Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
June 1, 2026

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Del Rey Oaks
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Gonzales
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Greenfield
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of King
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Marina
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Monterey
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Pacific Grove
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Salinas
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Sand City
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Seaside
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Soledad
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
Monterey County Regional Fire Protection District
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
Monterey Peninsula Airport District
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
North County Fire Protection District of Monterey County Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
Big Sur Volunteer Fire Brigade
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
Mid-Coast Fire Brigade
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
California State University, Monterey Bay
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
Correctional Training/ Salinas Valley State Prison
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:

ATTACHMENT 3

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council
Staff Report
June 1, 2026

CONSENT AGENDA
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Jayme Fields, Finance Manager
APPROVED BY: Brandon Swanson, Acting City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution 2026-031 Approving Amendments to the FY 2025- 2026 Adopted Budget
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2026-031 Approving Amendments to the FY 2025-2026 Adopted Budget
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY:

The purpose of this agenda item is to adopt Resolution 2026-031 Approving Amendments to the FY 2025-2026 Adopted Budget (Attachment 1 & 2). At the May 4, 2026 City Council Special Meeting, an update on the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget reviewing the revenues received and expenses incurred through the first eight months of the fiscal year (July 1, 2025 – February 28, 2026) was received by Council. The budget amendments identified at the May 4, 2026 City Council Special Meeting are now being brought to Council for adoption.

Below is the Analysis of 2nd Triannual budget vs. actual provided at the May 4, 2026 City Council Special Meeting. Overall, the status of the City's budget is healthy and generally on track as anticipated. There are only five recommended budget adjustments needed after the first eight months of operation.

Revenue
The City’s three major sources of revenue are property taxes, sales and use taxes, and

transient occupancy taxes. The amounts reported here are based on cash collected in the months of July through February. The City received its first tranche of property taxes in December and will receive its second tranche in April. Sales and use taxes, which include the statewide sales tax and the local “Measure C” sales tax, are remitted by the State on a quarterly basis, with estimated progress payments received monthly.

The sales taxes received to date include advances for January through March, as well as a true-up for the prior quarter. The $3.0 million received in state Sales Tax and $5.0 million received in Measure C local sales tax thus far, combined, are slightly ahead as a percentage of the budget compared to where they were at this time last year (79% and 76% in the current year, respectively, compared to 72% and 77% in the prior year).

Transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenue of approximately $7.5 million is currently slightly more than was collected at this time last year but represents a decrease as a percentage of budget compared to the same time last year (82% of budget in the current year compared to 88% in the prior year). This decrease in Transient Occupancy Tax compared to the budget is due to a significantly increased budget for TOT as the City was more aggressive in its revenue budgeting than in prior years. The remainder of the variances at this time represent the cumulative effects of report timing, fluctuating tax receipt trends, and tighter underlying budget assumptions, and do not appear to represent a material change to the budget.

Revenue from Charges for Services totals approximately $1.7 million and is 57% of the budget compared to 75% of the budget at this time last year. The decrease is due to the timing of receipts and to a more aggressive revenue budget in the current year, including a budgeted $549 thousand annual increase in Ambulance revenues which has not been realized. Other Revenue (which includes Business License Renewals) totals approximately $4.1 million and is 126% of the budget compared to 113% of the budget at this time last year.

A summary of revenues to date is as follows:

Revenue Category Adopted
Budget
FY 25-26
Jul - Feb
Receipts
FY 25-26
Percent
Received FY
25-26
Jul - Feb
Receipts
FY 24-25
Percent
Received
FY 24-25
Property Taxes 9,198,405 5,460,059 59% 5,242,995 58%
State Sales & Use Tax 3,828,119 3,035,734 79% 2,695,415 72% Local Sales Tax - Measure C 6,595,056 4,992,546 76% 4,632,010 77% Transient Occupancy Taxes 9,109,116 7,501,368 82% 6,973,139 88% Charge for Services 2,911,901 1,669,255 57% 1,682,715 75% Other 3,272,484 4,109,368 126% 3,388,240 113%
Total 34,915,081 26,768,330 77% 24,614,514 77%

Expenditures
The City’s largest expenditure category is salaries and benefits, which account for 44% of the revenues forecast to be received in the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Adopted Budget.

For the period of July through February, the salaries and benefits expenditures, inclusive of annual Worker’s Compensation insurance premiums, total $9.4 million.

These expenditures represent 62% of the total budgeted salaries and benefits expense and generally align with budget projections, which were more conservative than in prior years, resulting in a higher percentage of the budget compared to the prior year.

Services and supplies expenditures total $7.1 million, or 60% of the amount budgeted for the year. The City Non-Departmental expenses include insurance premiums of approximately $1 million and the annual unfunded pension liability (UAL) payment of approximately $2.6 million paid in July. Debt service principal payments have all been executed for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.

Capital Outlays currently reflect spending on 17 active projects, including paving and drainage repairs, pathway reconstruction and essential Police/Public works building repairs. Total capital outlays to date represent a significant increase over similar expenditures in the prior year.

