Gallery
1 /3
ATTACHMENT 5

2/26/26, 9:41 AM
https://www.thegrilloceanave.com/starters
Starters Menu I The Grill on Ocean I Carmel-by-the-Sea
Hummus Dip 14
chickpea purre I pita bread
Spicy Tandoori Shrimp 19
kashmiri chili marinated shrimp I tzatziki Dip
Chefs Sampler 19
meditteranean dips I pita bread
Beer Battered Onion Rings 12
Coriander Lime Ranch Dip
Basket oU'rencb Fries 12
Add Garlic & Truffle Oil 6
Little Grill
(for 10 & under)
Chicken Tenders with French Fries
Grilled Cheese with French Fries
Hamburger with French Fries
Penne Pasta
(choice of Butter Sauce or Marinara)
Chocolate Chip Cookie Ala Mode
Beverages
Soft Drinks 5
Refreshers 5
Strawberry-Watermelon. Cranberry-Orange & Mango-Ginger
Beer by the Bottle 8
Draft Beer 9
Ask the server for the current beer on tap
Hot Beverages
Hot Tea, Coffee, Hot Chocolate 5
Espresso, Cappuccino, Mocha 5
Desserts
ask your server for Gluten free options
Vanilla Creme Brulee
Cilrus infused Panna Cota with Fresh Berries
New York Cheesecake I Berry Coulis
Tiramisu
Chocolale Layered Cake
Orange Blossom Infused Vanilla Ice Cream
Location
2/3
ATTACHMENT 5

2/26/26, 9:41 AM Starters Menu I The Grill on Ocean I Carmel-by-the-Sea The Grill On Ocean Avenue
3 SW Corner Ocean Ave.

Carmel-By-The-Sea CA 93923
We rcs0n.'c> the right to change our pr ,e� at a'1y time "I thou! further not,cP Pr cos listed in any other websites ma, rot be accepted :e 2022 The Grill on Ocean Avenue Created by Manny Espinoza https://www.thegrilloceanave.com/starters 3/3
ATTACHMENT 5

2/26/26, 9:42 AM
Home
lunch Menu I The Grill on Ocean I Carmel-by-the-Sea
Menus Reservation About Contact
Lunch Menu
Soups & Salads
New England Clam Chowder 10 Soup of the Day g
Carmel Valley Greens 15
Gallery
market field greens I tomato I cucumber I pickled red onion I pomegranate vinaigrette I candied walnuts Classic Caesar 15
romaine lettuce I classic caesar dressing I aged parmigiana reggiano I topped with anchovies Roasted Beet & Citrus 16
mixed roasted beets I citrus segments I goat cheese I pomegranate vinaigrette I toasted pistachios Falafel Salad 19
chickpea patties I red leaf lettuce I cucumbers I tomatoes I pickeld red onions I tahini dressing Flatbreads
Carmel Valley Garden Vegetable 17
mushroom I artichoke I tomatoes I mozzarella I fresh basil I herb spread https://www.thegrilloceanave.com/lunch 1 /3
ATTACHMENT 5

2/26/26, 9:42 AM Lunch Menu I The Grill on Ocean I Carmel-by-the-Sea ShrimfJ & Fire Roasted Tomatoes 21
grilled shrimp I roasted tomato I Lemon zest I fresh basil I parmesan cream Mixed Mushroom & Gilroy Garlic 18
local mushroom medley I roasted garlic I gouda I light gilroy garlic sauce Chicken & Bacon 19
grilled chicken I applewood bacon I red onion I roasted red peppers I bbq sauce Steak & Cheese 19
grilled sliced tenderloin I tomato sauce I mozzarella I gouda I red onion I fresh herbs Lunch Selections
All Sandwiches come with a side of French Fries
Grilled Chicken Sandwich 20
grass fed chicken I herb spread I baby spinach I tomato Tacos La Playa 23
grilled fish I corn tortilla I cabbage salad I citrus tartar sauce I fresh salsa (vegetarian option available)
The Grill ½ Pound Burger 22
hand formed patty I brioche bun I burger fixings
Trio Mini Sliders 24
chicken with chipotle spread & onion ring I beef burger w/ tahini lemon I falafel patty Fish 'n' Chips 25
house battered fish
Mediterranean Sandwich 20
choice of gyro or shawarma chicken
Grilled Fungi Sandwich 20
marinated grilled portobello mushroom I eggplant I roasted red pepper I layered wheat bread an onion ring
Surf 'n' Turf Fajitas 25
garlic grilled shrimp I flat iron steak I peppers & onions I maize tortillas Penne Higate 22
artichokes I bell peppers I kalamata olives I sundried tomato I parmigiano reggiano choice of tomato basil or alfredo sauce
Shrimp Scampi 28
fresh linguini pasta I jumbo shrimp I lemon beurre blanc cream sauce Location
The Grill On Ocean Avenue
3 SW Corner Ocean Ave
Carmel-By-The-Sea, CA 93923
https://www.thegrilloceanave.com/lunch 2/3
ATTACHMENT 5

2/26/26, 9:42 AM
Home
Dinner Menu I The Grill on Ocean I Carmel-by-the-Sea
Menus Reservation About Contact
Din er enu
Soups & Salads
New England Clam Chowder 10 Soup of the Day 10
Mixed Green or Caesar 10
Enti-ee Selections
Pan Seared Sea Bass 38
citron burre blanc sauce I almondine rice
Grilled Atlantic Salmon 37
grilled salmon I anchovy & olive puttanesca I rice
Shrimp Scampi 36
fresh linguini pasta I jumbo shrimp
white wine citron butter sauce
https://www.thegrilloceanave.com/dinnermenu
Gallery
1/2
ATTACHMENT 5

2/26/26, 9:42 AM Dinner Menu I The Grill on Ocean I Carmel-by-the-Sea Pasta Primavera 25
fresh penne rigate I kalamata olives
garden vegetables I marinara or alfredo
Seafood Fettuccine 37
tiger prawns I sea scallops I fresh fish
trio of peppers I tomato basil cream sauce
Bacon CheeseBurge1· 27
grilled hand formed sirloin I bacon I cheese
golden french fries I all the fix'ns
Center Cul Filet Mignon 44
grass fed petite filet I portabella mushroom
red wine demi glaze I potato gratin
Mediterranean Lamb Shank 42
braised lamb shank I toasted pearl cous cous
seasonal vegetables I feta cheese
Short Rib & Risotto 35
slow roasted I mushroom medley risotto
artichokes & english peas
Grilled Fajitas 38
grilled chicken breast I strips of beef sirloin
jumbo prawns I onions & peppers
Grilled Trio Kabob 39
skewered free range chicken I filet tips !jumbo shrimp
onion & peppers I rice & hummus
Grilled Chicken Piccata 35
free range chicken breast I citron beurre blanc
artichokes & capers I rice pilaf
Location
The Grill On Ocean Avenue
3 SW Corner Ocean Ave
Carmel-By-The-Sea. CA 93923
We re,erve the right lo ch,mge our prces al c1ny lime wtlhoul rurlher notice Prices l sled ,n any other websites ina, not bE: ace ptcd 'c 2022 The Gr ll on Ocean Averuo I Creal d by Manny E .. p,noLa https://www,thegrilloceanave,com/dinnermenu 2/2
ATTACHMENT 5

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council
Staff Report
April 7, 2026

ORDERS OF BUSINESS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: Brandon Swanson, Acting City Administrator SUBJECT: Discussion of draft resolutions and ordinance relating to a potential ballot measure to increase the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax from 10% to 12% and Direction regarding the submission of such ballot measure to the City’s voters at the November 3, 2026, general municipal election
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Discuss the attached draft resolutions and ordinance relating to a potential ballot measure to increase the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax from 10% to 12%.

2. Motion providing direction regarding the submission of such ballot measure to the City’s voters at the November 3, 2026, general municipal election.

BACKGROUND / SUMMARY:

I. BACKGROUND
The City’s current Transient Occupancy Tax (“TOT”) rate is 10%. Staff requests the City Council discuss and provide direction on the attached draft resolutions and ordinance, which would submit to the City’s qualified voters a ballot measure that would increase the TOT rate from 10% to 12% if approved by the voters.

There are two draft Resolutions attached to this Staff Report. Resolution No. 1 would call for the election and submit the ballot measure to the voters (Attachment 1). If the Council has already adopted a Resolution calling for the election, Resolution No. 2 would just submit the ballot measure to the voters (Attachment 2). Attached to whichever Resolution is adopted would be a proposed Ordinance to increase from 10%

to 12%. A redline version of the Ordinance with track changes of the current City Municipal Code is Attachment 3. A clean version of the Ordinance accepting these track changes is Attachment 4.

The attached draft Resolutions also request that Monterey County conduct the City’s November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election and to consolidate the same with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date; direct the City Attorney to draft an impartial analysis for the ballot measure; and authorize the drafting of primary arguments and rebuttals. Approval of either Resolution requires an affirmative vote of four members of the City Council. In order for the TOT ballot measure to pass, it will require a 50% plus 1 approval vote from the City’s qualified voters.

The City currently imposes and collects a TOT in the amount of 10% of the “rent” paid by each “transient” for the privilege of temporarily occupying (for thirty days or less) a “hostelry” (e.g., a hotel or similar structure), and the City imposes an obligation on each “operator” of a hostelry to collect the TOT from each transient and pay the TOT to the City.

At the City Council meeting on February 3, 2026, the Council directed staff to prepare a ballot measure to be presented to the voters for the general municipal election on November 3, 2026, that increases the TOT rate from 10% to 12% (“TOT Measure”).

Consistent with Council direction, the attached draft Resolutions and draft Ordinance were prepared for the City Council’s discussion and direction.

If the Council gives direction to return at the Council meeting on May 5, 2026, with one of the draft Resolutions, then staff can determine include in the Agenda Packet for that Council meeting the appropriate Resolution based on whether or not the Council has adopted a Resolution calling for the election.

II. DISCUSSION
In order to submit the TOT measure to the City’s qualified voters, the City Council must carry out certain acts, including the adoption of one of the attached draft resolutions sending the TOT measure to the voters. This staff report provides background information that is relevant to the City Council’s discussion and direction on the attached draft resolution and ordinance.

A. Votes Required to submit the TOT measure and to Increase TOT Rate Under Proposition 2181, the City may only increase a general tax if: (a) two-thirds of the members of the City Council (which would be four affirmative votes) approve placing a tax measure on the ballot for voter consideration, and (b) the ballot measure is approved by a majority vote of the electorate at a general municipal election (for the election of members of Council).2 The next general election is November 3, 2026. 1 California Constitution Articles XIII C and XIII D.
2 California Government Code Sections 53723 and 53724, subject to limited exceptions for the timing of elections for declared emergencies.

B. Current TOT Rate and Proposed Increase
As noted above, the City’s existing 10% TOT is codified at Camel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code (“Municipal Code”) Chapter 3.32. The proposed increase in the TOT would raise the TOT rate to 12%. The City Council may discuss and provide direction on whether this 2% increase is what the City Council desires to submit to the voters.

C. Form of Ballot Question
The TOT measure’s ballot question must meet the following requirements: (1) no more than 75 words and in the format of a “yes” or “no” question; (2) include “the amount of money to be raised annually and the rate and duration of the tax to be levied” 3; and (3) “be a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure, and shall be in language that is neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice for or against the measure.” 4 It must also be in the form of “Shall the measure … be adopted?” 5 As such, the City Council should discuss and provide direction on the wording of the ballot question. A sample ballot question for a transient occupancy tax that is a general tax is as follows: 6
“Shall the measure providing funding for City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s general government purposes, such as, for example, infrastructure improvements, public safety, and other general municipal purposes by increasing the transient occupancy tax, paid by lodging guests to the operators of hotels and motels, from 10% to 12%, providing approximately $1.9 million annually until ended by voters, be adopted?” D. Election Procedures
The following section provides information to the City Council on the election procedures that will need to be followed when submitting the TOT measure to the City’s qualified voters.

1. Getting the Measure on the Ballot
In order to submit a TOT measure to the voters at the November 3, 2026, general municipal election, the City Council must adopt a resolution that (1) submits the measure to the voters and includes the TOT ordinance increasing the TOT rate; (2) requests the consolidation of such general municipal election with the Statewide General Election on November 3, 2026; and (3) authorizes the drafting of primary arguments by all or some councilmembers, directs the City Attorney to draft an impartial analysis of the measure, and authorizes rebuttal arguments. 3 Cal. Elections Code Section 13119(b).
4 Cal. Elections Code Section 13119(c).
5 Cal. Elections Code Section 13119(a).
6 The City is authorized to identify sample expenditures of anticipated TOT revenue without converting the general tax to a special tax, as long as a phrase similar to “and general government use” is included in the list.

This resolution must be approved by a 2/3 vote (i.e., 4/5) of the City Council and submitted to the County no later than 88 days prior to the election.7 Measures may be withdrawn no later than after the 83rd day prior to the election.8 a. Submitting the ballot measure to the voters
The City Council is generally permitted to submit measures to the voters by adopting a resolution to that effect.9 This resolution must also include a ballot question pursuant to Elections Code Section 13247, which must meet the requirements referenced and discussed above. The ordinance making changes to the TOT must also be attached to the resolution. However, as stated above, general taxes must be submitted at a general municipal election unless an emergency is unanimously declared by the City Council. b. Requesting the consolidation of general municipal election with the Statewide General Election on November 3, 2026
The City Council may request that the November 3, 2026, general municipal election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election held on the same date.10 Although the City will have to pay the County for the associated costs of consolidation, this is a standard practice that virtually all cities in California follow, because the costs for a city to run its own election are typically prohibitive.
c. Authorizing the drafting of primary arguments, directing the City Attorney to draft an impartial analysis of the measure, and authorizing rebuttal arguments (1) Primary Arguments
Elections Code Section 9282(b) permits the City Council to authorize a member or members to author and submit primary arguments relating to a ballot measure placed on the ballot by the City Council; however, if the City Council authorizes a quorum of its membership to draft the primary argument, such drafting and approval thereof is subject to the Brown Act. In other words, a majority of members of Council must not discuss the arguments outside a public meeting. Such arguments may not exceed 300 words.

If more than one primary argument is submitted, then the City Clerk chooses the argument to appear on the ballot based upon the priorities provided in Elections Code Section 9287. Primary arguments are typically due 14 days after the call of the election pursuant to Elections Code Section 9286(a); however, for consolidated elections, as is the case here, this deadline does not apply. Instead, the City Clerk may set the deadline based upon the election calendar provided by the County. After primary arguments are filed, the 10-day public examination period commences.11 7 Cal. Elections Code Section 9222.
8 Cal. Elections Code Section 9605.
9 Cal. Elections Code Section 9222 and 10201.
10 Cal. Elections Code Section 10403.
11 Cal. Elections Code Section 9295.

(2) City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis
When a measure qualifies for the ballot, the city attorney, on direction of the City Council, must prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on existing law and the operation of the measure.12 The impartial analysis must include a statement indicating whether the measure was placed on the ballot by the voters or by the City Council and is limited to 500 words.13 Similar to the primary arguments, there is a 10-day public examination period after the deadline to impartial analysis.
(3) Rebuttal Arguments
The City Council may also authorize rebuttal arguments.14 Rebuttal arguments cannot exceed 250 words and may only be written by the authors of the selected primary arguments, and must be filed no later than 10 days after the final filing date for primary arguments.15 Similar to the primary arguments and impartial analysis, there is a 10-day public examination period after the deadline to submit rebuttal arguments.

E. Informational Activities
It is important to consider that, after a measure is “certified to appear” on a particular election ballot, the City is prohibited from spending any City resources to support or oppose the ballot measure per Government Code Section 54964. Nevertheless, although there is no brightline rule on what is or is not permissible, courts consider the style, tenor, and timing of such materials to determine whether they engage in impermissible campaign advocacy.16
Although the City is not able to engage in advocacy as it relates to a ballot measure, the City is able to provide information to the public in a neutral and unbiased manner and in a format that is not argumentative. This involves utilization of the City’s standard methods of communication with the public. It is recommended that any informational efforts (e.g., flyers, social media posts, etc.) be reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office prior to dissemination.

As noted above, from a broad legal perspective, after a ballot measure is certified to appear before the voters, the City may only use City resources to communicate factual, impartial, and balanced information regarding the ballot measure with a goal of informing the public. The City must not use public resources for the purpose of advocating a particular result for the election.17
The City Council should discuss and provide direction as to whether it would like the City to engage in these informational activities.
12 Cal. Elections Code Section 9280.
13 Cal. Elections Code Section 9280.
14 Cal. Elections Code Section 9285.
15 Cal. Elections Code Section 9285(a).
16 Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1, 27.
17 See League of Women Voters v. Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Comm. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 529.

On March 24, 2026, the Carmel Innkeepers Association submitted a nine-page analysis (Attachment 5) expressing opposition to a TOT increase and discussing the potential impacts of total visitor costs on demand, competitive positioning, and long-term tax generation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If the TOT measure is approved by the voters at the election on November 3, 2026, then the City would annually receive approximately $1.9 million in revenue.

The City would have to pay the County of Monterey for the costs associated with including the ballot measure on the November 3, 2026, ballot and that cost would be between approximately $5,000 to $10,000.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

At the City Council meeting on February 3, 2026, the Council directed staff to prepare a ballot measure as provided in the attached Resolution to be submitted to the City’s qualified voters at the November 3, 2026, general municipal election.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Draft Resolution #1 – Calling the Election/Submitting the Ballot Measure Attachment 2: Draft Resolution #2 – Submitting the Ballot Measure Attachment 3: Proposed Redline Version of Ordinance (Exhibit A of Resolution) Attachment 4: Proposed Clean Version of Ordinance (Exhibit A of Resolution) Attachment 5: Letter from the Carmel Innkeeper’s Association (March 24, 2026)

DRAFT
RESOLUTION # 1 Calling the Election and Submitting TOT Measure

CITY OF CARMEL-BY THE SEA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALLING

AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026; ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED

ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA A MEASURE INCREASING THE TAX RATE OF THE CITY’S EXISTING TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX FROM 10% TO 12% AND APPROVING THE FORM OF THE ORDINANCE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS;

REQUESTING THE MONTEREY COUNTY ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT THE

ELECTION AND REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS CONCERNING SUCH MEASURE; AUTHORIZING THE DRAFTING OF PRIMARY

ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS CONCERNING SUCH MEASURE
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s next general municipal election, in which council members will be elected, is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026 (“General Municipal Election”); and
WHEREAS, the City imposes a transient occupancy tax pursuant to Chapter 3.32 of the City of Carmel-by- the-Sea Municipal Code (“TOT”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIIC of the California Constitution, Section 53720 et seq. of the California Government Code, the City has the authority to levy a general tax, including, but not limited to, increasing an existing tax; and
WHEREAS, Article XIIIC, Section 2, of the California Constitution requires that the election at which a general tax increase is submitted to the electorate shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit a measure proposing to increase the TOT at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, which is on the same date as the Statewide General Election to be held on November 3, 2026; and WHEREAS, the proposed measure contemplated by this Resolution establishes a general tax in which the proceeds will be deposited in the City’s General Fund for general government use; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, whenever two or more elections, including bond elections, of any legislative or congressional district, public district, city, county, or other political subdivision are called to be held on the same day, in the same territory, or in territory that is in part the same, they may be consolidated upon the order of the governing body or bodies or officer or officers calling the elections; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403, whenever an election called by a district, city or other political subdivision for the submission of any question, proposition, or office ATTACHMENT 1

4932-4858-1009 v3
to be filled is to be consolidated with a statewide election, and the question, proposition, or office to be filled is to appear upon the same ballot as that provided for that statewide election, the district, city or other political subdivision shall, at least 88 days prior to the date of the election, file with the board of supervisors, and a copy with the elections official, a resolution of its governing board requesting the consolidation, and setting forth the exact form of any question, proposition, or office to be voted upon at the election, as it is to appear on the ballot. Upon such request, the Board of Supervisors may order consolidation. The resolution requesting the consolidation shall be adopted and filed at the same time as the adoption of the ordinance, resolution, or order calling the election; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the County of Monterey Election Department canvass the returns of such General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; and
WHEREAS, The City Council exercises its independent judgment and finds that this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), because the enactment of this Resolution: (1) does not constitute a “project” as defined by CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(3) and 15378; (2) will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2); and (3) is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment pursuant to 15061(b)(3).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-THE-SEA DOES HEREBY:

1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. Submission of Measure. Pursuant to the laws of the State of California, including, but not limited to, Elections Code Section 9222 and 10201, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California (“City”) on November 3, 2026, a General Municipal Election for the submission of a ballot measure to the City’s qualified electors increasing the City’s transient occupancy tax, provided in Chapter 3.32 of the City of Carmel-by- the-Sea Municipal Code, from 10% to 12% (“Measure”). As required by Elections Code Section 13247, the abbreviated form of the Measure to appear on the ballot is specified below in Section 3.

3. Question. The City Council hereby orders the following question to be submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election:

Shall the measure providing funding for City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea’s general government
purposes, such as, for example, infrastructure
improvements, public safety, and other general
municipal purposes; by increasing the transient
occupancy tax paid by lodging guests to the
operators of hotels and motels, from 10% to 12%,
providing approximately $1.9 million annually
until ended by voters, be adopted?
YES
NO
ATTACHMENT 1

4932-4858-1009 v3

4. Proposed Measure. The proposed complete text of the Measure with the proposed ordinance to be submitted to the voters is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

5. Voter Approval Requirement. The vote requirement for this Measure to pass shall be a majority of those casting ballots on the Measure (50% plus 1).

6. Publication of Measure. The City Clerk is directed to publish a synopsis of the Measure in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, in accordance with California Elections Code section 12111 at least one time not later than one week before the election.

7. Coordination. The City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to coordinate with the Monterey County Elections Department to procure and furnish and all official ballots, notices, printed matter, and all supplies, equipment, and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.

8. Request for Consolidation.
a. Pursuant to the requirements of Elections Code Section 10403, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of submitting to the voters the abovementioned Measure. b. The Monterey County Elections Department is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. The election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the statewide elections, including, but not limited to, Elections Code Section 10418.
c. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey is requested to issue instructions to the Monterey County Elections Department to take any and all steps necessary for conducting and holding the consolidated election.
d. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County of Monterey by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County of Monterey for any costs.

9. Filing with County. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Monterey County Elections Department.

10. Arguments and Impartial Analysis.
a. Primary Arguments.
i. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9282, the City Council authorizes _________ to author and submit the primary argument in favor and pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285(a) not to exceed 300 words, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code, and authorizes the ________ to submit a rebuttal argument to the argument against the Measure pursuant to Section 10(c).

ATTACHMENT 1

4932-4858-1009 v3
ii. A primary argument in favor or against the Measure shall not exceed 300 words in length and shall be accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or, if on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code. Primary arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement to Be Filed By Author(s) of Argument.

Submittals of primary arguments are to be delivered to the City Clerk no later than ______ p.m. on ______, 2026, and may be changed or withdrawn up and until such date and time. iii. In the event that more than one argument in favor or against the foregoing Measure is timely submitted, then consistent with Elections Code Section 9282, the City Clerk shall select the argument to be included with the ballot materials, giving preference and priority first, to arguments submitted by member(s) of the City Council, and second, to individual voters, or bona fide associations of citizens, or a combination thereof, in the order set forth in Elections Code Section 9287.
b. City Attorney Impartial Analysis. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280, the City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Measure not exceeding 500 words showing the effect of the Measure on existing law and the operation of the Measure. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the Measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the City Council. In the event the entire text of the Measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information portion of the voter information guide, there shall be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in no less than 10-point type, the following: “The above statement is an impartial analysis of Ordinance or Measure _________. If you desire a copy of the ordinance or measure, please call the election official’s office at (insert phone number) and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.” The impartial analysis shall be filed by ______ p.m. on ______, 2026.
c. Rebuttal Arguments. Pursuant to Section 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, rebuttal arguments shall be permitted. When the City Clerk has selected the primary arguments for and against the Measure (not exceeding 300 words each), which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall send a copy of an argument in favor of the Measure to the authors of any argument against the Measure and a copy of an argument against the Measure to the authors of any argument in favor of the Measure immediately upon receiving the arguments. The author or a majority of the authors of an argument relating to a city measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument not exceeding 250 words or may authorize in writing any other person or persons to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument. A rebuttal argument may not be signed by more than five authors. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, by ______ p.m. on ______, 2026. The rebuttal arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement to Be Filed By Author(s) of Argument.

Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. d. Printing. The City Clerk shall cause the City Attorney’s impartial analysis, and duly selected arguments, to be printed and distributed to voters in accordance with State law regarding the same.

11. Polls; Hours of Operation. The vote center locations and hours of operations, ballot drop box locations and hours of operations, vote-by-mail procedures and timing, the election officers, and all other persons and procedures for the Special Municipal Election shall be the same ATTACHMENT 1

4932-4858-1009 v3
as those utilized by the County of Monterey and in compliance with the Elections Code of the State of California. In addition, the polls for the election shall be open at seven o’clock a.m. on the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o’clock p.m. of the same day when the polls (vote centers) shall be closed, pursuant to Election Code Section 10242, except as provided in Elections Code Sections 14212 and 14401.

12. Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.

13. Conduct of Election as Provided by Law. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the Special Municipal Election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

14. Implementation. The City Clerk and City Administrator are authorized to take all actions as necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and the election. The City Administrator is authorized to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to enter into a service agreement for the provision of election services with Monterey County Elections Department. The City Administrator is authorized to make any typographical, clerical, and non-substantive corrections to this Resolution and its exhibits/attachments.

15. All Necessary Services. The City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea hereby orders that pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002 said governing body hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey to permit the Monterey County Elections Department to provide any and all services necessary for conducting an election and agrees to pay for said services in full.

16. Printing of Measure. The City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea hereby requests that the Monterey County Elections Department print the attached full Measure text Exhibit A exactly as filed or indicated on the filed document in the voter information guide for the November 3, 2026 Statewide General Election.

17. Environmental Compliance. The City Council finds the adoption of this Resolution and the Proposed Ordinance are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), because the enactment of this Resolution and the Proposed Ordinance: (1) do not constitute a “project” as defined by CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(3) and 15378; (2) will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2); and (3) is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment pursuant to 15061(b)(3).

18. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately following passage and adoption by the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this ____ day of ___________ 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ATTACHMENT 1

4932-4858-1009 v3
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________ Dale Byrne, Mayor Nova Romero, MMC, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 1

4932-4858-1009 v3
Exhibit A
Text of Measure/Ordinance
ATTACHMENT 1

DRAFT
Resolution #2 Submitting Measure to Voters

CITY OF CARMEL-BY THE SEA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-THE-SEA A MEASURE INCREASING THE TAX RATE OF THE CITY’S EXISTING TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX FROM 10% TO 12% AND APPROVING THE FORM OF THE ORDINANCE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS; REQUESTING THE MONTEREY

COUNTY ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION AND REQUESTING

CONSOLIDATION OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS CONCERNING SUCH MEASURE;

AUTHORIZING THE DRAFTING OF PRIMARY ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS

CONCERNING SUCH MEASURE
WHEREAS, the City Council has called a general municipal election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of electing council members as provided therein (“General Municipal Election”); and
WHEREAS, the City imposes a transient occupancy tax pursuant to Chapter 3.32 of the City of Carmel-by- the-Sea Municipal Code (“TOT”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIIC of the California Constitution, Section 53720 et seq. of the California Government Code, the City has the authority to levy a general tax, including, but not limited to, increasing an existing tax; and
WHEREAS, Article XIIIC, Section 2, of the California Constitution requires that the election at which a general tax increase is submitted to the electorate shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit a measure proposing to increase the TOT at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, which is on the same date as the Statewide General Election to be held on November 3, 2026; and WHEREAS, the proposed measure contemplated by this Resolution establishes a general tax in which the proceeds will be deposited in the City’s General Fund for general government use; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, whenever two or more elections, including bond elections, of any legislative or congressional district, public district, city, county, or other political subdivision are called to be held on the same day, in the same territory, or in territory that is in part the same, they may be consolidated upon the order of the governing body or bodies or officer or officers calling the elections; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403, whenever an election called by a district, city or other political subdivision for the submission of any question, proposition, or office ATTACHMENT 2

4932-4858-1009 v2
to be filled is to be consolidated with a statewide election, and the question, proposition, or office to be filled is to appear upon the same ballot as that provided for that statewide election, the district, city or other political subdivision shall, at least 88 days prior to the date of the election, file with the board of supervisors, and a copy with the elections official, a resolution of its governing board requesting the consolidation, and setting forth the exact form of any question, proposition, or office to be voted upon at the election, as it is to appear on the ballot. Upon such request, the Board of Supervisors may order consolidation. The resolution requesting the consolidation shall be adopted and filed at the same time as the adoption of the ordinance, resolution, or order calling the election; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the County of Monterey Election Department canvass the returns of such General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; and
WHEREAS, The City Council exercises its independent judgment and finds that this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), because the enactment of this Resolution: (1) does not constitute a “project” as defined by CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(3) and 15378; (2) will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2); and (3) is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment pursuant to 15061(b)(3).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-THE-SEA DOES HEREBY:

1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. Submission of Measure. Pursuant to the laws of the State of California, including, but not limited to, Elections Code Section 9222 and 10201, the City Council hereby orders the submission to the voters of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (“City”) a ballot measure increasing the City’s transient occupancy tax, provided in Chapter 3.32 of the City of Carmel-by- the-Sea Municipal Code, from 10% to 12% (“Measure”). As required by Elections Code Section 13247, the abbreviated form of the Measure to appear on the ballot is specified below in Section 3.

3. Question. The City Council hereby orders the following question to be submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election:

Shall the measure providing funding for City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea’s general government
purposes, such as, for example, infrastructure
improvements, public safety, and other general
municipal purposes; by increasing the transient
occupancy tax paid by lodging guests to the
operators of hotels and motels, from 10% to 12%,
providing approximately $1.9 annually until
ended by voters, be adopted?
YES
NO
ATTACHMENT 2

4932-4858-1009 v2

4. Proposed Measure. The proposed complete text of the Measure with the proposed ordinance to be submitted to the voters is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

5. Voter Approval Requirement. The vote requirement for this Measure to pass shall be a majority of those casting ballots on the Measure (50% plus 1).

6. Publication of Measure. The City Clerk is directed to publish a synopsis of the Measure in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, in accordance with California Elections Code section 12111 at least one time not later than one week before the election.

7. Coordination. The City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to coordinate with the Monterey County Elections Department to procure and furnish and all official ballots, notices, printed matter, and all supplies, equipment, and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.

8. Request for Consolidation.
a. Pursuant to the requirements of Elections Code Section 10403, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of submitting to the voters the abovementioned Measure. b. The Monterey County Elections Department is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. The election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the statewide elections, including, but not limited to, Elections Code Section 10418.
c. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey is requested to issue instructions to the Monterey County Elections Department to take any and all steps necessary for conducting and holding the consolidated election.
d. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County of Monterey by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County of Monterey for any costs.

9. Filing with County. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Monterey County Elections Department.

10. Arguments and Impartial Analysis.
a. Primary Arguments.
i. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9282, the City Council authorizes _________ to author and submit the primary argument in favor and pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285(a) not to exceed 300 words, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code, and authorizes the ________ to submit a rebuttal argument to the argument ATTACHMENT 2

4932-4858-1009 v2
against the Measure pursuant to Section 10(c).
ii. A primary argument in favor or against the Measure shall not exceed 300 words in length and shall be accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or, if on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code. Primary arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement to Be Filed By Author(s) of Argument.

Submittals of primary arguments are to be delivered to the City Clerk no later than ______ p.m. on ______, 2026, and may be changed or withdrawn up and until such date and time. iii. In the event that more than one argument in favor or against the foregoing Measure is timely submitted, then consistent with Elections Code Section 9282, the City Clerk shall select the argument to be included with the ballot materials, giving preference and priority first, to arguments submitted by member(s) of the City Council, and second, to individual voters, or bona fide associations of citizens, or a combination thereof, in the order set forth in Elections Code Section 9287.
b. City Attorney Impartial Analysis. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280, the City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Measure not exceeding 500 words showing the effect of the Measure on existing law and the operation of the Measure. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the Measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the City Council. In the event the entire text of the Measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information portion of the voter information guide, there shall be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in no less than 10-point type, the following: “The above statement is an impartial analysis of Ordinance or Measure _________. If you desire a copy of the ordinance or measure, please call the election official’s office at (insert phone number) and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.” The impartial analysis shall be filed by ______ p.m. on ______, 2026.
c. Rebuttal Arguments. Pursuant to Section 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, rebuttal arguments shall be permitted. When the City Clerk has selected the primary arguments for and against the Measure (not exceeding 300 words each), which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall send a copy of an argument in favor of the Measure to the authors of any argument against the Measure and a copy of an argument against the Measure to the authors of any argument in favor of the Measure immediately upon receiving the arguments. The author or a majority of the authors of an argument relating to a city measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument not exceeding 250 words or may authorize in writing any other person or persons to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument. A rebuttal argument may not be signed by more than five authors. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, by ______ p.m. on ______, 2026. The rebuttal arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement to Be Filed By Author(s) of Argument.

Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. d. Printing. The City Clerk shall cause the City Attorney’s impartial analysis, and duly selected arguments, to be printed and distributed to voters in accordance with State law regarding the same.