A summary of expenditures to date is as follows:

Expense Category Adopted
Budget
FY 25-26
Jul - Feb
Disbursements
FY 25-26
Percent
Disbursed
FY 25-26
Jul - Feb
Disbursements
FY 24-25
Percent
Disbursed
FY 24-25
Salaries/Benefits 15,214,176 9,359,678 62% 8,621,046 53% Services/Supplies 11,829,173 7,146,718 60% 5,605,579 53% Non-Departmental * 4,747,943 4,079,618 86% 3,670,787 88% Debt Service 509,100 459,895 90% 467,665 87%
Capital Outlay 8,405,191 2,722,978 32% 1,940,374 16%
Total 40,697,491 23,768,887 58% 20,305,451 46%
* Largely comprised of Insurance and Unfunded Pension Liability Payments Budget Adjustments
Based on analysis of the first eight months of operations, it is forecast that adjustments to the budget will be needed in order to reflect anticipated expenditures in the remaining four months of operations. These adjustments are based on forecasts, as the actual expenses throughout the rest of the fiscal year are not known yet. Of course, staff will continue to manage costs through the rest of the year in an effort to control costs.

Expenses
Fire ($305,000): Additional funds are needed for increased Vehicle Maintenance costs

associated with the City’s outdated fleet, which is in the process of being replaced. This overage also includes reimbursements to the City of Monterey for overtime as Fire Department personnel filled-in on the short-staffed ambulance, as well as to capture incidental services not included in the adopted budget (i.e., laundry, dispatching).

City Attorney ($140,000): Additional funds are needed for attorney costs due to extra hours incurred addressing telecommunication issues as well as ballot measures and labor negotiations, all of which were unique to this Fiscal Year.

Revenue
Interest & Investment Earnings $445,000 : As City management has worked to maximize interest earnings, including the use of new interest-bearing accounts to earn interest on all its deposited funds, interest earnings have exceeded the budget. These unexpected revenues are sufficient to cover the increased costs associated with Fire and the City Attorney.

See details included in Attachment 2.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no net increase to the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget thanks to interest and investment earnings exceeding budget expectations.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget on June 3, 2025 (Resolution 2025- 052).

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2026-031

2. Exhibit A - Proposed Budget Adjustments

ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-031

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA RECEIVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 MID-YEAR BUDGET REPORT AND APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 ADOPTED BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution #2025-052 approving the Fiscal Year 2025- 2026 annual operating and capital budget on June 3, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Mid-Year Budget report provides an update regarding revenue and expenditure trends and whether fiscal performance to date aligns with budget assumption; and WHEREAS, after review of expenditures and revenues as of February 28, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City requires additional appropriations to increase the budget for the use of contracted services, and unanticipated revenue; and
WHEREAS, the Carmel Municipal Code Section 3.06.030 requires Council to approve all transfers of appropriations between departments.

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

Approve budget amendments to Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget as shown in the attached Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THESEA this 1st day of June, 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________________ _________________________________ Dale Byrne, Mayor Nova Romero, MMC, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT – EXHIBIT A

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Proposed Budget Adjustments
General Ledger
Account and
Description
Purpose
FY 2025/26
Amended Budget
Adjustment
Amount
FY 2025/26
Adjusted Budget
101-117-00-42001
Fire Contract
Services
Increases in
overtime, true-up
and incidental
costs.
$ 3,346,924.00 $ 225,000.00 $ 3,571,924.00
101-117-00-42203
Fire Vehicle
Maintenance
Increased vehicle
repair costs. $ 40,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 120,000.00
101-112-00-42001
City Attorney
Contract Services
Increase for
extra time
invested.
$ 442,000.00 $ 98,000.00 $ 540,000.00
101-112-00-42004
City Attorney Legal
Increased for extra
time invested. $ 75,000.00 $ 42,000.00 $ 117,000.00
101-000-00-37001
Interest &
Investment
Earnings
Adjustment to
recognize increased
earnings.
$ 358,883.00 $ 445,000.00 $ 803,883.00

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council
Staff Report
June 1, 2026

CONSENT AGENDA
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Nova Romero, City Clerk
APPROVED BY: Brandon Swanson, Acting City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution 2026-032 Approving Appointments to the Building Code Board of Appeals, Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees, Historic Resources Board, Forest and Beach
Commission and the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2026-032 Approving Appointments to the Building Code Board of Appeals, Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees, Historic Resources Board, Forest and Beach Commission and the Planning Commission.

BACKGROUND / SUMMARY:

Executive Summary
The City Council is being asked to adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving appointments to several City Boards and Commissions with vacant seats or terms which expired at the end of May 2026.

Each year, the City conducts a recruitment process for upcoming Board and Commission vacancies. Following the application period and applicant interviews, the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem make recommendations for appointments to the Council.

The recommended appointments are listed in this staff report and included in the proposed Resolution, which requires a majority vote of Council. Approval of the Resolution would appoint two members to each of the following bodies: the Building Code Board of Appeals, Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees, Historic Resources Board, Forest and Beach Commission, and Planning Commission.

Background
The City’s Boards and Commissions play an important role in local government by advising the City Council on issues within their areas of focus. Members provide valuable community perspective, help evaluate policy questions, and support thoughtful decision-making on matters that affect Carmel-by-the-Sea. Serving on a Board or Commission is also a meaningful way for residents to participate in civic life, better understand City operations, and contribute directly to the community.

Application and Recruitment Process
In compliance with state law, the City publishes an annual list each December identifying Board and Commission terms that will expire the following year.