ATTACHMENT 2

4932-4858-1009 v2

11. Polls; Hours of Operation. The vote center locations and hours of operations, ballot drop box locations and hours of operations, vote-by-mail procedures and timing, the election officers, and all other persons and procedures for the Special Municipal Election shall be the same as those utilized by the County of Monterey and in compliance with the Elections Code of the State of California. In addition, the polls for the election shall be open at seven o’clock a.m. on the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o’clock p.m. of the same day when the polls (vote centers) shall be closed, pursuant to Election Code Section 10242, except as provided in Elections Code Sections 14212 and 14401.

12. Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.

13. Conduct of Election as Provided by Law. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the Special Municipal Election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

14. Implementation. The City Clerk and City Administrator are authorized to take all actions as necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and the election. The City Administrator is authorized to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to enter into a service agreement for the provision of election services with Monterey County Elections Department. The City Administrator is authorized to make any typographical, clerical, and non-substantive corrections to this Resolution and its exhibits/attachments.

15. All Necessary Services. The City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea hereby orders that pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002 said governing body hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey to permit the Monterey County Elections Department to provide any and all services necessary for conducting an election and agrees to pay for said services in full.

16. Printing of Measure. The City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea hereby requests that the Monterey County Elections Department print the attached full Measure text Exhibit A exactly as filed or indicated on the filed document in the voter information guide for the November 3, 2026 Statewide General Election.

17. Environmental Compliance. The City Council finds the adoption of this Resolution and the Proposed Ordinance are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), because the enactment of this Resolution and the Proposed Ordinance: (1) do not constitute a “project” as defined by CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(3) and 15378; (2) will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2); and (3) is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment pursuant to 15061(b)(3).

18. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately following passage and adoption by the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this ____ day of ___________ 2026, by the following roll call vote:

ATTACHMENT 2

4932-4858-1009 v2
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________ Dale Byrne, Mayor Nova Romero, MMC, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2

4932-4858-1009 v2
Exhibit A
Text of Measure/Ordinance
ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT – REDLINE VERSION
4897-7880-8466 v1 1

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.32 (TRANSIENT

OCCUPANCY TAX) TO INCREASE THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX BY TWO

PERCENT, FROM TEN PERCENT TO TWELVE PERCENT
WHEREAS, on ___________, 2026, the City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution calling for the placement of a proposed ordinance, as set forth herein, to amend Carmel-ByThe-Sea Municipal Code Chapter 3.32 (Transient Occupancy Tax) on the ballot for the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election; and
WHEREAS, at the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election, the electorate of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea did consider this ordinance and approved the actions set forth herein.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA:

SECTION 1. Title 3, Section 3.32.010, Definitions, Subsection E, shall be amended to clarify the definition of “Rent” to read in its entirety as follows:

E. “Rent” means the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a hostelry valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom whatsoever. Thus, “rent” includes, but is not limited to, any resort fees, cleaning fees, pet fees, extra guest fees, cancellation charges, and any other similar fees, rates or charges.

SECTION 2. Title 3, Section 3.32.020, Tax Imposed, Subsection A shall be amended in its entirety as follows:

3.32.020: Tax Imposed.

A. For the privilege of occupancy in any hostelry, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of 10 twelve percent of the rent charged by the operator. The tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the City which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the City.

SECTION 3. For Title 3, Section 3.32.130, Disposition of Proceeds, Subsection A is not amended by this ordinance. However, as an aid to the reader, the existing text of Subsection A is copied below and will remain in effect, as follows:

3.32.130: Disposition of Proceeds.

All moneys collected under and pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be deposited in the hostelry tax fund of this City and shall be distributed within the fund as follows:

ATTACHMENT 3

DRAFT – REDLINE VERSION
4897-7880-8466 v1 2
A. The first six percent to the extent needed:

1. That amount necessary to fund the portion of the municipal budget covering community and cultural and recreation activities including but not limited to Sunset Center and the Forest Theater, parks, public facilities and municipal structures, and parking lots;

2. The remainder to be distributed to fund such acquisition and improvement of parks, recreation land and other municipal purposes as determined from time to time by the City Council; provided, that all such uses shall be in accordance with the General Plan of the City, as it is now or may be hereafter constituted; SECTION 4. Title 3, Section 3.32.130, Disposition of Proceeds, Subsection B shall be amended in its entirety as follows:

3.32.130: Disposition of Proceeds.

B. The remainder of the first six percent, Excluding the six percent of tax proceeds that is distributed in accordance with subsection (A) of this section, the remaining six percent shall be distributed from the hostelry tax fund to the general fund to be used for unrestricted general governmental purposes of the City. The remaining six percent of tax proceeds subject to this subsection (B) shall include the two additional percent added authorized by Ordinance No. 78-13, the additional two percent added authorized by Ordinance No. 83-22, and the two percent authorized by Ordinance No. ___shall be added to the General Fund for usual and current expenses.

SECTION 5. Scope of Amendments. Unless specifically amended by this ordinance, all other provisions of the Carmel-By-The-Sea Municipal Code Chapter 3.32 remain unchanged.

SECTION 6. General Tax. The proceeds from the tax established by this ordinance shall be for unrestricted general revenue purposes of the City and shall be placed into the General Fund of the City.

SECTION 7. Future Amendments. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9217, the City Council is authorized to amend Carmel-By-The-Sea Municipal Code Chapter 3.32 without a vote of the electorate; provided however, that no such amendment shall increase the tax imposed as set forth in Carmel-By-The-Sea Municipal Code Chapter 3.32.

SECTION 8. Severability. The City declares that, should any provision, section; paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 9. CEQA. The City finds that this Ordinance is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Ordinance is an activity that is excluded from the definition of a project by Public Resources Code sections 21065 and 21080(b)(8) and California Code of Regulations Sections 15273 and 15378(b) (the “CEQA Guidelines”). The proposed Ordinance includes organizational or administrative activities of government which will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and are exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3).

ATTACHMENT 3

DRAFT – REDLINE VERSION
4897-7880-8466 v1 3
SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of City transient occupancy taxes and shall take effect immediately upon approval by the majority of the electorate.

SECTION 11. Termination Date. The authority to levy the tax imposed by this ordinance shall expire upon an action to terminate as authorized by majority vote of the qualified electors of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea.

SECTION 12. Adoption. Following a declaration by the City Council that this ordinance was approved by a majority of the voters, as set forth in Elections Code Section 9217, the Mayor is hereby authorized to approve that this ordinance was adopted on November 3, 2026, by signing where indicated below.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this __ day of MONTH, YEAR.

APPROVED:

____________________________
Dale Byrne, Mayor
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
ATTEST:
____________________________
Nova Romero, MMC, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 3

4935-3683-9314 v1 1

DRAFT - CLEAN VERSION

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.32 (TRANSIENT

OCCUPANCY TAX) TO INCREASE THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX BY TWO

PERCENT, FROM TEN PERCENT TO TWELVE PERCENT
WHEREAS, on ___________, 2026, the City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution calling for the placement of a proposed ordinance, as set forth herein, to amend Carmel-ByThe-Sea Municipal Code Chapter 3.32 (Transient Occupancy Tax) on the ballot for the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election; and
WHEREAS, at the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election, the electorate of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea did consider this ordinance and approved the actions set forth herein.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA:

SECTION 1. Title 3, Section 3.32.010, Definitions, Subsection E, shall be amended to clarify the definition of “Rent” to read in its entirety as follows:

E. “Rent” means the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a hostelry valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom whatsoever. Thus, “rent” includes, but is not limited to, any resort fees, cleaning fees, pet fees, extra guest fees, cancellation charges, and any other similar fees, rates or charges.

SECTION 2. Title 3, Section 3.32.020, Tax Imposed, Subsection A shall be amended in its entirety as follows:

3.32.020: Tax Imposed.

A. For the privilege of occupancy in any hostelry, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of twelve percent of the rent charged by the operator. The tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the City which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the City.

SECTION 3. For Title 3, Section 3.32.130, Disposition of Proceeds, Subsection A is not amended by this ordinance. However, as an aid to the reader, the existing text of Subsection A is copied below and will remain in effect, as follows:

3.32.130: Disposition of Proceeds.

All moneys collected under and pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be deposited in the hostelry tax fund of this City and shall be distributed within the fund as follows:

ATTACHMENT 4

4935-3683-9314 v1 2
A. The first six percent to the extent needed:

1. That amount necessary to fund the portion of the municipal budget covering community and cultural and recreation activities including but not limited to Sunset Center and the Forest Theater, parks, public facilities and municipal structures, and parking lots;

2. The remainder to be distributed to fund such acquisition and improvement of parks, recreation land and other municipal purposes as determined from time to time by the City Council; provided, that all such uses shall be in accordance with the General Plan of the City, as it is now or may be hereafter constituted; SECTION 4. Title 3, Section 3.32.130, Disposition of Proceeds, Subsection B shall be amended in its entirety as follows:

3.32.130: Disposition of Proceeds.

B. Excluding the six percent of tax proceeds that is distributed in accordance with subsection (A) of this section, the remaining six percent shall be distributed from the hostelry tax fund to the general fund to be used for unrestricted general governmental purposes of the City. The remaining six percent of tax proceeds subject to this subsection (B) shall include the two percent authorized by Ordinance No. 78-13, the two percent authorized by Ordinance No. 83-22, and the two percent authorized by Ordinance No. ___.

SECTION 5. Scope of Amendments. Unless specifically amended by this ordinance, all other provisions of the Carmel-By-The-Sea Municipal Code Chapter 3.32 remain unchanged.

SECTION 6. General Tax. The proceeds from the tax established by this ordinance shall be for unrestricted general revenue purposes of the City and shall be placed into the General Fund of the City.

SECTION 7. Future Amendments. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9217, the City Council is authorized to amend Carmel-By-The-Sea Municipal Code Chapter 3.32 without a vote of the electorate; provided however, that no such amendment shall increase the tax imposed as set forth in Carmel-By-The-Sea Municipal Code Chapter 3.32.

SECTION 8. Severability. The City declares that, should any provision, section; paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 9. CEQA. The City finds that this Ordinance is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Ordinance is an activity that is excluded from the definition of a project by Public Resources Code sections 21065 and 21080(b)(8) and California Code of Regulations Sections 15273 and 15378(b) (the “CEQA Guidelines”). The proposed Ordinance includes organizational or administrative activities of government which will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and are exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3).

SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of City transient occupancy taxes and shall take effect immediately upon approval by the majority of the electorate.

ATTACHMENT 4

4935-3683-9314 v1 3
SECTION 11. Termination Date. The authority to levy the tax imposed by this ordinance shall expire upon an action to terminate as authorized by majority vote of the qualified electors of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea.

SECTION 12. Adoption. Following a declaration by the City Council that this ordinance was approved by a majority of the voters, as set forth in Elections Code Section 9217, the Mayor is hereby authorized to approve that this ordinance was adopted on November 3, 2026, by signing where indicated below.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this __ day of MONTH, YEAR.

APPROVED:
__________________________
Dale Bryne, Mayor
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
ATTEST:
____________________________
Nova Romero, MMC, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 4

Carmel Innkeepers Association Page 1 Printed on March 23, 2026 Proposed TOT Rate Increase on Hotels in Carmel-by-the-Sea Preface
The Carmel City Council is considering placing a 20% increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) this fall, raising the hotel tax rate from 10% to 12%. With the existing 2% Hospitality Improvement District (HID) assessment, the total eƯective tax on visitors would increase to 14%.

This paper evaluates the potential impacts of that increase using local operating data, 12- month trailing performance trends, and comparable market case studies. The analysis focuses not just on tax rates, but on how changes in total visitor cost aƯect demand, competitive positioning, and long-term tax generation.

1. Exhibit A
Strong Organic Growth Without Tax Increases
Exhibit A demonstrates that since the creation of the HID in 2013, Carmel’s lodging market has significantly outperformed inflation. RevPAR has grown at an average annual rate of

9.4%, compared to 3.8% CPI, representing a substantial gain in real pricing power.

This growth has occurred despite major disruptions, including COVID and periods of reduced room supply due to renovations. It reflects two structural drivers: targeted marketing through the HID and sustained reinvestment in the lodging product.

Importantly, this RevPAR growth has translated directly into increased TOT revenue without raising tax rates. The data shows that strong demand and pricing power, not higher tax rates, are the primary drivers of tax revenue growth.

ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel Innkeepers Association Page 2 Printed on March 23, 2026

2. Exhibit B
Tax Rate vs. Tax Productivity
Exhibit B compares TOT revenue per room across Monterey Peninsula jurisdictions.

Carmel, with a 10% TOT rate, generates significantly more TOT per room than markets with higher tax rates.

For example, jurisdictions with 12% to 14% tax rates produce materially lower TOT per room due to weaker ADR and RevPAR performance. This demonstrates a critical point:

Higher tax rates do not compensate for reduced competitiveness.

Instead, markets that maintain pricing power and demand generate the strongest fiscal outcomes, even at lower tax rates.

3. Exhibit C
Case Study: Occupancy Impact of Tax DiƯerentials
Exhibit C examines Half Moon Bay, where the city increased its TOT from 12% to 14%, and later to 15%, while nearby unincorporated hotels remained at a lower rate.

Prior to the increase, both markets performed similarly. Following the increase, a persistent occupancy gap emerged, with city hotels underperforming nearby competitors by approximately 8 to 10 percentage points.

This case study illustrates how tax-driven price diƯerences can shift demand across closely competing markets, resulting in fewer overnight visitors and reduced local economic activity in the higher-tax jurisdiction.

4. Exhibit D
Case Study: Competitive Share Loss and Acceleration EƯects Exhibit D evaluates Buellton’s TOT increase from 12% to 14% using share of occupancy and RevPAR within a competitive set of destinations, reported bi-monthly by Visit Carmel and measured on a 12-month trailing basis.

The data shows that Buellton’s occupancy share declines from approximately 17.6% to

17.0%, while Carmel’s increases from roughly 17.1% to 17.8%.

ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel Innkeepers Association Page 3 Printed on March 23, 2026 The eƯect is more pronounced in RevPAR share, where Buellton declines from about 8.8% to 8.4%, while Carmel increases from approximately 14.8% to 15.9%.

While some divergence was already present prior to the tax increase, the key insight is that the rate of divergence accelerates following the increase, particularly in RevPAR.

Because these metrics measure relative share within a competitive set, the shift indicates that demand is not disappearing, it is being redistributed away from higher-cost markets.

5. Exhibit E
Modeled Demand and Revenue Impact
Exhibit E applies established price elasticity research to Carmel’s lodging market.

A 2% increase in TOT is projected to reduce demand by approximately 1.5% in upscale hotels and 2.7% in luxury hotels. This equates to roughly 5,000 fewer annual room nights.

The estimated financial impact includes:
 $1.8 to $2.1 million in lost hotel revenue
 Approximately $1.5 million in reduced local business revenue  Secondary reductions in sales tax and broader economic activity While the City would collect a higher tax rate on remaining demand, a portion of that gain is oƯset by reduced volume and downstream economic eƯects.

Conclusion
Across all exhibits, a consistent pattern emerges:
 Exhibit A shows that Carmel is already generating strong, above-inflation revenue growth without increasing tax rates.
 Exhibit B demonstrates that higher tax rates do not produce higher tax revenue per room.
 Exhibit C shows that tax increases can lead to sustained occupancy losses relative to nearby competitors.

ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel Innkeepers Association Page 4 Printed on March 23, 2026  Exhibit D confirms that higher tax environments lose share within a competitive set, with eƯects that accelerate over time, particularly in revenue performance.  Exhibit E quantifies the expected demand and revenue losses from a rate increase.

Taken together, the data indicates that increasing the TOT rate introduces long-term competitive risk. It places upward pressure on pricing, reduces demand, and shifts overnight visitors to alternative markets. Over time, this leads to declining share of both occupancy and RevPAR, weakening the very foundation that drives TOT revenue.

Carmel’s current model, built on reinvestment, strong pricing power, and disciplined marketing through the HID, is already producing increasing tax revenues and a healthy lodging market.

Maintaining that model, rather than increasing the tax burden, is the more reliable path to sustained economic growth and long-term fiscal stability.

ATTACHMENT 5

Exhibit A
Carmel Hotel RevPAR vs CPI Since Creation of HID
Cumulative, 2003 to Sep-Oct-2025
Carmel
RevPAR CPI Delta
Avg 12-Month RevPAR Incr. since HID (2013) 9.4% 3.8% 149.1% Avg 12-Month RevPAR Increase 2002 to 2012 2.3% 2.4% -5.0% Summary
Since the HID’s creation in 2013, Carmel hotel RevPAR has grown at an average annual rate of 9.4%, significantly outpacing CPI at 3.8%, a +149% relative gain over inflation. This performance has occurred despite major disruptions, including the COVID-19 downturn and recovery, as well as a multi-year period (2021–2023) when a meaningful share of hotel inventory was offline due to renovations, constraining both demand and available room supply.

This sustained outperformance is not incidental. It reflects two primary structural drivers. First, the creation of the HID enabled hotel operators to self-assess and reinvest directly into targeted marketing, strengthening Carmel’s competitive position and increasing market share against other coastal destinations. Second, significant reinvestment in the physical product has elevated the overall quality of the lodging inventory. To date, approximately 127 rooms (13% of inventory) have been renovated. An additional 57 rooms are currently under renovation and expected to return to service before this summer, with another 94 rooms committed to renovation over the next 12 months, further supporting rate growth and demand.

Applying CPI-level growth to the City’s 2012 TOT base yields approximately $7.0 million in annual TOT by 2025, while RevPAR-driven growth implies roughly $13.5–$14.0 million, a difference of $6.5–$7.0 million annually. While real-world disruptions limited full realization in certain years, actual TOT still increased by approximately $2.3 million (+33%), demonstrating that stronger RevPAR growth has translated into meaningful tax revenue gains. Looking forward, continued marketing investment through the HID and ongoing property reinvestment position Carmel to sustain above-inflation RevPAR growth and continued expansion in TOT revenues. -20.00%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
140.00%
160.00%
180.00%
200.00% Cumulative Percent Increase
Impact of HID on RevPAR Increase
Cumulative Increase in CPI Cumulative Increase in Carmel RevPAR Creation of Carmel HID
Represents +33% Increase in TOT
ATTACHMENT 5

Exhibit B
2025 TOT Production by Jurisdiction
City Rooms Occ% ADR RevPAR TOT Rate TOT TOT/Rm Source
Monterey County (unincorporated) 1,815 71.1% $ 394 $ 279.83 10.5% $ 19,459,678 $ 10,724 A City of Carmel-by-the-Sea 970 69.2% $ 381 $ 263.58 10.0% $ 9,527,386 $ 9,822 D City of Monterey 4,729 71.1% $ 235 $ 167.14 12.0% $ 34,620,131 $ 7,321 A City of Pacific Grove 951 n/a n/a $ 164.62 12.0% $ 6,857,000 $ 7,210 B City of Marina 980 69.1% $ 188 $ 129.64 14.0% $ 6,492,037 $ 6,625 A City of Seaside 665 n/a n/a $ 140.76 12.0% $ 4,100,000 $ 6,165 C Source:

A See Monterey/STR
B City of Pacific Grove FY 2025-26 Budget, exlcuding Kimpton Hotel C City of Seaside FY 2025-26 Budget
D City of Carmel TOT Reporting, 12 months ending October 2025 Sources: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and See Monterey
Summary
This analysis highlights a clear and consistent relationship between pricing power, RevPAR, and Transient Occupancy Tax production per room, rather than between higher tax rates and stronger fiscal outcomes. Jurisdictions with the lowest TOT rates and highest RevPAR, notably Carmel-by-the-Sea (10.0%) and unincorporated Monterey County (10.5%), generate the highest TOT per room, at $9,822 and $10,724 respectively. These outcomes are driven by materially higher ADRs and RevPAR, which more than offset their lower tax rates. Carmel serves as the baseline comparator, with several neighboring cities producing 34% to 59% less TOT per room despite higher nominal tax rates.

Conversely, cities that have adopted higher TOT rates (12% to 14%) but operate in lower-ADR, lower-RevPAR markets show substantially weaker per-room tax productivity. Marina, despite the highest TOT rate at 14.0%, generates only $6,625 per room, 48% below Carmel, while Seaside produces just $6,165 per room at a 12.0% rate, 59% below Carmel. The data suggests that raising TOT rates does not compensate for weaker demand fundamentals and may, in fact, reflect structural limitations in pricing power rather than a viable revenue-maximization strategy. The most fiscally efficient jurisdictions remain those that protect rate competitiveness while sustaining strong lodging economics.
$10,724
$9,822
$7,321 $7,210 $6,625 $6,165
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
Monterey County
(unincorporated)
City of Carmel-bythe-SeaCity of Monterey City of Pacific Grove City of Marina City of Seaside 2025 TOT Production Per Hotel Room
TOT
Rate

10.5%
TOT
Rate

10.0%
TOT
Rate

12.0%
TOT
Rate

12.0%
TOT
Rate

14.0%
TOT
Rate

12.0%
ATTACHMENT 5

Exhibit C
Case Study: Occupancy Impact of Half Moon Bay’s TOT Increase Summary
Before the pandemic, hotels inside the City of Half Moon Bay and those in nearby unincorporated areas performed similarly.

From 2015 to 2019, city hotels paid a 12% hotel tax, while unincorporated hotels paid 10%, yet both areas recorded occupancy in the mid-60% range. This period establishes a clear baseline showing that the two markets were competitive prior to any tax changes. The sharp decline in 2020 reflects COVID-related shutdowns and is excluded from this comparison.

In July 2021, the City raised its hotel tax from 12% to 14%, while the unincorporated rate remained unchanged. In 2021, city hotels recorded 50.7% occupancy, compared with 63.7% in the unincorporated area. The City increased the tax again in July 2022, raising it to 15%. In 2022, city occupancy reached 59.6%, while unincorporated hotels reached 69.4%. City hotels continued to underperform in 2023 and 2024, trailing the unincorporated area by roughly 8 to 10 percentage points. From 2021 through 2024, city hotels sold approximately 86,000 fewer room nights than they would have if they had matched the occupancy levels of nearby unincorporated hotels. This represents about 10% of the City’s potential room nights during that period. Fewer occupied rooms translate into fewer overnight visitors in the City, which has significant implications for businesses that rely on visitor activity. While the data does not prove the tax increases caused the decline, the timing and persistence of the gap raise questions about the impact of higher hotel tax rates on lodging demand. "The data shows that hotels in the unincorporated County have bounced back better than those inside the City. When the City discussed raising the hotel tax, the Chamber and local hotels warned that higher costs could put City hotels at a disadvantage compared with nearby County properties that stayed at a 10% tax rate. Since then, City occupancy has slipped relative to those properties, which is clear from the data. " - Krystlyn Giedt, CEO of HMB Coastside Chamber

68.7%

67.3% 67.2% 67.2%

65.1%

36.1%

50.7%

59.6%

56.1%

54.2%

71.8%

64.1%

66.5%

63.7% 64.0%

44.5%

63.7%

69.4%

62.5%

64.3%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Hotel Occupancy
Half Moon Bay
City Hotels Unincorporated Hotels
ATTACHMENT 5

Exhibit D
Case Study: Buellton TOT Increase and Trending Revenue Decline Summary
RevPAR Comp Set includes: Carmel, Buellton, Calistoga, Monterey, Santa Barbara, SLO City and Yountville Occupancy Comp Set includes: Carmel, Buellton, Calistoga, Monterey, SLO City and Yountville Following Buellton’s TOT increase from 12% to 14% in February 2025, its share of room demand within a competitive set of destinations, as reported bi-monthly by Visit Carmel, shows a continued and then accelerated divergence on a 12-month trailing basis. While some softening in occupancy share was already underway prior to the increase, the decline persists and deepens over time, indicating a sustained loss of demand relative to competing markets. Carmel, by comparison, maintains a stable to slightly improving share. The effect is more pronounced in RevPAR share of the comp set. Although modest divergence was visible prior to the tax change, the gap widens more rapidly following the increase, with Buellton’s share eroding and Carmel’s continuing to strengthen. Because these metrics reflect relative performance across destinations, the postincrease acceleration suggests demand is shifting away from higher-tax markets. Overall, the data indicates that higher TOT rates amplify existing competitive pressures, reducing price competitiveness and leading to a measurable loss of both occupancy and revenue share within the comp set over time.

17.6%

17.0%

17.1%

17.8%

16.0%

16.2%

16.4%

16.6%

16.8%

17.0%

17.2%

17.4%

17.6%

17.8%

18.0%
Hotel Occupancy
Share within Comp Set - 12 Month Trailing Avg
Carmel Buellton

14.8%

15.9%

8.8%

8.4%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%
Hotel RevPAR
Share within Comp Set - 12 Month Trailing Avg
Carmel Buellton
ATTACHMENT 5

Exhibit E
Price Elasticity of Demand of Hotel Rooms and TOT Increase From UMASS Study: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1291&context=jhfm Price Elasticity of Demand = % Change in Quantity Demanded / % Change in Price Upscale Hotels -0.75
Luxury Hotels -1.36
Price Increase via TOT Increase 2.0% (Proposed by Carmel City Council) Expected % Change in Quantity Demanded Demand Inventory ADR Upscale Hotels -1.5% 55% $ 275.00
Luxury Hotels -2.7% 45% $ 530.28
Base for Calculations 12-Months Ended December 2025
City of Carmel TOT $ 9,533,718
City of Carmel Room Nights 244,531
TOT per Room Night $ 38.99
Occupancy 69.4%
ADR $ 389.88
Lost Hotel Lost Retail Total Lost
Year 1 Expected Reduction in Room Nights Demand Lost Revenue Revenue Revenue Upscale Hotels -2017 $ (554,675)
Luxury Hotels -2993 $ (1,587,139)
Total -5010 $ (2,141,814) $ (1,521,081) $ (3,662,895)
Year 1 Lost Tax Revenues from Demand Reduction $ (214,181) $ (140,700) $ (354,881) Resultant TOT @10% $ 9,319,537
Increase in TOT from Rate Increase (2%) $ 1,863,907
Reduction in Sales Tax Revenues $ (140,700)
Effective Net Tax Revenue Increase $ 1,723,207
Purpose
This one‑page summary explains how a TOT increase affects visitor demand, hotel performance, and local tax revenues using elasticity research and Carmel operating data.

How Demand Responds to Higher Prices - Research shows that when total room price rises, demand declines. Luxury coastal markets like Carmel are more price‑sensitive than average destinations. A modeled 2% increase in TOT is expected to reduce demand by roughly

1.5% in upscale hotels and 2.7% in luxury hotels.

Estimated Impact on Carmel Lodging - Based on historical occupancy levels, this demand shift equates to approximately 4,900–5,900 fewer annual room nights and about $1.7M–$2.1M in lost hotel revenue. While the City collects a higher tax rate on remaining bookings, reduced demand offsets a portion of that gain.

Secondary Economic Effects - Fewer visitors reduce spending at restaurants, retail shops, and attractions. Estimated merchant revenue reductions approach $1.5M annually. Lower hotel profitability can also limit reinvestment in maintenance, renovations, staffing, and wages.

Long‑Term Considerations - If visitor spending grows about 4% annually, a 2% TOT increase effectively captures roughly half of that growth for the City while slowing hotel revenue growth. Over time this may impact competitiveness, reinvestment, and job stability within the tourism sector.

Key Takeaway - A TOT increase may raise municipal revenue in the short term, but elasticity modeling shows it also reduces demand in a price‑sensitive luxury market. The net effect includes fewer room nights, lower visitor spending, and potential pressure on the broader local economy.

At the time of the City Council meeting in May of 2024, the prior 12 months had produced $7,741,000 in TOT. The Innkeeper Association requested an opportunity to show that TOT would grow by more than 10% over the next 12 months due to reinvestment. It exceeded this goal, and grew to $9,048,000, or 17%. Through the end of 2025 it has grown to $9,520,000, a 23 % increase in less than two years. Currently, more than 150 hotel rooms are currently under renovation or scheduled for renovation in the coming year, which is expected to produce the same ADR, RevPAR and TOT growth.

ATTACHMENT 5

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council
Staff Report
April 7, 2026

ORDERS OF BUSINESS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Tom Ford, Administrative Analyst
APPROVED BY: Brandon Swanson, Acting City Administrator SUBJECT: Receive an update on the Design Traditions 1.5 project, and review the proposed Plan, defined Scope of Work, and Proposed Timeline to finalize the Residential Design Guidelines 1.5 RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a presentation and provide feedback on the trajectory of the Residential Design Guidelines 1.5, and specifically:

1. Endorse the formalized project plan, timeline, and the defined scope of work proposed by the Ad-Hoc sponsors, staff and production team to finalize the Residential Design Guidelines 1.5.

2. Provide staff a “wish list” of specific items or issues the City Council would like to see addressed or clarified in the final document.

BACKGROUND / SUMMARY:

At the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting, Council unanimously decided to support moving forward with the Steering Committee draft of the Residential Design Guidelines

1.5. This came following the Planning Commission’s 4-1 vote on February 18, 2026 in recommendation of the Steering Committee draft as well, in which staff presented the Steering Committee draft document in a format comparable to the Nore Winter draft version, in order to make a final decision between the two versions.

As a result of the decision to move forward with the Steering Committee version [Attachment 1 (link provided) and Attachment 2 (text document)], Council shifted its focus at their regular March meeting from the document's format to how the final

content editing will be managed. To address the issue of how to best utilize a volunteer production team, Councilmembers Baron and Delves volunteered to form a two-person Ad-Hoc committee, which will serve as project "sponsors" to provide oversight, evaluate the Production Team's process, and ensure the project stays on track to help guide the final phases of the project.

The new Ad-Hoc committee was tasked with returning to the Council with a formalized project plan, proposed deadline, and defined scope to ensure completion of the Residential Design Guidelines in an adequate timeframe. The Council agreed that the Planning Commission, as a Primary End-User of the document, should serve as the center point of the project’s direction moving forward. Furthermore, Council clarified that a formal "redline" document tracking changes must be created for ultimate certification by the Coastal Commission.

Thus, the same Production Team workgroup (comprised of Steering Committee members, Planning Commissioners, public volunteers, and staff) whose efforts in January and February 2026 resulted in the current draft version, met again in late March to build on that extraordinary work and finalize a plan to finish the Residential Design Guidelines 1.5, a plan which is being presented today.

DEFINED SCOPE OF WORK
The overarching goal of this Production Team workgroup is to address and incorporate feedback from the City Council, Planning Commission, Staff, the Steering Committee, and the Public, to produce a final, adequate, and useful updated Residential Design Guidelines 1.5 to be presented for adoption at the September 1, 2026 meeting of the City Council.

The remaining Scope of Work(Pending Tasks) to be completed primarily includes:
• Updating the document to address fire safety and resilience. • Comparing the Draft Residential Guidelines against the Municipal Code, the Design Guidelines’ Strategy Paper, and other City documents to identify consistencies and inconsistencies (as well as identifying needed updates to City documents).
• Creating a "redline" comparison document whose format is visually useful as well as adequate for an amendment to the Local Coastal Plan. • Adding requested content from the City Council and the Planning Commission (a Primary End-User of the document).
• Conducting a Content Review by Staff (a Primary End-User) to identify outdated elements and address usability.
• Ensuring the architect community’s voice is considered and incorporated. • Reviewing the Planning Process Flowchart and accompanying description. • Updating the Glossary, Index, and Hyperlinks.
• Final Formatting (which can be done in-house, without paying a consultant).

(Note: The Commercial and Municipal Design Guidelines will be addressed sequentially following Council adoption of the Residential Design Guidelines 1.5).

PLAN METHODOLOGY AND TIMELINE
The process of editing and updating the draft Residential Design Guidelines 1.5 will be driven by four (4) 1-month "sprint cycles" built around the Planning Commission's monthly regular meetings between April 8 and August 12, 2026. These monthly meetings will serve as the basis for gathering feedback and input from both the Commission and the Public on each subsequent draft that is presented.

Extensive efforts will be made to advertise and solicit feedback from residents, architects, and the broader community during these regular meetings, including the use of Pine Cone ads, City website ‘ads,’ purposeful word-of-mouth invitations, and the Friday Letter.

These repeating monthly “sprint cycles” will begin at the upcoming April 8, 2026 meeting of the Planning Commission.

The cycles can be broken down as follows:

1. The Planning Commission receives a presentation of the most current draft version and provides feedback & recommended edits

2. Staff edits and the Production Team provides feedback and further suggested edits

3. Staff reviews and approves edits and suggestions to create a new draft version that satisfies the recommendations from the Planning Commission

4. The Production Team meets to view the newest draft version, and prepares to present the newest updated version to the Planning Commission at their next regular meeting
Each one-month cycle (Steps 1–4 above) will have targeted goals, focusing on specific Tasks identified by the Planning Commission during their prior month’s meeting. This allows staff and the Production Team to then incorporate the Planning Commission’s feedback within a guided framework, resulting in an updated draft version for the Planning Commission’s review at their next regular meeting.

The Pending Tasks have already been strategically placed throughout the four cycles to create a sequential order or work, with the goal of a streamlined process that reduces repetition (e.g. the Hyperlinks will only be updated after the final approval of the content by the Planning Commission. Following the Hyperlinks update must come final Formatting. Following the Formatting, an update to the Index will be made).

To meet the target adoption date of September 1, 2026 by Council, Staff is currently seeking two specific areas of feedback from the Council today:

1. Does Council endorse the formalized Project Plan that is being proposed today, including whether the timeline is realistic, and if the defined Scope of Work proposed by the Ad-Hoc Sponsors and Staff is believed to be a sufficient process to finalize the Residential Design Guidelines 1.5?