Between March 9 and April 10, 2026, the City advertised open seats on Boards and Commissions with current vacancies or terms expiring at the end of May 2026. The recruitment included the following openings:
• Building Code Board of Appeals: 2 seats, including one core member and one ADA access member
• Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees: 2 seats
• Historic Resources Board: 2 seats
• Forest and Beach Commission: 2 seats
• Planning Commission: 2 seats
Current members whose terms were expiring in May were invited to reapply by the deadline. The City received numerous qualified applications, and residency eligibility was verified using the City’s GIS assessment database. Redacted copies of all applications received during the application period are included as Attachment 2.

An ad hoc committee consisting of Mayor Byrne and Mayor Pro Tem Delves interviewed all applicants in April and May. Each applicant demonstrated a strong interest in serving the community, and the ad hoc committee appreciates the high level of community participation in the recruitment process.

Term Lengths
Board and Commission members generally serve four-year terms. Exceptions include the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees, whose members serve three-year terms, and the Building Code Board of Appeals, whose members serve continuously until resignation. Terms are staggered to support continuity and to ensure that no more than two seats on any one Board or Commission expire in the same year. When an unscheduled vacancy on a board is filled, the appointee serves for the remainder of the unexpired term.

Recommended Appointments
After reviewing applications and conducting interviews, the ad hoc committee recommends the following appointments:

Building Code Board of Appeals (No fixed term length)
• Nathan Smith, Core Member
• Gail Lehman, ADA Member
Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees
• Mary Jo Williams, term ending May 30, 2029
• Marguerite Blum, term ending May 30, 2028
Historic Resources Board
• Jordan Chroman, term ending May 30, 2030
• Thomas Reinstein, term ending May 30, 2030
Forest and Beach Commission
• Kelly Brezoczky, term ending May 30, 2030
• Tamara Michie, term ending May 30, 2030
Planning Commission
• Kevin Ruess, term ending May 30, 2030
• Michael LePage, term ending May 30, 2030
Next Steps
Board and Commission appointments must be formally approved by City Council resolution. The attached Resolution (Attachment 1), contains the recommended appointments and requires a majority vote for approval.

Following Council approval, the City Clerk will administer the oath of office to each appointee and provide onboarding materials, including a Board and Commission handbook with key policies, procedures, and required training information. The City Clerk’s Office will coordinate training over the coming weeks and months. Department Heads and staff liaisons will also connect with new appointees to provide additional

orientation specific to each Board or Commission.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None for this action.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

The City Council annually ratifies appointments to vacancies occurring on the City's Boards and Commissions each year.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2026-032

2. Board and Commission Applications Received (Redacted)

ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-032

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

RATIFYING APPOINTMENTS TO THE BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS, HARRISON

MEMORIAL LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD, FOREST

AND BEACH COMMISSION, AND PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, City Boards and Commissions perform a valuable service by providing means by which the City Council can obtain advice, opinions, and recommendations of City residents and other members of the community; and
WHEREAS, terms of Board and Commission members are staggered, with no more than 2 members per board or commission having terms expiring within the same year; and WHEREAS, between the period of March 9, 2026, and April 10, 2026, the City advertised and invited applications from the public for various boards and commissions; and WHEREAS, during the application period the City received several qualified applications; and
WHEREAS, the Ad Hoc Committee, consisting of Mayor Byrne and Mayor Pro Tempore Delves conducted interviews and considered all applications received in April and May; and WHEREAS, the Ad Hoc Committee is appreciative of all individuals who filled out an application and participated in the interview process, and after careful deliberation, have determined the most qualified applicants for appointment.

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

Appoint the following individuals to serve on the following City Boards and Commissions with terms beginning June 2, 2026:

Building Code Board of Appeals (no term length)
Nathan Smith – Core Member
Gail Lehman – ADA Member
Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees:

Mary Jo Williams(term ending May 30, 2029)
Marguerite Blum (term ending May 30, 2028)

Resolution 2026-032

Historic Resources Board:

Jordan Chroman (term ending May 30, 2030)
Thomas Reinstein (term ending May 30, 2030)
Forest and Beach Commission:

Kelly Brezoczky (term ending May 30, 2030)
Tamara Michie (term ending May 30, 2030)
Planning Commission:

Kevin Ruess (term ending May 30, 2030)
Michael LePage (term ending May 30, 2030)

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 1st day of June, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_______________________________ ____________________________ Dale Byrne, Mayor Nova Romero, MMC, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT 2

3) All membecis'-<>f boards and commissions are subject to the Conflict of Interest laws of the State of California and are required to submit a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests, within 30 days of assuming office. Form 700 must be filed annually thereafter, and within 30 days of leaving office as well.

In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 and AB 1661 appointed members are required to attend Public Service Ethics Training and Harassment Prevention Training upon appointment and every two years thereafter.