2. Provide a short, refined “wish list” of specific items or issues the City Council would like to see addressed or clarified in the final document.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Though our sights are set ahead, Staff would like to formally recognize a number of notable contributions from the past several years. A special thanks is due to Nore Winter, whose effort will not be lost; rather, it provided a springboard from which our subsequently appointed Steering Committee refined and restructured his valuable draft into an organic, Carmel-resident-led product, which is the draft we are moving forward with today.

To that end, Staff would also like to formally recognize and thank the Steering Committee members individually: Victoria Beach, Melanie Billig, Don Goodhue, Maryann Schicketanz, and Doug Schmitz, for their tremendous dedication to this project. This project’s efforts are dedicated to the memory of Don Goodhue.

As we move forward toward this common goal of creating a quality, useful update to the Residential Design Guidelines – part of the broader Design Traditions 1.5 project – our Production Team will continue to draw on the contributions of those who led us to where we are today, to create a vision for how we will uphold Carmel’s design traditions in the future.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Pine Cone advertisements, whose budget has already been appropriated in the Planning & Building Department’s Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

Pertinent Council meetings on this matter include:

March 2022: City Council approved a contract with Winter & Co. to update the City’s Residential and Commercial Design Guidelines, officially launching the Design Traditions 1.5 Project.

April 2022: City Council established the Design Traditions 1.5 Steering Committee and appointed five members to work with staff on the project.

September 2022: City Council and Planning Commission approved the Strategy Paper intended to guide the project.

January 13, 2026: City Council received an update on the draft guidelines, provided feedback, and directed staff to "surge" efforts to create a document comparison so the Planning Commission could recommend their preferred version.

March 3, 2026: City Council unanimously decided to officially support moving forward with the Steering Committee draft of the Residential Design Guidelines 1.5, and formed a two-person Ad-Hoc Committee to act as project sponsors.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Steering Committee Version (link to file)

2. Steering Committee Draft (Clean)

Attachment 1 - Steering Committee Version of the Design Guidelines ATTACHMENT 1

Design Traditions of Carmel

DESIGN GUIDELINES
Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 1

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
Core Principles intr.2
Keys intr.3
Dedication intr.4
Preface intr.5
A Visual History of Carmel intr.6
Fire Alert intr.25

GUIDELINES
I. Residential resi.1
II. Commercial comm.1
III. Municipal muni.1

APPENDICES
Preferred Planting Materials appx.2
Preferred Building Materials appx.3
Project Review: Narratives, Process, & Flowchart appx.4 Glossary appx.19
Index appx.21
Acknowledgements appx.25
ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 2

CORE PRINCIPLES

1. ENHANCE, restore, and preserve the native forest in all improvement projects: private, public, and otherwise.

2. SUBORDINATE every built structure to the character and continuity of the forest, natural environment, and to the natural features of its own site.

3. FIT every built structure within its neighborhood context.

4. RETAIN and build upon Carmel s architectural heritage.

5. DESIGN every built structure with modesty.

6. DETAIL every property authentically and consistently.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 3
KEYS

IMAGE SYMBOLS KEY
Image and caption describe a SUPPORTED principle.

Image and caption describe a CONDITIONAL principle.

Image and caption describe an UNSUPPORTED principle.

LINKED DOCUMENTS KEY
GP General Plan
HCS Historic Context Statement
LCP Local Coastal Plan
MC Municipal Code
P Policy
Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 4

DEDICATION

We dedicate these Design Traditions Guidelines to the memory of the notable architects who both worked tirelessly to create Carmel’s legacy of contextual design excellence and still made time to serve as community volunteers to preserve and nurture this legacy.

Most especially, we dedicate this work to our very own paradigm of excellence and service, awardwinning architect and fellow guideline Steering Committee member, Donald Bruce Goodhue (1932- 2026). His unerring aesthetic judgement and wise counsel will live on in these pages to inspire the very best contributions to Carmel architecture from those who follow behind him.

With enduring gratitude,
Don’s Steering Committee Colleagues:

Victoria Beach
Melanie Billig
Mary Anne Schicketanz
Doug Schmitz

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 5

PREFACE
“It has become a symbol of an attitude and an approach.

The attitude is that quality is worthwhile in itself, but that it also makes economic sense.” - Lawrence Halprin, landscape architect, January 1967
From its earliest years, Carmelites sought for their village to be different from other communities, to have originality and uniqueness, to weave pleasantly amongst the natural landscape of sea, hill, tree and beach. Before incorporation as a city in 1916, the Carmel Development Company was aided by the Carmel Civic League, an entity created to protect the physical assets of the village and to advocate for tasteful, person-kind improvements. A dozen years after 1916, Dr. Carol Aronovici, a renowned city planner, addressed members of the community on the civic value of architectural control.

Dr. Aronovici told the assembled mass that good civic design “is the art of conserving all the natural advantages of a city and controlling all building enterprises, whether public or private, so as to blend them into a harmonious whole.”
It was the local newspapers which led the effort for community architectural review. By 1929, Perry Newberry had become publisher and part-owner of the Carmel Pine Cone newspaper and began a yearafter-year drumbeat for better planning and architecture, calling in editorials for “lines of distinction and individuality” in building design. “There should be some measure of civic control” he wrote in 1935, “which will make Carmel more beautiful.”
Newberry was joined in this crusade by Willard K. Bassett, publisher of the Carmel Cymbal, who in 1938 opined in favor of architectural review of buildings in the commercial core. In 1940, Bassett editorialized to “Keep Building Atrocities out of the Business District.” And by the end of 1940, the City Council created a process for civic review and approval of new buildings.

The enclosed Design Guidelines are heirs to over a century of our community’s want to assure new or remodeled structures meld with Carmel’s natural beauty and with their neighboring edifices.

Generations and succeeding generations have sought architectural sincerity in what is built.

Our Design Guidelines Committee hopes this booklet assists you in your quest to become part of our heritage by blending your project in amongst its neighbors and within our ancient forest, both on your own property and any adjoining public property. Only with your help and dedication to our shared commons can we preserve and enhance the overall continuity and harmony of the built and especially the natural environment that is our unique legacy.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail. Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR
6 A VISUAL HISTORY
Carmel’s Natural and Built Environment
Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 7
Perhaps the first lasting structure in Carmel-by-the-Sea, arriving some 200,000 years ago, was a 25-million-year-old tree species, Pinus radiata or Monterey Pine. It now survives indigenously in only three mainland pockets: the Año Nuevo and Cambria regions, and the Monterey Peninsula, which is thought to be the “Mother Stand” — sustaining the entire mainland species over the millennia (seen here from Carmel Mission Ranch circa 1900). A relative newcomer, Quercus agrifolia or Coast Live Oak, joined the pine plant community around 10,000 years ago (seen here in an extant local grove).

The earliest known human structures in the area also arrived around 10,000 years ago. The Rumsen peoples dwelled
respectfully and symbiotically with the oak and pine forest ecology for their food and other essentials. They also built respectfully and very lightly on the land, weaving their temporary homes from the nearly endless supply of tule grass and bent willow branches along the Carmel River (seen here in a modern reproduction). The design, with its overlapping, umbracular layers wrapped in a conical design around a circular chimney oculus in the roof, perfectly expresses the combined functions of shelter against outside elements and warmth for the central fire circle within.

Thousands of years later, when Spanish scouts landed in 1602, the Monterey Pine forest community remained intact and abundant. Noting the “many pines for masts and yards,” sea captain Sebastian Vizcaino named the peninsula “Punto de Pinos” or Pine Point. Unlike the gnarled native oaks, tall, straight conifers make excellent building materials. So, when the Spanish returned to found Mission San Carlos de Borromeo in 1770, they initially built it of local, mud-plastered timber with straw or earthen roofing, eventually transitioning their buildings to more solid, adobe brick construction.

The missionaries formed their adobe bricks of natural local materials: clay, sand, and an organic binder such as straw with mortar of adobe mud or of pulverized limestone and abalone shells. They used these materials to build, sometime around 1776, the first permanent residence in California: a simple, boxy, lean-to house for their orchardist. The building (seen here) is still standing as a residence today.

Dedicated in 1797, the mission church building is of a still stronger material:
native brown sandstone from the Carmel Valley with mortar and plaster derived from abalone shells and local timber roofing members. For this important structure, the padres brought in Guadalajaran master stonemason Manuel Estevan Ruiz — the first
Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

Carmel’s Natural and Built Environment: A VISUAL HISTORY ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 8
known building designer in Carmel-by-the-Sea history.

Ruiz, working, by definition, in the Mission Style, created a relaxed, asymmetrical design (seen here today), quoting a number of architectural idioms, such as the Moorish bell tower, the Gothic quatrefoil starburst rose window, the Baroque arch flourish atop the Palladian gable, and the Classical retable entrance surround to create an eclectic interpretation of Spanish Colonial style.

Spain ceded California to Mexico in 1821, which then
“secularized” the missions in 1834, making their lands
available for private use, primarily by ranchers. Around 1846, during this influx of pioneers, Boston sea captain Matthew M. Murphy, built his cabin (seen here circa 1905) right on the margin where the open sand dunes met the
thick Carmel forest. The singlepen, rectangular plan building of rough-hewn, local, pine logs with
v-notched joints was typical of
pioneer construction. It was
originally used as a barn, later as
an art studio, and still stands,
albeit greatly modified, as a
residence today.

In 1888, brothers Santiago and Bellario Duckworth acquired the development rights to a half-square-mile of Honoré Escolle’s ranch and subdivided it into mostly 40 by 100-foot parcels, forming what would become the core of Carmel by the Sea and bringing an acceleration of native wood construction into the forest. That same year, Duckworth tucked his own small, vernacular wood home amongst the large mature pines along Carpenter Street. This vertical board-and-batten, rectangular plan, side-gable home (seen here) was so simple that the pedimented window casings and stick-like bracketing on the porch posts were its only concessions to decoration.

The abundance of timber encouraged wood construction beyond small residential buildings. With accommodations for 40, the first hotel in town, El Carmelo Hotel (seen here in soon after opening in 1889) was built of wood on the corner of Ocean Avenue and Junipero Street
before it was moved down the avenue and fittingly
renamed Pine Inn in 1903. Douglas Knox Frasier
designed the hotel with horizontal wood shiplap
siding and a pyramidal hip roof in an American
Foursquare or Prairie-Box house style. This simple
style, with its honest construction, basic, boxy form,
minimal corridors, and efficient layout is considered a reaction to the ornamental excesses and expense of
the Victorian Style.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 9
Real estate developer Abbie Jane Hunter
opened her 1889 community bathhouse at
the forested edge of Carmel Beach (seen
here soon after construction), built by her
uncle, Delos Goldsmith. With its
honestly expressed, post-and-beam wood
construction of recessed infill panels of
glass for the public cafe and horizontal
wood for the private changing areas, its
cross-wing dormer roof, and its deeply
overhung central ventilation tower, this
low-slung, pavilion style structure, foreshadowed Julia Morgan’s craftsman style hall at Asilomar. In 1892 Hunter went on to purchase a full quarter square mile and sold about 300 home parcels, mainly to teachers and writers.

An early exception to the rule of wood construction was the first local brick house, built in 1898 at Monte Verde Street and Fifth Avenue by English master mason Benjamin Turner (seen here soon after construction). The modest gable-and-wing residence was a showcase for his skills with its diamond shaped gable accent and decorative quoining at the corners and at door and window surrounds.

After a nationwide recession in the
mid-1890’s paused growth, James
Franklin Devendorf and Frank
Powers, who founded the Carmel
Development Company in 1902, bought out the earlier developers. Now the pace of construction could resume. Just as the need increased to harvest timber for buildings (seen here stacked in Del Monte Forest circa 1900), so did the need to clear the land for these buildings and, more significantly, for the streets that connected them.

However, the new town founders were committed to preserving the forest that initially attracted them by continuing to attract only aesthetically discerning residents who could set a “self-perpetuating” “tone,” “preventing man and his civilizing ways from…marring the natural beauty lavishly displayed here.” To that end, they advertised the place to professors and artists “of all kinds” as “a town in a pine forest” with homes “artistic in character, reflecting the temperament of the town” and “designed by architects who attempted to…fit the local surroundings.”
Likewise, although the village streets were laid out in an unremarkable grid on paper, in reality that grid often seems to disappear into a rambling wilderness pathway because of its deliberate deference to the pre-existing forest. This deference was achieved through several creative planning principles: the designation of an oversized public right of way along residential streets, often three times the width of any paving; the occasional narrowing of paving down to one travel lane; the ban on sidewalks so that the paving must be used as a footpath; the curving of paving to the left or right of the street centerline into the public right of way (seen here on Torres Street); the use of one or both sides of the right of way for a continuous native forest greenbelt; the protrusion of existing native trees and undergrowth into the sides of the paving, the splitting of paving around existing plants (seen here on Mountain View); and the compelling of residents to continue the native forest landscape seamlessly into their private parcels to minimize the impact of built structures on forest continuity.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 10
When trees had to be removed, whether on private or public lands, they were quickly replaced. Devendorf “gave away tree saplings like candy” to newcomers developing their homesites. So, when the forest was cut to lay out Ocean Avenue (seen at left in 1888), it was soon re-forested with the same species (seen at right near Monte Verde Street in 1903).

The same founding year of the Carmel Development Company, seventeen-year-old, trained carpenter, Michael J. Murphy built his first house: today’s “First Murphy House,” originally tucked in the forest on Mission Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenue (as seen here). The rectangular plan bungalow in the Anglo-Colonial style was small and pared down with no exposed structural members typical of the Craftsman style or even a porch. Yet, it had understated flourishes such as the decorative glass, the slender, double-ogee wood siding, and the flared or bellcast hip roof. Just two years later, in 1904, Murphy became the chief builder for the Company and went on to construct about 350 buildings in town.

At this same time, Ocean Avenue was emerging as a
commercial corridor in the Pioneer style typical of
western towns. The wood-framed buildings had
horizontal, false-front facades, extended vertically above their front-gabled, pitched roofs and sometimes
ornamented with wood trims, panels, and pediments to
give them a larger, more prosperous look. This included L.S. Slevin’s, the post office and first general merchandise store, Fritz Schweinger’s bakery, still operating as a
bakery today, and Robert and Fred Leidig’s grocery store (all seen here circa 1910).

In 1903, Thomas A. Work built the
Carmel Development Company
Building, a commercial block on Ocean
Avenue and San Carlos Street which
housed his hardware store, the Carmel
Development Company office, and
Devendorf’s Preble Grocery. The flatroofed, three bay, fireproof, roughtextured, concrete cinder-block structure, with its large, plate-glass store
windows capped by a ribbon band of
transom lights, was Carmel’s first truly Modern style building. Unadorned and clear in revealing its purpose, if somewhat formal or classical in its tripartite geometries, it is still in active commercial use today (seen here soon after construction).

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail. Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 11
Ever nonconformist, Carmel architecture stepped both forward and backward simultaneously. Also around 1903, but perhaps channeling the Late Neolithic, attorney George Richardson built his L-shaped, 600 square-foot, saddlenotched, hand-hewn log cabin on Monte Verde Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues (seen here circa 1914). This modest structure was poet Robinson Jeffers’ first local rental home.

With a
similarly
archaic
construction technique, Ben Turner (of the
aforementioned first brick house) hand-built the
tower and other native mudstone elements of a
home (now La Playa Hotel) designed by Artist
Christian Jorgenson for his wife, the chocolate
heiress, Angela Ghirardelli. Both the technique
and the quatrefoil window (seen here on the lower
left of the tower, circa 1906) replicate the originals of the Mission basilica.

But with modern building techniques also came freedom to explore many architectural styles beyond the traditional or the simple vernacular, some traditional-looking, some not. In 1905, the First Bay Area Regionalist or First Bay Tradition style, an interpretation of the American Shingle Style, appeared at Philip Wilson’s real estate office on the corner of Ocean Avenue and Dolores Street (seen here soon after construction, it was briefly the town’s first City Hall starting in 1917). With the sculptural qualities of a much smaller, flexible, unit of wood than timber or clapboard, shingles awakened a completely new, uniquely American, direction for architecture. With shingles tautly enveloping all surfaces and junctures, architecture could start to articulate the internal volume of a building, rather than its individual planes or structural components, just as the two dormers appear to swell up from the shingle surface below them to pop through the roof plane. These expressive volumetrics led, in turn, to a relaxation of symmetries and a casual naturalness, apparent in the asymmetrical lower fenestration and emphasized by the untreated, rough and rustic wood, often pre-aged in buttermilk, so that the grays would blend into the local forested surroundings.

This emerging idea that buildings should feel natural, not artificial, should blend exterior and interior, should honestly reveal something intrinsic, such as their internal uses or volumes, this architectural “honesty,” was also explored within the American Craftsman style, which exposed the often concealed craft of construction. In his 1905 Gardener house (seen here on San Carlos Street at Santa Lucia Avenue), M.J. Murphy
exaggerates its raw, rectilinear materials and the care in their assembly. For example, the roof planes overhang well beyond what the walls require for shelter and the roof beams extend even farther and appear stronger than what those roofing planes require for support. Similarly, the oversized porch posts, Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 12
the deep shadow lines of the vertical siding battens, the change of siding pattern at the foundation, and the bold ganging and framing of the windows all serve to illustrate both how the structure is made and the unadorned, natural purity of what it is made of.