Do you agree to file all required statements and complete training in a timely manner as prescribed by law or the City's Conflict of Interest Code? YesX No ___ _ 4) Reason for Interest in the Position:

I have been a card carrying member since i was in the 7th grade going to All Saints' Middle school. I want to preserve the beautiful astetic of the town. By being on the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees, I believe this will start the beginning of a long relationship working with City Hall and the town to keep it the way I see it.
5) Please list any relevant qualifications or experience you possess that would enhance the mission and goals of the board(s) or commission(s) for which you are applying:

Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees is an important part of the legacy in Carmel. As a hard-working Cruise Leader and Research Oceanographer at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Reserach Institute with 23 years of experience on ships, in laboratories, and working with interns, I am confident that I will be about valuable asset to the team on the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees. I am confident that my proven track record of excellent work ethic, unparalleled attention to detail, and a knack for encouraging commitments to oceanography and science will make me an immediate asset. I have many contacts with the varying types of businesses here in town. I believe we all need to work together to keep the Library functioning. 6) Please list any local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies in which you have an Investment, or serve as an officer or director:

I am currently the President of the American Legion Auxiliary in Carmel, and as the fiscal year turns in June, I will also be fulfilling the role as the District President for the Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Bonito County areas. This will not interfer with the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees.

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

3) All members of boards and commissions are subject to the Conflict of Interest laws of the State of California and are required to submit a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests, within 30 days of assuming office. Form 700 must be filed annually thereafter, and within 30 days of leaving office as well.

In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 and AB 1661 appointed members are required to attend Public Service Ethics Training and Harassment Prevention Training upon appointment and every two years thereafter.

Do you agree to file all required statements and complete training in a timely manner as prescribed by law or the City's Conflict of Interest Code? Yes X No ___ _ 4) Reason for Interest in the Position:

I am interested in continuing to serve on the Forest & Beach Commission as preserving and maintaining Carmel's Forest and Beach assets are an important priority and essential to the city we know and love. In the time I have served on the Forest & Beach Commission, I am proud to have collaborated with Forestry and Public Works staff to: 1. Help develop a 'Three Year Catch Up Plan to address a significant backlog of deferred tree maintenance of nearly 300 dead/very poor trees.

This plan was approved by City Council and Forestry has achieved its 3 year plan objectives; 2. Facilitate community workshops to increase community input into the Forest Master Plan update (still in development); 3. Advocate for bringing additional ecological resources, our consultant Nikki Nedeff, more formally into our Master Forest Plan update process; and 4 Help bring renewed focus to the importance of restoring the late summer beach pre-winter storm maintenance efforts that were stopped in 2015. Our Forest & Beach Commission plays an important role in ensuring we maintain Carmel's forest and 5) Please list any relevant qualifications or experience you possess that would enhance the mission and goals of the board(s) or commission(s) for which you are applying:

I have spent my career leading organizations to achieve goals based on strong strategic planning and process management. Clear objectives, defined problems and stakeholder alignment are essential to achieving results.

During my time on the Forest & Beach Commission, I have consistently tried to bring a strategic focus to our discussions and agenda planning. I have also leaned into the importance of data based decision making and looked to bring data from multiple sources into our discussions. I think it is also important to maintain an objective viewpoint and integrate the diverse perspectives of all residents. Especially when residents often feel strongly about Carmel's traditions and character, it is important to be a listener where opinions on both sides of the aisle feel heard.

As the Commission looks to complete important strategic updates related to the Forest and Beach in the years ahead, I believe I can contribute continued strategic leadership with a commitment to preserve Carmel's Forest and Beach for generations to come. On the Forest side, this includes ensuring we have a strategic and 6) Please list any local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies in which you have an investment, or serve as an officer or director:

Presently serving on Forest & Beach Commission (term expiring 5/26). Otherwise, no other local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations or companies with investment, officer, director roles.

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

3) I members of boards and comn issions are subject to the Conflict of Interest law'S of the Sta e of California and are required to submit a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests, within 30 days of assuming office. Form 700 must be filed annually thereafter. and within 30 days of leaving office as well.

In accordance with Assembly Bil (AB) 1234 and AB 1661 appointed members are required to attend Public Ser,.rice Ethics Training and Harassment Prevention Training upon appointment and every , two years thereafter.

Do you agree to file all required statements and complete training in a timely manner as prescribed by law or the City's Conftict ot Interest Code? Yes x No ___ _ 4) Reason for Interest in the Position:

Since moving to Carmel by-the Sea, eight years ago. I bave consistently engaged 1rl voluntee1 work because I believe ,t is irnµortant to contribute meanmgfully to the community in w� ich you live.
5) Please list any relevant qualifications or experience you possess that would enhance the m�ssion and goals of the board(s) or commission(s) for which you are applying:

1. I have a srrong Interest jn architecture and historic preservation. I value the board' s rote In ensuring that Carn el-by-tt e-Sea maintains its unjque charm and diaracter while continui119 to be a desirable place to live c!nd own a home.

2. 1 have served on the HRB for several yeafS, much of that time as the Board Chair and have genuir el_y ertjoyed lhe experience. My knowledge and understanding of the board' s work have grown significantly, and I believe I have been a dedicated and effective member. 6} Please list any local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies in which you have an investment, or serve as an officer or director:

Afre. CU(npleLing 30 years 01 sec•Jice m Lhe Atmy. WI:! chose 10 Ieurn to car-ml-!l-by-the-5ea. For hve years I have u·m-i€�LI clJlCI operated me COllf1ly' sonly Ctuck-lil-A re::.Lm.1ran1. with a :s.Hcond lucalio11 ope11ir'lg souri. Ir, this role. we µlam a s110119 empti<.1sis 011 supporting ou, cornmunity. Our 1,dlocLs tncluc?e µn1t1 l:!r�1ip::. ,mu <.1::.!>I::.liJr1CI:! lac a 1111de I,mgl-! ol ct,arille's. ::.chool::., yovernmenlc.1I Uf!:JanuatI011:s, anc!' locc1l uu:,ir-e:,::.e::..

Adtlil.luniJlly. I Set've 011 HM:! UOillU ol the Warriut Tiansltlon J�l\\lOCk, an 0I9iJniLal.Jun dedrc.Jl!:!d l<J ::.uppurtu19 lt e 11el:!tb uf ·,•e1eIans. n uugh tJ11s wor we comltlue to auvance eharilatile i tmuva::. and comrnur\lty-locu!",1:d µr ugra ms lhroughuul !he region.

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

3) All members of boards and commissions are subject to the Conflict of Interest laws of the State of California and are required to submit a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests, within 30 days of assuming office. Form 700 must be filed annually thereafter, and within 30 days of leaving office as well.

In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 and AB 1661 appointed members are required to attend Public Service Ethics Training and Harassment Prevention Training upon appointment and every two years thereafter.

Do you agree to file all required statements and complete training in a timely manner as prescribed by law or the City’s Conflict of Interest Code? Yes_________ No________ 4) Reason for Interest in the Position:
5) Please list any relevant qualifications or experience you possess that would enhance the mission and goals of the board(s) or commission(s) for which you are applying:
6) Please list any local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies in which you have an investment, or serve as an officer or director:

X
I have been involved in urban planning and development for over 50 years. My background is in civil engineering and urban planning, and for the last 47 years, I have practiced land use and real estate law from offices in the SF Bay Area. I also have a record of public service, including service on a planning commission and a city council.

Civil Engineer, City of Los Angeles, 1970-71
VISTA Volunteer (commonly described as the domestic Peace Corps), Cincinnati, OH, 1971-72 Researcher, 0MB and Mayor's Office, City of New York, 1972-76 Atherton, CA Planning Commission, 1990 - 2000, serving as Chair for most of that time Atherton, CA General Plan Committee, 1995 - 2000, serving as Chair Atherton City Council, 2000 - 2008, Mayor in 2003 and 2008 Licensed Civil Engineer (New York; inactive)
American Institute of Certified Planners
Exec. Comm. Urban Planning & Development Section, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1980's
Co-Director, Carmel Mission Falge Farmworkers Ministry
President, Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail (San Mateo County non-profit) ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

Organization:

Disability Rights California
Position: Board of Directors Year: 2019-2025
Organization: Homeowners' Association of Lloyden Park (Atherton neighborhood nonprofit) Position: lncorporator; Director Year: 1992
Organization: AYSO
Position: Soccer coach on son's team Year: 1997-2000
Organization: SF Hearing & Speech Center
Position: Board of Directors 1986-1989
ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

3) All members of boards and commissions are subject to the Conflict of Interest laws of the State of California and are required to submit a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests, within 30 days of assuming office. Form 700 must be filed annually thereafter, and within 30 days of leaving office as well.

In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 and AB 1661 appointed members are required to attend Public Service Ethics Training and Harassment Prevention Training upon appointment and every two years thereafter.

Do you agree to file all required statements and complete training in a timely manner as prescribed by law or the City's Conflict of Interest Code? Yes Y No __ _ 4) Reason for Interest in the Position:

I would be grateful for the opportunity to serve my community again. 5) Please list any relevant qualifications or experience you possess that would enhance the mission and goals of the board(s) or commission(s) for which you are applying:

I previously served on the Architectural Review Committe of the City of Monterey and the Carmel by the Sea Planning Commission. In Carmel by the Sea's Planning Commission.

I was a Commissioner and the Vice- Commissioner for about 6.5 years. I have 36 years experience as an Architectural Designer and Space Planner of high-rise commercial buildings and hospitals, completing 2.5 million square feet of space. Additionally, I completed 36 residences (most of which are in Carmel) serving as both designer and owner contractor.

The years served on the Planning Commission gave me great satisfaction of service and accomplishment for me and to my city.

As an alternative, I am applying for the Appeals Board, feeling that my experience in both commercial buildings and residential homes will enable me to be an asset to the Board. 6) Please list any local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies in which you have an investment, or serve as an officer or director:

Gail Lehman and Associates
The Golden Mean, LLC
O.S.B.T. Investments
Gail Lehman Fine Art
ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
1/2000-Present
1/1988-Present

GAIL LEHMAN FINE ART
Carmel by The Sea, California
Abstract Artist
See : Artist Bio at: www.gaillehmanfineart.com

THE GOLDEN MEAN, LLC
Carmel by the Sea, California
Position: Owner, Designer, Project Manager
Supervised the design and construction of thirty-six
homes in Washington, New Jersey
The majority in Carmel by the Sea, California
2/1977 to 2005 GAIL LEHMAN AND ASSOCIATES
Carmel By The Sea, California
Position: Owner. Project Director/Designer
Responsibilities: Principal Designer, Long range feasibility planning, space evaluations for lease negotiations, project coordination, project design, marketing, coordination and direction of office personnel.