These innovative, architectural experiments coincided with a number of Revivalist styles, forming an Eclectic Era that coincided with a surge in Carmel’s development after the Great San Francisco earthquake. Architect Eugenia Maybury designed, also in 1905, a Tudor Revival or Mock Tudor style home for the McGowan sisters on Thirteenth Avenue near San Antonio Avenue (seen here soon after construction). The late-medieval, English vernacular Tutor style relied on a heavy timber post-and-beam, perimeter structure, with wattle and daub unevenly hand-packed between the wood members, leaving them partially exposed for a “half-timbered” appearance. Mock Tutor imitates these cottages of the British underclasses, with their vertically proportioned windows, jettied upper stories, soft thatch roofs, and showy chimneys, but with one important exception. Born of the post-industrial 20th century, Mock half-timbers are no longer timbers, but instead non-structural, decorative, trim pieces applied on top of the smooth stucco finish of ordinary modern construction, making it challenging to capture the irregularity, depth, and authenticity of the original.

Perhaps the earliest Mission Revival style structure
appeared, again in 1905, on a Lincoln Street parcel at
Seventh Avenue donated by Devendorf to create Carmel’s
first protestant church (seen here circa 1935 before its eventual demolition). Rather than stylistically diverging, this long-awaited alternative to the town’s Catholic church seems, perhaps paradoxically, to exalt its predecessor.

Despite the freedoms that its modern wood framing and
stucco construction would have afforded, the composition accurately echos the restrictions of the mission’s stone construction, with its structural reliance on blank expanses of stacked stone walls and on the narrow, rounded
openings of stone arches. And though these openings are so shallow and devoid of shadows that they easily betray the thinness of the modern walls, there remains an earnest homage to the mission’s square moorish towers, its asymmetrical massing, and the Baroque arch flourish, reinterpreted here to form the wavy shape of the entire front gable.

By 1911, Frank Devendorf could report that over sixty percent of Carmel residents devoted their lives to work in the “aesthetic arts.” His prophecy that the aesthetically educated would be the best stewards of the environment came true when, on October 31st, 1916, residents voted to incorporate the village of Carmel by the Sea, citing as a main reason the failure of Monterey County government to protect and preserve its unique natural character from the destructive forces of "progress." Unsurprisingly, one of the first actions of the new local government was to pass ordinances to protect the ancient Monterey pines. Perhaps nobody epitomized this twin love of art and nature more than Robinson Jeffers (seen here in 1919) who, while not writing poetry, continued the Carmel tradition of handmade stone towers by building his own out of native granite at his Tor House between Scenic Road and Ocean View Avenue on nearby Carmel Point.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 13
Just a few blocks away and a few years later, Architect Charles Sumner Greene embraced both modern
construction and expression. In 1919, on Lincoln Street south of Thirteenth Avenue he built one of the first
concrete foundations in town and likely the first
prefabricated board-and-batten, wood walls, which were
tilted up rather than built in place. He designed the home (seen here soon after construction) as a new interpretation of the u-shaped hacienda ranch homes built by early
Mexican-Spanish settlers. Those early ranch buildings used their open courtyards and surrounding porticos to provide shade, to dissipate cooking heat, or to collect water. Here, however, the tree cover precludes the need for roof
overhangs, the simple shed roofs direct water away, and, often in Carmel, open courtyards were oriented southward to collect heat.

In 1923, Greene conducted another architectural experiment with the idiosyncratic studio he added to the east side of his property. By applying his considerable personal artisanship to an array of random materials (brick from a demolished hotel, leftover marble from another job, used bottle glass, fence pickets discarded by a ranch, hand-harvested and donated timber and marble scraps), he resourcefully up-cycled these “found objects” into an unusual interpretation of the Mission Style. Though constructed in the stacked-masonry tradition of the adobe and stone missions, with characteristic barrel tile roofs and small, arch-supported openings, the building has the broad front gable and low-slung, overall form of his famous Craftsman bungalows. Unlike either style, the front facade (seen here in a recent view) appears almost hermetically sealed, with its heavy teak door and conspicuously miniscule fenestration with impenetrable tinted glass, perhaps an adaptation to support his artistic concentration or interior acoustics for piano playing and salon gatherings.

Certainly the diversity of architecture in Carmel sprang from the diversity of people building there. But diversity prevailed even within one person’s work:

M.J. Murphy avoided repetition whenever possible, even though he built more than anyone else. In 1922, he tackled the Monterey Colonial Revival style in the Kluegel home on Camino Real North of Ocean Avenue (seen here in a recent view). Born in California, Monterey Colonial originally fused the shipwright’s simple detailing, roofline, and overall form of the early New England Colonial, the long, sometimes full-height openings and double shading provided by a prominent cantilevered balcony of the Caribbean Colonial, and the adobe wall construction of the Spanish Colonial. Here, the Monterey Revival substyle (of Spanish Colonial) repeats these features, though with stucco over modern wood framing, the four-quarter simplicity of the facade supporting its many asymmetries and irregularities.

The same year, J.S. Cone designed her own home at the corner of Monte Verde Street and Thirteenth Avenue (seen here in a recent view). Clad entirely in vertical planks of redwood bark found in nearby groves, the rough, dark exterior of its asymmetric volumes recedes into the forest.

However, the plentiful windows with sturdy mullions spaced in scale with the cladding, plus the double-height central hall with full-length balconies concealed within the simple main form, allow for a bright and open interior without compromising the home's unsurpassed deference to the natural site.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 14
Notwithstanding the predominance of the Craftsman style and a general emphasis on simplicity, the Eclectic Era of the early 1900’s continued on in the residential neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, a different trend started to develop in the commercial core. For its 1915 Panama-California Exposition, San Diego aptly selected the revival styles of the first European settlers in California to celebrate its auspicious future as the first west coast port for European ships coming through the new Panama Canal.

The dazzling success of this architectural spectacle is widely credited for repopularizing “New World,” Mexican and Spanish Revival styles of the Southern hemisphere. Perhaps the first glimpse of this trend in Carmel was in 1922, when architect Thomas Morgan overlaid a Spanish Eclectic facade of stucco and barrel tiles onto a typical, wood-framed, Western false-front, infill structure.

The Thomas A. Oakes building (seen here soon after construction) performed important civic functions as the new post office, second city hall, council chambers, and police station. Despite its official role, however, the building did not establish an official style — in contrast to other towns such as Santa Barbara, which legally codified its signature Spanish look in 1925.

Instead, also in 1922, a rival trend emerged downtown looking primarily toward the Northern hemisphere “Old World”. Lee Gottfried built and Edward Kuster designed the Tudor Revival Weavers Studio for his spouse Ruth Kuster (seen here in 1923 after relocation and an added ticket booth serving the Golden Bough theater on Ocean Avenue). Perhaps counterintuitively, Tudor Revival style does not revive the Tudor style itself, meaning the late-medieval style of the royal House of Tudor. Rather, the early twentieth century version revives the modest country cottage vernacular style of Tudor England to satisfy what architectural historian Nicholas Pevsner called “the English flight from reality around the 1914-18 war [WWI].” The modest, handcrafted look, a vision of simpler times and places, offered the British an escape from industrial age ordeals and likely resonated similarly with city dwellers seeking respite in Carmel’s ancient coastal forest.

A romantic accident of history gave the “old-world” trend a sudden boost in 1924, when Hugh Comstock visited his sister in Carmel and she introduced him to Mayotta Browne. The 27-year-old rancher and the doll-maker were married within a few months. That same year, Comstock, fresh off various handyman gigs in Los Angeles, built his new bride a teeny backyard cottage showroom named “Hansel” on Torres Street near Sixth Avenue (seen here at that time with its owners) for her thriving “Otsy-Totsy” felt doll business.

Its Fairytale or Storybook style, was a brief, inter-war phenomenon dreamed up in Los Angeles by film industry creatives influenced by soldiers returning from their first exposure to European countrysides. (In fact, the famous Hollywood sign originally spelled Hollywoodland and was built in 1923 as an advertisement for the nation’s first storybook real estate development.) Thought to be the inspiration for Disney’s immersive and lavish “imagineering” approach to set design, this Tudoresque substyle is characterized by exaggeratedly plastic and sometimes cartoonish interpretation of the medieval. Features can include lopsided walls and undulating roofs with deliberately misaligned shingles wrapped over rolled eaves meant to emulate thatch or puckered around eyebrow windows, fanciful roof rake boards, stucco artificially aged through tinting or patination, implausibly sinewy, false half-timbering or window and door surrounds, hand-whittled and possibly charred or distressed to suggest
Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail. Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 15
age, irregular door and window shapes, sizes, and placements. The labor intensity of its idiosyncratic craftsmanship fit well with Carmel’s artistic and bohemian culture, but the difficulty of convincingly replicating it virtually guaranteed the style’s demise during the Great Depression. Still, in its decade or so of popularity this theatrical SoCal style spread widely across America, likely finding few places with the deep forest backdrop of actual fairytales to exhibit it so perfectly. Understandably, Comstock was inundated with orders, setting him on a new career path to become Carmel’s next-most prolific builder and causing old-world reverberations from backyards to downtown.

And yet, in exactly the same year, 1924, Carmel saw further exploration into the “new-world" styles as well. On Ocean Avenue and Dolores Street, Earl Percy Parkes designed and built a Pueblo Revival gift shop for owner, Mary Dummage (seen here in a recent view). Perhaps, the oldest continuously occupied architectural style in America, Pueblos were made of balled or bricked adobe and timber roofs with few, if any, windows. In the revival style, if adobe is not used, rounded corners, irregular parapets, and thick, battered walls usually stuccoed in earthtones simulate it. Round vigas or roof beam logs or other rough timbers often project through the parapets or under upper stories as corbeling, as seen here, to imply a structural function. However, the plentiful fenestration, without even a pretense of supporting lintels over its wide openings, betrays this particular building's internal wood framing and compromises the credibility of an otherwise easily- and often-reproduced style.

A year later, in 1925, Fred Ruhl constructed the
first phase of the aptly-named Normandy Inn on
Ocean Avenue at Monte Verde Street (seen here
circa 1930). Berkeley-trained architect, Robert
Stanton designed the complex in the Normandy
Variant of the Tudor Revival style. Because in
that region of France country homes were often
attached to their barns, this style variant is
distinguished primarily by the addition of a tower
element, which reinterprets a barn’s grain or silage
facility, usually as a main entry or stair tower as it
appears here to the left of the main entry.

A year after that, in 1926, the City of Carmel held a design competition for its new library building one block uphill from the inn, on Ocean Avenue at Lincoln Street.

Unconvinced by all nine of the first-round entries, the City hired emeritus Berkeley professor and famed, stylistically eclectic architect, Bernard Maybeck to partner with
contractor M.J. Murphy. When completed in 1928 (seen
here around then), the value of the delay was revealed by the building’s persuasive fidelity to its style. An essay in dignified restraint, the design derives expressive power through its control of volume, proportion, and measured detail, not complex massing or materials. It celebrates its prominent community purpose with its unabashedly prominent reading room and enormous, steel-framed, front window. The ratio of window to wall, however, remains correctly modest with all glass set back as far as possible so as to accurately evoke both the spanning limitation and the deep thickness of older adobe walls. The weight of the barrel tile roof is properly conveyed by the hefty and genuinely structural roof beams and how they extend beyond the walls to easily support the deep overhangs. The perhaps surprising subordinance of the low, recessive, and darkshadowed, side entry wing defers to and thereby re-emphasizes the library’s mission: reading.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 16
Also in 1926, on Dolores Street south of Ocean Avenue
and, Bonnie Lee commissioned Hugh Comstock to
design and build her Art Shop. His only Fairy Tale
style commercial building (seen here shortly after its
1927 construction), it echos and exaggerates even
further the make-believe of Hansel and his other
residences. Roofs go from wavy to wandering, doors
from curved to camelid, windows from regular
rectangles to lawless lozenges, trims from bumpy to
bulging, and chimneys from quirky to so impossibly
quixotic as to require steel bracing. Now operating as
the Tuck Box, the building represents the epitome of
Comstock’s mischief with this style, inspiring other,
though always more demure, commercial
development.

The same year that “old-world" style peaked
in extravagant fantasy, downtown
development in the “new-world” style also
began to peak. 1927 saw Oakland architects,
Roger Blaine’s and David Olsen’s Eclectic
Spanish Revival designs for Dr. Rudolph
Kocher's medical practice at the La Giralda
building on the corner of Seventh Avenue
and Dolores Street (seen here from each
street respectively in recent views), followed,
in 1928, by their El Paseo building for L.C.

Merrill across Dolores
(seen below in a recent view),
and then, in 1929, their building for Robert and Isabel Leidig on Dolores near Ocean on Avenue (seen below
in a recent view). These buildings, all primarily
concrete, along with several others built around the
same period, diverge somewhat in their influences.

But, they share the hallmarks of the style: an emphasis on the solidity implied by masonry construction, with
its heavily shadowed, small, deep openings in blank
expanses of monotone stucco-coated wall, the
handmade decorative tile and metalwork, the rough,
handcrafted appearance of the clay barrel tile, the
irregular massing and openings, and the like. With
some details drawn from measurements actually
taken on the architects’ trips to Spain, the El Paseo
building in particular provides a veritable dictionary
of vocabulary authentic to its Revival language: the
custom metal window grilles with unique twists in
each bar, the pre-aged wood banisters, the doors and
windows that never match, the eye-catching shadows
of scalloped balconies, and the lintel over the
passageway entrance sized to properly reflect the
spanning strength of wood (though it is painted concrete).

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 17
When the Sunset School outgrew its 1906 “new world”
Mission style building, the town hired Oakland
architect John J. Donovan in 1926, and later
Fresno/Monterey architect C.J. Ryland in 1931, to
shepherd its large, new campus between Mission and
San Carlos Streets, Eighth and Tenth Avenues through
its expansions (seen here in 1937). Ryland,
architecturally educated in France, mimicked the style
of granges dimières cisterciennes (cistercian tithe
barns), to give Sunset its dominant, “old-world”
character of Cistercian Medieval Revival. Monasteries
had pursued the austere Cistercian style, which evolved directly into the early Gothic over a century later, as a pious rejection of Classical ornamentation. And, the abbey barns were even purer expressions of deft, yet practical, engineering. The voluminous spaces (which the church required to store one tenth of local annual produce) found their most sturdy geometry in the massive, triangular roofs that came nearly to the ground, where they received support from disproportionately low, thick, and buttressed walls, in which openings were rare, deep, small, and often ganged together, like the double entry here, usually under larger discharge or relieving arches, all of which also received and expressed the great mass supported above. For these masterfully simple structures, often the only concessions to ornament were the finials atop the gable ends, thought to bring good luck, presumably for abundant harvests.

And so the downtown architecture pendulum swung back and forth for several years between the old world and the new world, albeit with some significant detours. For example, diagonal from the new library at Ocean Avenue and Lincoln Street, contractor Earl Percy Parkes built the Seven Arts complex for arts entrepreneur and Forest Theater founder, Herbert Heron. Designed by Albert B. Coats, the building (seen here in 1926) seems clearly indebted to its Shingle Style neighbor a block uphill: the 1905 Wilson building (see way above). The future mayor, with his principled support for bohemian over business interests, was a logical proponent of this pioneering American style.

His building uses the same taut skin, merging into very shallow overhangs to de-emphasize material in favor of overall volume, which is in turn emphasized by the simple, emphatic gables, punctuated only by single openings of multiple ganged windows and by the cyclopean shed dormer that looks as if it emerged as pressure from the spaces below overpowered and pierced through the thin roof plane. The clear difference between the two buildings is the substitution of a wooden skin over wooden framing for a stucco skin over concrete block. This unconventional, if not unique, mutation was perhaps explained by concerns over fire, addressed
conveniently by the Carmel Thermotite Company, newly
incorporated just a few streets away where it molded its innovative fireproof blocks (also used to construct Flanders Mansion). The building’s unusual combination of durability and originality created an enduring symbol of the many
artists it hosted so famously for so long.

Another intentional stylistic detour downtown came in 1939, when Carmel’s most significant financier, Barnet Segal
rejected the Spanish Revival design of his architects, Swartz and Ryland, and ordered them toward Art Moderne. His bank on Ocean Avenue at Dolores Street (seen here after construction) embodies the style, with its horizontal, yet humanist proportions and symmetries, its concrete solidity, along with a neoclassical, near-white color, a rejection of classical ornament in favor of the new decorative arts, as well as curved gestures of glass and stone.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 18
Around the time this new international style hit downtown, a new, defiantly local, City Council swept into office.