Major Clients:

American Tin Cannery
Bayou Cafe
Crocker National Bank Building
Dalgety Foods
Dominican Santa Cruz Hospital
Dominican Santa Cruz Rehabilitation Hospital
Fort Ord, Dining room, Disco, Modular units, Barracks)
Fortuna Communications
Hartnell College, Child Development
Hudson, Martin, Ferrante & Street
IBM Corporation, On call field consultant
Lakin-Spears, law office
Lavorato & House, Law building
Robert Louis Stevenson School
Salinas Public Library
University of California, San Francisco
UCSF/ Stanford Health Care
UCSF Long Hospital/Pediatric
2 ATTACHMENT 2

5/76 to 2/77
3/77-9/
9/73.
(Floors six and seven)

MIL TON SWIMMER PLANNING AND DESIGN
Beverly Hills, California
Position: Project Director, Senior Designer
Responsibilities: Coordinate and direct projects for major corporations. Supervise initial space planning, working drawings and construction in progress.

Major Clients:

Buckeye Realty & Construction
Columbia Savings & Loan
Freedman & Low
Korean Exchange Bank
National Distillers & Chemical Corporation

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Beverly Hills, California
Position: Project Director/Designer
Responsibilities: Identical to previous position
Major Clients:

Ayre Jorgensen MacDonald
Billy Jack Productions
The Colwell Company
Ernst & Ernst (Salt Lake City)
Kellog & Andelson
National Medical Enterprises
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell (New Orleans)
Prudential Insurance Company
Rosenfeld, Horn, Denton & Harrell
Shapiro, Robin, Cohen & Powell

SAPHIER LERNER SCHINDLER ENVIRONETICS
West Los Angeles, California
Position: Project Director
3 ATTACHMENT 2

Responsibilities: The same as above.

Major Clients:

Gate Realty, Inc.

Harbor Insurance Building
Johnson & Higgins
Monogram Industries
Tishman Reality & Construction
Unionamerica Insurance
(Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, Houston and New
York)
Urban Projects, Inc.

Position: Director of Technical Services
Responsibilities: Supervised production control
operation. Duties included direct supervision of
Draftsmen, Detailers and Tenant Development Project
Directors. Responsible for job scheduling, determining
building standards for construction, final approval of
working drawings, building permits and computer
operation. Acted as major contact between company,
tenant and construction coordinators.

Major clients:

Avco Center
Charles Dunn Company
Dillingham Development Company
S. Jon Kreedman Company
Matlow-Kennedy Corporation
The Realty Group
The State of California
Shell Oil
Tishman Realty & Construction
4 ATTACHMENT 2

9/70 to 9/73 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Department of Health Services
LAC-USC Planning Division
Los Angeles, California
Position: Senior Project Planner
Responsibilities: Design, plan and execute schematics
and working drawings for major county hospitals.

Write service and facility programs for capital projects.

Conduct feasibility studies to determine optimum
utilization of facilities.
5 ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

. - .
3) AD members. of boards and commissions are subject to the Conflct of Interest laws of the State of Carifomia and are required 10 submit a Form 700 Sttement of Econom,c Interests, within 30 days of assuming office. Form 700 must bQ filed annualy thereafter, and within. 30 days ot1eavlng offloo as well.

In aocorda� With Assembty BIii (AB) 1234 and AB 1561 appc,tnted members are req1Jlred to attend Public Service Ethics Training and Harassment Prevention Training upon appomtment and every two years thereafter.

Do you agree to ftle all required statements •nd complete training In a tmely manner as pree<:rlbed by law arthe City's Conflict of Interest Code? Yu x Mo __ _ 4) Reason far lntarut In the Position:

I am currently a planning oommissioner and want to continue in that position of setVice to the communfty.
5) Please 11st any relevant quallftcatJOfta or experience you pouee.s that would enhance the mission and goals of ttw board(•) or commission(■) for which you are applying:

I have been involved in land use review work for Carmel since 2000. First as a member of the Design Review Board for 8 years and currenUy as member of the planning commission for 15 years. I am a licensed �eneral contractor with over 40 years of experience. I have a full working knowledge of construction plans and documents. I have extensive experience in understanding, interpreting and applying municipal codes and land use guidelines. I also have extensive experience with permit procurement in many cities and counties 1hroughout the Central Coast. 8) Please I lat any local area asaockrtione, boards, comml•aton,. fo4.lndation1, or companlee In which you htwe •n Investment. or serve as an �r or director:

I have a long hlstory of volunteer work 1n the city. I em a founding member of the group, Friends of lhe WWI Memorial Arc:h1 that raised the funds and restored the Wt/VI war memorial arch.

I was a board member of the Carmel Residents Association for· several years and that organ lzaUons treasurer.

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

3) All members of boards and commissions are subject to the Conflict of Interest laws of the State of California and are required to submit a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests, within 30 days of assuming office. Form 700 must be filed annually thereafter, and within 30 days of leaving office as well.

In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 and AB 1661 appointed members are required to attend Public Service Ethics Training and Harassment Prevention Training upon appointment and every two years thereafter.

Do you agree to file all required statements and complete training in a timely manner as prescribed by law or the City's Conflict of Interest Code? YesX No ---- 4) Reason for Interest in the Position:

My first interest is in the Forest and Beach committee. I am interested in nature in general and the health of nature in Carmel in particular. I am very climate change and nature interested and a big fan of Alexander Von Humboldt (1769-1859) who espossed how things in nature are connected and further believe we are also connected to nature and should work and do what we can to protect nature.

My second choice would be the Library Board, Simply, I am a book lover but also a beleiver that libraries and more than warehouses for books. They are important community nexus. Carmel is demonstrating that!
5) Please list any relevant qualifications or experience you possess that would enhance the mission and goals of the board(s) or commission(s) for which you are applying:

To my interest is in the Forest and Beach committee. I was previously chair of the Palo Alto Parks and Rec commission. During my time we opened Foothills park to the public (was a private Palo Alto park), implemented wetlands protection, maintenance and upgrade of local parks.

I am currently a docent at Point Lobos and a member of their Climate Change committee and have been the deputy docent adminsrator. I was also on the Board and chair of a Palo Alto school level educational organization called Environmental Volunteers and treasurer of the Santi Clara Valley Audubon.

My second choice would be the Library Board, I have previously been on the Carmel Library Board of Trustees and chair of the Palo Alto library commission at the time of building and opening the Mitchell Park library.
6) Please list any local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies in which you have an investment, or serve as an officer or director:

I have been on the board and board chair of the local Power Over Parkinson's non-profit.

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

3} AJI members of boards and commissk>ns are subject to the Con ict of Interest laws of ttie State of California and are required to submit a Form 700 Statemen of Economic Interests, wi1hin 30 days of assumi11g office. Fon, 700 must be filed annually thereafter. and wiihin 30 days of leaving office as v-1ell.

In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 234 and AB 166 appointe<I members are required to attend Public Service Eth,cs Training and Harassment Prevention Training upon appointment and every two years ttiereaiter.

Do you agree to file all required statements and complete trajning in a timely manner as prescribed by law or the City's Conflict of Interest Code? YesX No ___ _ 4) Reason for lntere:st in the Position:

Serving on the Carmel Forest and Beach Commission has allowed me to contribute meaningfully lo µrole<:ting our urbanized forest and coastJine wt1ile engagir g witt1 residents on issues that directly i1mp-acl the character and s.ustainabllity of our cornmunIty. fl.ily continued interest in th,s posi.tion s.tems. from a des.ire to build on that 1work by applyjng my experience and enslil ing that Carmel's natural asseLS are preserved.
5) Please list any relevant qualif:ications or experiience you possess that would enhance the mission and goals of the board(s) or commission(s) for which you are applying:

I bri-ng demonstrated leadership and a deep familiarity with the processes of the Carmel Foresl and Beach Commission, along with hands.on experience addres.s.ing the complex environmental and policy issues that corn� befor� the Commission. Through .
my work in urbanized forest ar�d
witdnre management planning (Wildfire Preparedness. Committee) and coast.al and beach prot-ection'. t have develop�d a _balanc�d. u,oughttul appm�ch to preserving Carmer ? na��1al
assets while carefully cons1denng, public safety, prnper1y rights, and long-term sustaLnab11tty. I arn exp�r_ienceu in chairing meeungs. conducting p�bl ic hearings. and Mvigating nuanced policy dec.s,ons, enab�lng me to contribute clear, consistent, and well-reasor ed recommendations. I have experience mnterprnting municipal codes and have created a Commission Sub-committee to address tree fines and review relevant codes in order to make ,ecornmendations lo City Council. I remain committed to fostering collaborative dialogue with fellow Commissior,er's, City Council and City Staff. while rnaintainlng public trus.t, and advancing the Commission·s. miss.ion to protect ar d enhance Carrners unique forest and coastal environment. ror the benefit of our community. 6) p1ease list any local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies in which you have an investment, or serve as an officer or d1rector:

Carrnel-by-lhe-Se.a Forest and Beach Commission Chair
Fire Safe Council of Monlerey County (FSCMC) Directrn
ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

3) All members of boards and commissions are subject to the Conflict of Interest laws of the State of California and are required to submit a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests, within 30 days of assuming office. Form 700 must be filed annually thereafter, and within 30 days of leaving office as well.

In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 and AB 1661 appointed members are required to attend Public Service Ethics Training and Harassment Prevention Training upon appointment and every two years thereafter.

Do you agree to file all required statements and complete training in a timely manner as prescribed by law or the City's Conflict of Interest Code? YesX No ___ _ 4) Reason for Interest in the Position:

My wife and I moved permanently to Carmel over 3 years ago. We are both retired and empty nesters. We have deep ties to the town as she is a third generation Carmelite.

Like my wife, I was also born and raised in a small town in Illinois (pop 1500) . My parents lived in the same house for over 50 years. I understand, love and appreciate that what makes a small town work is the residents that volunteer and work for their community. I am eager to be more engaged in this community. I have been following the City Council activities and attended the Carmel Priorities workshop. I have the time, understanding, and ability to be a contributing participant on either the Planning or Forest and Beach Commission. My background as an Attorney gives me additional perspective on legal matters and conflict resolution. 5) Please list any relevant qualifications or experience you possess that would enhance the mission and goals of the board(s) or commission(s) for which you are applying:

I was born and raised in a farming community where you have a close relationship to the land. My father was a school teacher but used all of his spare time to do landscaping for those in our town who needed help. I was drafted at a very young age to assist him with raking, mowing, trimming and anything else needed. In high school and college, I spent my summers working as a farm hand. As a homeowner since 1995, I have always done my own yard work and landscaping. Since moving to Carmel, I am at the beach at least 5 times a week with my dogs. I believe that I have special connection to both land and sea that would be beneficial to the Forest and Beach Commision.