Having become the first “poet mayor" of Carmel in 1930, Mayor Heron (of the Seven Arts building above) ran and won again in 1938, in part, to address commercial pressures on the natural environment venerated by Carmel’s bohemian residents. The new Council hired the highly acclaimed, Berkeley/Harvard educated Thomas Church, the “first founder” and pioneer of American landscape design and of a movement that became the “California Style.” Church famously believed, as Carmelites did, that rather than providing building decoration, “[a] garden should have no beginning and no end.” Meaning, it should be physically and visually integrated with the predominant natural environment and allow seamless human movement and inhabitation.

Church answered his assignment — to lessen the visual impact of the cars that now dominated the pine forest landscape — with a native stone planter running up the center of Ocean Avenue (seen here in the 1920s and 1940s).

The low height of the wall, the medium height of the native undergrowth, and the columnar forms of the Monterey pine street trees, whose foliage grows primarily quite high, allowed for the clever combination of opacity down at car level and transparency at eye and storefront level, creating both visual access to the commercial corridor and visual screening of the traffic for shoppers.

Throughout the development surge, the same revivalist
and eclectic forces in the commercial areas were at work throughout the residential areas as well, including the perhaps unique 1936 example of the Art Moderne style
built by M.J. Murphy on Thirteenth Avenue at Dolores
Street. Like the Bank of Carmel above, the H.

Markham house has the same horizontal emphasis,
classical proportions, local symmetries, look of solidity, and monochrome, light color. More spare than the
bank, its only curved gesture is the conical chimney
accent to the left.

As the second half of the 20th century approached, Carmel’s stylistic adventures were just beginning. However, with just a few exceptions such as those just mentioned, Carmel tended to derive its aesthetic direction from local and not international cues. For example, Hugh Comstock, never
one to be limited by his Fairytale fame, had always been a stylistically experimental builder and in 1948 he published a trailblazing pamphlet called “Post Adobe” (seen here in a recent view). Within it, he extolled an inventive building technique that wove together two ancient construction
techniques based on local materials and labor, timber post and beam with mud masonry, to create something brand
new and with potent stylistic implications. He argued that the compressive strength of mud brick,
Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail. Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 19
rendered waterproof with bitumen, when aided by the tensile strength and rectilinear guidance of wood could become an inexpensive, easy, and elegant approach suitable for one-story homes and requiring no additional insulation, interior or exterior finishing, or special details. This made his post-adobe a method accessible to laypeople, even to property owners themselves, leading to an emergence and proliferation of the Ranch style throughout town, such as this 1950 example on Scenic Road at Eighth Avenue (seen here in a recent view).

Also in 1948, Frank Lloyd Wright designed “Cabin on the Rocks” (seen here in a recent view) for Della Walker. Della’s sister, Alma, had deeded her the property on Scenic Road near Martin Way, under one condition: work with a notable architect. Wright, the first radically original American architect, and his former Taliesin apprentice, Mark Mills, delivered Walker’s request for a house “as durable as the rocks and as transparent as the waves” through carefully calibrated responses to the context.

To unify the structure into an “organic wholeness” at every scale from the site down to the detail, Wright relied on his signature tool: the Japanese (and later, De Stijl) principle of expressing irregular forms ordered over the rigor of a regular grid, but in this case using the unexpected module of a four-foot by four-foot parallelogram. This infinitely adaptable, geometric technique allowed Wright to take his signature stylistic invention, the Prairie School, which was inspired by the flatness of the midwestern plains, and
reinterpret it for the flatness of the Pacific shoreline through a casual, natural massing, responsive to the precise location.

He also emphasized the low and the horizontal, with a
bluish-green copper cantilevered roof floating above
minimally-framed glazing and not traditional windows,
deeply shadowed, dark-stained, native wood walls, all
recessed behind an asymmetrical native-stone base emerging from the existing rocks, which, together, masterfully
subordinated his built work to surrounding nature. It is perhaps no accident that the structure points toward Japan, as it was Wright’s fascination with the integrating geometries and natural subjects of Japanese prints that catalyzed his entire approach to design: “The print is more
autobiographical than may be imagined. If Japanese prints were to be deducted from my education, I don’t know what direction the whole might have taken.” (Utagawa Hiroshige’s 1833 “Driving Rain at Shono” from Wright’s collection seen here.) This cross-cultural, cross-discipline sensitivity and synthesis is just one mark of aesthetic genius. Alma Walker can be credited with insisting that such artistry is essential to building in Carmel.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 20
Around 1953, upon completion of Della Walker’s home, Mark Mills designed “Woodland House,” also for the Walker family, at Mission Street and 13th Avenue (seen here soon after construction). Mills, like Wright, used a roof floating above and around abstracted glazing and nestled within a grounded, solid base of native rock and concrete. This time, however, responding to the verticality of a completely wooded site, the roof tilts upward, sympathetically expresses its heavy timber structure and raw wood finishes, and creates views up into the tree canopy rather than out toward an ocean horizon. Also like Wright, Mills prioritized a building’s permanent responsibility to its natural and human community perhaps above its responsibility to any temporary occupant. In fact, Mills famously said that nature is “my silent client” and even “my client is nature,” sentiments that tie him closely to the environmental preservation mission of Devendorf and the early forest settlers.

Also in 1953, Clarence Mayhew, a
prolific, San Francisco-based and Berkeley-educated architect, designed a home for Helen Proctor between Scenic Road and San Antonio Avenue near Thirteenth Avenue (seen here in a recent view). Like most International Style buildings, the home emphasizes volume of internal space through lightweight, skeletal frames and glazed transparency, rather than mass and solidity; visual interest through functional divergences, rather than applied ornamentation; overall simplification of geometries; and flexible modularity, rather than strict classical symmetry. Yet, the undercurrents of classical composition often strongly order such buildings and Mayhew, educated in classical architecture at L'École des Beaux-Arts prior to Berkeley, would have known the standard facade in canonical ancient temple architecture: the hexastyle portico. This deep porch, with its six columns and five openings resting on a plinth of low windows and topped by a textured pediment of sorts, echos the ancient closely and then diverges to the modern with the addition of a solid, sixth module on the left, a chimney accent on the right, an off-center glass door, and only half a triangle for the roofline. This building, like a temple, follows its own mathematical order to sit in deliberate contraposition to natural disorder and therefore, like the International Style, it functions as an unapologetic “machine for living.” However, its modest scale, quirky asymmetry, recessive coloration, and natural wood construction, all push it away from the international and pull it closer to the local and associate the house with the Second Bay Area Regional style.

The Third Bay Area Regional style emerged in
Carmel soon thereafter, exemplified by “Three
Sisters,” a trio of homes on Lopez Street near
Fourth Avenue, including Cosmos House (seen
here on the right in an original site plan and in a
recent view), all designed by Berkeley- and
Harvard-trained architect, Henry Hill between 1961
and 1962. This California style, an even more
relaxed and warm interpretation of modernism,
uses native, unfinished materials and loose
geometries to tailor a respectful response to to the
natural environment. As the plans show, Hill
played freely with an unusual, angled vocabulary to
create three completely unique yet complementary
compositions that deftly avoid both the existing vegetation and one another. The houses maximize the flow of landscape between them by sharing no parallel exterior walls, which can create confining outdoor corridors. Instead they minimize contact, approaching one another only at sharp corners and exploiting the smallest possible geometric unit: the point.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 21
Also in the Third Bay Tradition, famed architect Charles Moore designed the Warren Saltzman House in 1966, on Palou Street near Casanova Street (seen here in a recent view). Though clad in unfinished wood shingles and nestled well into the existing site as is characteristic of the style, perhaps uncharacteristically the house plays more with traditional domestic shapes, such as the gabled roof (here exaggerated in scale and always in halves). His quotation of historic forms foreshadowed the influence Moore later had in ushering in the reactive Postmodern style of the 1970s to 90s, along with his Princeton colleague Robert Venturi and others. Together they changed the course of modernist architecture with their searing warnings against ignoring traditional urban context and offered instead an architectural language that was extreme in its reference to classical design elements (keystones, pediments, column capitals), often out of proportion or grouped discordantly to highlight the paradox of their resurrection into the modern age.

But Postmodernism did not thrive in Carmel, where the
forest context dominated the urban context. Instead, the bohemian residents and their experimental designers
continued in the more quirky, organic vocabulary of the Bay Tradition, as architect Mickey Muennig did for his
1974 “Owl House” on Dolores Street near Alta Avenue in
nearby Carmel Woods (seen here in a recent view). With
even looser geometries than found at the “Sisters”,
Muennig warps the walls and roofs to create undulations more associated with natural than built forms. The
nearly infinite freedom of this architectural language had the capacity to unify a meandering front path between low, woodsy, mute volumes with a starkly contrasting, bold, sweeping arch of a sheer glass escarpment over two stories tall to the rear, allowing the home to echo the topography and provide panoramic views over the forest toward the sea.

Around the same time, architects Walter Burde and
Will Shaw found this same organic language
appropriate to their 1972 “motor bank” commission
for Northern California Savings and Loan. Though
in the commercial district, the building could not be
a typical party-wall, infill design, because customers
would be primarily arriving by car, driving past all
facades to reach a drive-through window at the
property’s interior. So, much like a residential home
surrounded by forest, the building (seen here in a
recent view) was composed as a stand-alone
sculpture, visible in the round from infinite
viewpoints. The yin-yang interplay of jauntily
angled dark but airy glass-timber sections with light
but solid stucco sections creates a family of volumes
that provide visual distinction from every
perspective as the motorist travels by, yet a strong genetic coherence to the entirety.

Then, in the 1980s, Carmel confronted a new threat: surging commercial speculation in the residential neighborhoods.

The March 22, 1990 Pine Cone reported that multiple spec homes developed within months of one another on the “former Countess Kinnoull estate is usually declared the greatest single offender… built to the maximum the code will allow…[with] surrounding vegetation…torn down, leaving
Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 22
barren what was once a lush greenbelt.” (A
portion on Torres Street near Eleventh
Avenue is shown here in street elevation
drawings from the time.) The projects
exemplified an alarming trend: tree removal
permits for construction rising about 375%
over two decades and residential building
applications on track to rise 750% in half that
time. Carmel Planning Director Diane White warned about the oversized, cookie-cutter approach: “You can tolerate a lot of architectural ‘violations ’when the focus is on the landscape. What is happening now is a double-edged sword.

We are losing our predominant landscaping as well as getting a narrower architectural style.” Carmel City Forester Gary Kelly also warned, “according to the city’s tree census…the number of pines on private property is decreasing while the number of ornamentals is increasing…[because] when people come from different areas, they…plant what they are used to. The most serious aspect…is that the medium to small pines…are disappearing. That means we will have fewer trees to replace the mature ones once they die…they are supposed to be replaced. But when I go back to the site, I find that there is no room to plant. We either need to reconfigure the open space or allow for smaller houses.” Complaints flooded local newspapers and public meetings about overblown, pretender “cottages” attempting to camouflage their excessive size with often cartoonishly mis-matched and complicated massing, materials, and styles.

One local builder explained the powerful economic incentives: “[in 1982] there weren’t more than three ‘spec ’homes in all of Carmel…[but now] we have builders from the valley, who used to build in Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield and maybe make $20,000 a house. They come over here and maybe make $150,000 for a spec house. The same amount of work, they get that much more gain.” So, in the mid-1990s, the City conducted a national search for an expert to lead the development of comprehensive design standards that might reverse this “insensitivity” to the natural and built environment. And in 2001, the Council adopted the resulting document “The Design Traditions of Carmel” and legally mandated through its Municipal Code that every required design review “shall” follow it. Many Carmelites had expressed fears that design standards might actually standardize designs. Instead, the ensuing quarter century saw many creative site responses, directly continuing Carmel’s legacy of architects sensitive to and responsive to nature.

In 2007, Carmelite architect John Thodos, designed a
home for himself and his spouse on Torres Street near
Third Avenue (seen here in a recent view). As
Carmel Historic Resources Board Chair, Thodos
strongly supported the modest scale of village homes
and refused to deviate from the small footprint of the
unsalvageable, pre-existing structure. Like most selfassured artists, Thodos embraced constraints as “catalysts for creativity” and used the property’s
limitations to re-invent the very idea of a Carmel
Cottage. While maintaining the archetypal elements
of the classic house, he deconstructed and expressed
all the layers separating inside and outside so as to
blur the distinction between them and celebrate the
immediate surroundings and regional climate. The
home’s foundation of exposed-aggregate poured
concrete reaches out into the foliage to evoke naturally eroded outcroppings. The abstractly-simple, wooden houseshapes come to rest above just parts of these outcroppings, again emphasizing their role as found site features, not structures designed just to hold up walls. Large expanses of the wood walls then dissolve into air, which is, in turn, reenclosed by pure miter-jointed glass volumes that float free like light-filled bubbles into the, often foggy, yard.

Movement in and out is through elongated door-tunnels that extend and savor the interior/exterior threshold. By interweaving modest rooms so persuasively with the surrounding forest, Thodos transforms a traditional enclosure into something infinitely expansive.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail. Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 23
In 2009, Sci-Arc Professor John Bohn took a similarly creative approach to the natural surroundings of “Canopy House” on Ridgewood Road (seen here in a recent view). The site, obstructed throughout by lowhanging oak tree limbs, inspired another reimagining of the simple Carmel Cottage. Hardly a simple task, this time a sophisticated computer model was needed to help break apart and inflect traditional roof shapes and warp them into custom curves around each individual branch. These roof planes, in turn, molded the monochrome walls beneath them into a collection of playfully irregular, modest volumes.

Then, in order to fully connect the home with nature, irregular wood beams and posts branch down into the rooms and curved glass clerestories between the roofs and walls make the visual connection between the harvested timbers inside and the live wood elements, still growing undisturbed, outside.

Around 2012, Berkeley/MIT-trained architect, Justin Pauly designed the county’s first certified “Passive House”on Eleventh Avenue between Lincoln and Dolores Streets (seen here in a recent view). By meeting strict standards for airtightness, thermal bridging, fenestration, heat recovering ventilation, and insulation, the house remains comfortable in all seasons using virtually no energy. Though technically the structure is radically modern, stylistically, this Carmel Cottage is traditional vernacular. The design is clearly inspired by respect for the natural environment, but in ways independent of the architect’s aesthetic approach.

Also around 2012, architect
George Brook-Kothlow, in close partnership with landscape designer Barkley David Smith, completed “Arch House” for Jacquelyn Woodward on Seventh Avenue near Forest Road (seen above just after initial plantings). The construction materials palette of the building is raw and natural: self-rusting, uncoated steel, unvarnished wood, unpainted concrete. And, to an unusual degree, the living plants of the site also became part of the construction materials palette. Some walls are made of living plants as is the entire roof of the carport (seen above left). Most of the home’s glass-walled interior spaces wander casually around existing trees, incorporating corresponding glass-walled exterior garden spaces into the floorplan.

Meanwhile, the main interior space, though set far back on the oversized site, initially appeared more conventionally exposed as a glassy street facade. However, once the native landscape design had matured (seen below in a recent view) the large interior was completed by its corresponding large exterior garden and disappeared from the road, engulfed by nature. Perhaps ironically, this conscious interweaving of building and landscape design pays homage to the most traditional values of the town's founders and yet with a modern approach that they never could have foreseen — though likely would have applauded.

No, the 2001 design standards have not, so far, eliminated the destructive forces and the careless design that emerged in the 1980s. And yet, as the founders predicted, some great aesthetic talents still manage to show us the way. For, Carmel has continued to attract “the right people” who build homes “artistic in character, reflecting the temperament of the town…designed by architects who attemp[t] to…fit the local surroundings…preventing man and his civilizing ways from…marring the natural beauty lavishly displayed here.” Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 24
Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 25

FIRE ALERT
When beginning any residential design or remodel in Carmel-by-the-Sea, fire resilience must serve as the premier guide for the proposed project to ensure long-term sustainability and community safety.

Because significant portions of the city are classified as an extreme fire danger area, wildfire represents the single greatest threat to both the natural environment and architectural character of the community.

True sustainability is not complete without proactive protection against catastrophic fire risk, necessitating design concepts that prioritize ignition-resistant materials, Class A roofs, and emberresistant detailing. To address the critical gap in wildfire resilience, applicants must now utilize ignition-resistant products listed by the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM). This allows projects to honor the village's aesthetic legacy—using materials that convey a natural patina and human scale— while meeting the objective safety requirements of the California WUI Code.

Furthermore, the initial design layout should consider defensible space to ensure proper distance between structures and flammable materials such as vegetation, fences, etc. By making fire resilience the primary driver of a design, homeowners can harmonize Carmel’s unique aesthetic heritage with the objective regulatory standards required to make the built environment both beautiful and survivable.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) INTR 26
Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI
1 I. RESIDENTIAL
Design Guidelines
Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 2

1. ENHANCE, restore, and preserve the native forest in all improvement projects: private, public, and otherwise
(as seen in the dense, healthy Monterey Pine and Coast Live Oak environment above).

Background: Few newcomers recognize that Carmel hosts the sole surviving “Mother Stand” of the Monterey Pine forest on planet Earth, an ecosystem that has adapted to 25 million years of climate change, from ice ages to searing droughts. So important is this native ecology today that academic and industrial scientists fly in to study it, to determine how to nurture it, and to grow its species in lumber plantations around the world. So important was this ecology to the early developers that they incorporated the town in 1916 because Monterey County was failing to adequately protect it. In fact, their radical founding idea was to promote this place as a refuge for people to live in harmony with nature amidst a majestic, prehistoric forest -- an idea that ran in very stark contrast to the prevailing "pioneer tradition" of the time, which advocated for the conquest of nature. In times of ongoing climatic stresses, how harmoniously we reside within this international treasure will determine its fate and that of this visionary village.

Process: design steps most relevant to this section include… • visiting the site and speaking with neighbors to discover natural assets and shared view issues • commissioning a site survey
• conducting preliminary consultations with city forest and planning staff and commissions • obtaining a preliminary assessment report on site conditions, development standards, zoning, and so on • studying the significant tree evaluation inventory worksheet Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail. Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 3

1.1. Preserve all existing healthy upper canopy and lower canopy trees.

1.1.1. Before beginning design work, have a licensed surveyor or engineer prepare the required survey, showing existing site conditions, topography, drainage features, trees, structures, right-of-way edges and character, views, privacy issues, historical evaluations, nonconformities, neighborhood design contexts, and other features useful in designing a project.

1.1.2. Address comments provided by a City Planner and the City Forester on the required survey and on the required City Forester evaluation of existing tree significance and condition on and immediately adjacent to the project site, including in the right-of-way.

1.1.3. Address the Forest and Beach Commission's project review comments on the effects that proposed work will have on significant trees.

1.1.4. Consult the “Preliminary Site Assessment” tree survey when designing and locating new structures and additions to determine which trees are significant and should be protected.

1.1.5. Provide enough open space on each building site to both preserve and add upper and lower canopy trees at sufficient spacings for growth to maturity (as shown above right by building footprint and path both altered to preserve existing trees).

1.1.6. Locate new construction in accordance with the Land Use Code to minimize impacts on established trees and avoid pruning of limbs and canopies. Set foundations for buildings and walls back far enough from the base of any tree to adequately protect its roots. Plan curb cuts, paving and drainage systems to maintain air transport and water percolation to root systems.

1.1.7. Protect existing vegetation during construction in order to screen buildings, contribute to the forest character of the street, and achieve a settled, mature look upon project completion.

1.1.8. Plan access and site development to protect trees during construction as provided in the Land Use Code. Do not alter the grade level near nor excavate into the root zone or drip-line of any healthy mature tree, whether on or adjacent to the site, including on abutting properties and in the right-of-way.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 4

1.2. Preserve or enhance the informal, vegetated, open space character of the right-of-way.

1.2.1. Preserve vegetation and trees, especially those with canopies over the street, both in the rightof-way and the periphery of the site so that the pavement curves around and emphasizes natural landscape features and topography, creating the appearance of a meandering forested lane with occasional“ mini-parks” (as shown above by the irregular pavement edges and encroaching vegetation).

1.2.2. Remove any excess existing paving and other non-conforming and easily displaced materials, such as gravel per MC 12.24.020.B. Never keep in the right-of-way irrigation equipment or unpermitted paving, gravel, boulders, logs, timbers, planters, fences, retaining walls, other aboveground encroachments, or any hardscape that would widen the street or create a parking space.

1.2.3. Maintain the existing character of street gutters, which is typically a rolled asphalt curb or, more formally, is a channel faced with large native rock, but is never just plain concrete.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 5

1.2.4. To create connectivity with adjacent properties, leave the right-of-way as an unpaved, natural forest floor with an informal edge, consisting of trees, naturally occurring vegetation, and organic surfaces, such as pine needles (as shown above by the natural area between the private property line and the street pavement).

1.2.5. When adding plantings to the right-of-way use only naturally occurring natives to the Carmel forest: drought-tolerant and non-irrigated, green foliage, ground covers, or low shrubs, informally arranged. Do not use bedding plants and exotic species in the public right-of-way.

1.2.6. Do not remove trees or add gravel or other “hardened” surfaces to provide parking in the rightof-way, but instead reinforce the forest image by separating parking spaces from driveways with plantings and by using natural soil, or fresh, mini-woodchips as surface materials (as shown above by a nearly undetectable natural area sized to accommodate parking).

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 6

1.3. Preserve and enhance the forested image of the site (as shown above by how the home’s natural pine-bark siding echoes and the sensitive massing avoids the existing trees).

1.3.1. Preserve and supplement trees, especially those that arch over the street, and provide a mix of upper canopy trees for scale and multi-stemmed lower canopy trees for screening. The City Forester determines the mix and CM17.48.080 covers tree replacement ratios and species.

1.3.2. Do not wall off properties at the front property lines but instead extend the forest character of the right-of-way into the visible parts of the site by keeping a large portion of each site as open space, with plantings located to filter views of structures (as shown above by the unimpeded, vegetated zone between the street on the left and the home on the right). Find maximum limits for hardscape site coverage at CM 17.10.030.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 7

1.3.3. Locate plants and ground surfaces in relaxed, informal arrangements that are consistent with the urban forest character (as shown above at far right), reserving any formal, unnatural arrangements, bedding plants, or exotic flowering plants only for small areas out of public view or small walkway or entry accents (as shown above at center).

1.3.4. Use site plantings that are native, drought-tolerant species, following the Municipal Codez.

1.3.5. For a forest meadow ground cover, use only informal, no-water varieties kept out of public view and do not use manicured lawns or artificial turf per P 2025-002.

1.3.6. Projects that involve a new building or substantial alteration require a professional landscape plan, which identifies areas for low-scale plants, shrubbery, and trees for initial review and shows specific planting plans for final review. Address the special needs of each species, using, for example, high-water-use plants near redwoods but not near oaks, paving materials that minimize tree root impacts, and best practices for fire mitigation.

1.4. Preserve un-altered, pre-development water drainage ways as site amenities.

1.4.1. Minimize stormwater impacts with Low Impact Development principles, including: addressing stormwater close to the source, installing bio-retention, and other planted drainage areas, and using “sand-set”, not “mortar-set”, pervious paving materials to percolate water and aerate soil.

1.4.2. Enhance water quality with stormwater management systems that mimic the natural water cycle, filter stormwater into the ground and direct flows through vegetative buffers and rain gardens where plant and tree uptake can remove pollutants.

1.4.3. Design new on-site stormwater control devices to appear naturally integrated into the forest.

Use green roofs, retention areas, or landscaped areas to capture flow and prevent new runoff toward adjacent properties per CM 17.43.

1.4.4. For new building or substantial alterations, provide a professional landscape plan that identifies areas for low-scale plants, shrubbery, and trees for initial review and shows specific planting plans for final review. Address the special needs of each species, such as using high-water-use plants near redwoods but not near oaks and paving materials that minimize tree root impacts.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 8

2. SUBORDINATE every built structure to the character and continuity of the forest, natural environment, and to the natural features of its own site (like how the tree above overshadows the street view of the home).

Background: Carmel’s native forest hosts a dizzying array of fascinating native species dominated by a towering upper canopy, primarily of Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata), and a sculptural lower canopy, primarily of Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia). The overstory trees perform the vital work of scaling down larger infrastructure elements such as paved areas or commercial buildings, while the understory trees, often comprising multi-stem varieties, work to screen and soften all shapes and sizes of building elements. Quite wise to the important aesthetic functions of a continuous natural forest weaving through and connecting all properties, the town’s founding developers were famous for gifting trees to new property owners. As urbanization progressed, their aim was to replace and supplement any trees affected during construction, to keep those new structures nestled within the trees, and to use these trees as well as other site features and siting approaches to preserve as faithfully as possible original natural conditions.

Process: design steps most relevant to this section include… • engaging a landscape architect
• developing a conceptual landscape plan
• taking advantage of the Preliminary Application option to get early feedback on landscape ideas • beginning a Historic Evaluation (if the site was deemed historic) Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 9

2.1. Nestle a building in the trees to minimize the mass visible from public view.

2.1.1. Position buildings to avoid cutting into the canopy of established trees (as shown above where the architect laser scanned existing tree branches and computer-positioned roof planes precisely beneath them).

2.1.2. Decrease the apparent size of buildings by building less than the maximum allowable floor area, using a compact footprint, minimizing large volume spaces (high ceilings or steep pitches across wide spans), and eliminating large, unused underfloor areas and extensive cantilevers, especially over cut areas.

2.1.3. Reduce perceptible building height by locating some floor area either fully or partially below grade or at a “garden” level with any walkout area, light well, retaining wall, or terrace concealed to the side or rear. When these locations are not feasible, provide more screening with other building elements or landscaping.

2.1.4. Minimize the visual impacts of retaining walls, garden walls, window wells, and other foundation structures by incorporating sloped, planted areas to create a smooth grade transition.

Ensure tall retaining walls, terracing, or revetments are not visible from the public way.

2.2. Follow the site’s natural contours.

2.2.1. Minimize construction on steep slopes.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 10

2.2.2. Minimize excavation and fill on a site by maintaining existing topography and keeping all grading and excavation completely within the proposed building footprint (as shown above by dashed line directly under house).

2.2.3. Step building height, foundations, and floor levels to follow site slopes and contours (unlike above, where support posts create a single level floating above a downward slope). When floor levels cannot be stepped, larger underfloor spaces (as shown above under most of the building) count as part of the allowed floor area.

2.2.4. Avoid abrupt changes in grade (as shown above left by flattened grade with added retaining walls) within a site and between adjoining properties. If such transitions are unavoidable, then use sloped, planted areas. If a stable planted slope cannot be created, then use multiple landscaped terraces rather than a single tall wall (as shown by short walls above right).

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 11

2.3. Subordinate parking facilities to the house and site.

2.3.1. Minimize the impact of a garage or carport by: concealing them from the street, detaching them at the back of the lot or elsewhere, subordinating them into the building design (as shown above left) tucking them underneath or into the foundation (as shown above right), or locating them partially below grade (while avoiding any three-story appearance), orienting the garage door away from the street, and, on small lots, using only a single, one-car garage door.

2.3.2. Use parking facilities to maintain or enhance variety along the street edge and to maximize landscaped open space, views, and privacy. If a detached, one-car garage or carport benefits the overall streetscape, the City may determine that it can encroach into the front setback. The City does not allow two-car garages in the front setback.

2.3.3. To maintain forest floor continuity, established vegetation, and ample front yard space, keep driveways at grade and without cuts and fills that would create a “ramp” effect or require retaining walls perpendicular to the street.

2.3.4. Minimize the amount of paved surface area for a driveway by using organic materials, “tire track” paving strips, sharing a single driveway between two adjacent properties (as shown above by merged surface spanning property line), and/or limiting each site to the required single curb cut (unless a corner site requires a “through driveway”).

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 12

2.3.5. Minimize the visual impacts of retaining walls, garden walls, window wells, and other foundation structures by incorporating sloped, planted areas to create a smooth grade transition.

Ensure tall retaining walls, terracing, or revetments are not visible from the public way.

2.4. Design all paved areas to be small, informal, and intimate.

2.4.1. Reduce widths of asphalt or concrete, separate a driveway from a front walkway with plantings, soften paved edges with landscaping (as shown above left by planted, and separated, irregular driving and stepstone walking areas), and avoid formal or urban paving treatments (as shown above right by rectilinear pavers, straight edges, and joined driving and walking areas).

2.4.2. Select paving with muted colors and texture authentic to the material (unlike faux stone-colored concrete pavers at above far right), such as Carmel stone (above far left), granite cobblestone (above center left), brick, asphalt, natural-colored poured concrete (above center right), gravel, decomposed granite, and mulch, keeping easily displaced materials on private property only per M.C. 12.24.020.B.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 13

2.5. Blend private landscape with that of the public right-of-way to make vegetated spaces appear larger and to improve continuity with the forest (as shown above by the continuous natural forest floor extending from the public street paving, through the public right-of-way, and into the private property, creating an uninterrupted forest landscape).

2.5.1. Design without a fence or wall along a street frontage, unless special conditions apply.

2.5.2. Where privacy or enclosure is needed, use native shrubs, hedges, or other vegetated landscaping (as shown above by the lush foliage on private property used as a necessary screen to the glass façade).

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 14

2.5.3. If vegetation does not provide sufficient safe enclosure along a street for children, pets, or others, install an informal, unfinished, wood fence (such as in the foreground above added into the vegetation), which preserves visual access into the front yard and at street intersections, by using open pickets wherein the size of the spaces are at least equal to the size of the material.

2.5.4. When creating an arbor, maintain a narrow, low, light, and open design (such as above, where the arbor is styled like the open fencing), instead of a tall, wide structure with massive timbers or other heavy elements that dominate the street.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 15

2.5.5. In rare cases, where a fence is needed but the predominant or foundational building material is stone, masonry, or stucco, a low garden wall of the same material and construction may fit into the site if fully integrated with the topography and other hardscape and if kept at four feet or less from grade (such as above where a low, vegetated wall of surfacing matching the home is nestled into a gentle slope).

2.5.6. Place front yard enclosures (such as hedges, fences, or walls) farther back from the front property lines as they become more solid. Refer to Maximum Building Envelope information to determine allowable heights and placements.

2.6. Preserve the nighttime, “dark-sky” character of neighborhoods (as shown above where stars are visible in Carmel by the Sea due to drastically reduced artificial lighting).

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 16

2.6.1. Subdue all exterior lights with shielded and focused fixtures of low lumens and warm white temperatures, as defined in municipal code. Do not use fluorescent lighting.

2.6.2. Use lights only where needed for safety and at outdoor activity areas, such as building entries, gates, terraces, walkways, and patios.

2.6.3. Do not use floodlights, spotlights, or lights to accent or uplight buildings, tree canopies, or other vegetation.

2.6.4. Instead of exposed light sources, locate and shield fixtures, including string lights, to eliminate glare and excess illumination onto neighboring properties and the street.

2.6.5. Size, locate, and shade skylights to eliminate glare or light pollution visible to neighbors or to the public. Use skylights only if interior spaces have no access to exterior windows, such windows have limited access to light, or windows would cause even greater impacts to adjoining homes.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 17

3. FIT every built structure within its neighborhood context (like how the three homes above relate to one another despite different massing and materials).

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

Background: Carmel’s founders laid out neighborhoods with small lots anticipating very small homes that would maintain abundant natural views and privacy. A smaller home remains and effective approach. At larger sizes, new structures must work harder to coordinate with existing structures, while the new outdoor spaces that structures define must also work harder to coordinate with existing outdoor spaces. All this work serves to maximize privacy and natural views for individual properties as well as to create a harmonious whole for the community – one that artfully combines private spaces to increase the sense of forested open space and multiply the visual links across every public and private property line.

Process: design steps most relevant to this section include… • developing a conceptual siting and massing plan
• taking advantage of the Preliminary Application option to get early feedback on siting and massing ideas • beginning a Historic Evaluation (if the site was deemed historic) • considering submittal of a Conceptual Design for feedback from staff and commissioners ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 18

3.1. Locate open spaces so that they visually link with those of adjacent properties.

3.1.1. Coordinate open spaces in careful response to other open spaces to have an amplifying effect and combine them to increase their apparent size (as shown above right by wide forested space between homes), rather than simply maintaining required setbacks (as shown above left by narrow space with little room for plantings).

3.1.2. On oversized or combined properties, maintain the open space character of Carmel’s typical 4,000sf lot sizes, avoiding the appearance of a “compound” or “estate.”

3.1.3. Relate a building’s mass to the context of other homes nearby. Divide a larger building into forms similar in scale to traditional village houses, placing some mass in a detached secondary structure (garage, guest house, etc.) if necessary to reduce the overall mass of the primary building.

3.1.4. Stagger front setbacks of homes and garages to frame outdoor spaces, avoid uniform alignments, and provide variety in the arrangement of buildings and open spaces along the street (as seen above with the three property layouts different from one another), unless doing so prevents a visual aggregation of open space or endangers significant trees.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES (Layout Draft: 20260120) RESI 19

3.1.5. Stagger side setbacks with adjacent properties to avoid the“ canyon effect” of a narrow corridor or tunnel between buildings (see above right where the homes are too parallel and close together).

Provide even more open side yard space when buildings on adjacent properties are two stories or close to the joint property line. Refer to the Municipal Code for setback regulations.

3.1.6. Minimize building mass as seen from adjacent properties by: avoiding long, uninterrupted wall planes, placing tall building walls away from the property line and similar walls on neighboring sites, and providing greater setbacks for any chimney directly opposite a neighboring window.

3.1.7. Preserve access to light between properties.

3.2. Preserve views from nearby properties to natural features.

3.2.1. Locate building volumes to make use of views but not substantially block views enjoyed by others (like the proposed home shown in brown with dashed lines above, which allows all neighboring homes to preserve the primary view to the bottom right), keeping the building height low and the building footprint compact to maintain views over and along sides of properties.

Enhance. Subordinate. Fit. Retain. Design. Detail.

ATTACHMENT 2