As a trial lawyer for over 30 years, I developed exceptional skills in analyzing laws and regulations as applied to the facts. In my research of the planning commission duties, there is an exceptional amount of local and state regulations which must be applied to a project. Admittedly I have little experience in architecture, but this will bring a benefit to the planning commission as a fresh unbiased set of eyes. 6) Please list any local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies in which you have an investment, or serve as an officer or director:
none
ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

3) All members of boards and commissions are subject to the Conflict of Interest laws of the State of California and are required to submit a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests, within 30 days of assuming office. Form 700 must be filed annually thereafter, and within 30 days of leaving office as well.

In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 and AB 1661 appointed members are required to attend Public Service Ethics Training and Harassment Prevention Training upon appointment and every two years thereafter.

Do you agree to file all required statements and complete training in a timely manner as prescribed by law or the City's Conflict of Interest Code? Yes X No. __ _ 4) Reason for Interest In the Position:

I like Carmel the way tt is, but I also recognize that the essence of Carmer, aeslhetlc Is Its history of innovative and traditional archttecture and design existing side by side. I find this interplay, and resulting diversity of styles within our beautiful natural setting, what makes the city so visually Interesting.

I believe thal Carmel is realy about the people that live here and that the city's biggest challenges have to do with navigating a path fOIWBrd whle dealing with our ·empiy houses· problem and making the city more accessible to and attractive for lul�Ume residents. This has to be managed In concert with the realities of our tourism-dependent revenue streams and within the larger conteld of our neighboring jurisdictions and environmental considerations, both legal and aesthetlc.

We
commercial
are at a juncture where planning decisions made now wll have tremendous long-term effect on our civic buildings and infrastructure, the look and feel of our and residential atNS, and remaking Camel as a truly residential city. I can be a valuable part of the Planning Commissions mandate to both preserve what - have and forge the wey ahead
5) Please list any relevant qualifications or experience you possess that would enhance the mission and goals of the board(s) or commlsslon(s) for which you are applying:

I am very familiar with every inch of Carmel, having walked and analyzed every street throughout my involvement in the address project. I have looked at every house, understand the interplay between residential and commercial and park areas, know all the streets, etc. This experience has informed and tempered my understanding of Carmel's essential character.

I have always been interested in planning and architecture and have personally been involved in designing a house from scratch, going through several renovation processes (including permitting, contracting, and oversight), including our present home in Carmel. I have the necessary familiarity to read architectural plans and elevations and consider materials lists, window schedules, etc. Over the last couple of years I have actively followed activities of the Planning Commission and City Council in relation to building, permitting, design guidelines, etc. I've engaged on both the ODDS and the design guidelines document and am currently involved with the Ad Hoc/ Production Team for Residential Guidelines. 6) Please list any local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies In which you have an Investment, or serve as an officer or director:

N/A
ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

3} All members of boards and commissions are subject to the Conflict of Interest law'S of ttle State of California and are required to submit a Form 700 Stateme11t of Economic Interests, wi1hin 30 days of assuming office. Form 700 must be fi!ed annually thereafter. and wiihin 30 days of leaving office as well. ln accordance with Assembly am {AB) 1234 and AB 1661 appointed members are required to attend Public Service Ectiics Training and Harassment Prevention Training upon appoinm,ent and: every two years ihereafter.

Do you agree to file all required statements and complete training in a timely manner a prescribed by law or the City's Conflict of lnt«est Code? YesX No __ _ 4) Reason for lntere.st in the Position:

I am interested in the position on the Building Code of Appeals because I value thoughtfut community focused decision-making that preserves the character. safely, and long-term sustainab�ity of the cit_y. As .a professional Fire Captain and Paramedic with over 15 years experience. I have seen firsthand how planning. irfrastructure. and environmenlat considerations directly impact public s.arety, emer
gency response. and community :resilience; par1icufarly in coastal and wildfire-prone ar,eas like Carmel.
5) Pfe.ase list any relevant qualifications or experience you posaess that w-0uld enhance the mission and goals of the board(s) or commiss,on(s) for which you are applying:

I bring a combination of public safely leade,ship and pri\Jale sector strategic ex.per,ence that aHgns. welli with the mission of Carmel's boards and commissions. As a Firefighter/Paramedic. I have extensive el(perience in risk assessment, emergency operations. Incident command and commurlity prevention. M)' background includes wildfire mitigation. building and ire code familiarity. and how land use. access. and mfrastructure design affect emergency response capabillt,es and community safety.

In addttion, my prior experience as a marketing manager m the Silicon Valtey semiconductor industry has given me a strong foundation in strategic planning. stakeholder communication, and balancing competing priorities. I am motivated to contribute these perspectives to help the City make informe<i, baia need decisions that support both preservation and responsrble g,ro\'Jlh. 6) Please list any local area associations, boards, commissions, foundations, or companies in which you have an investment, or serve as an officer or director:
1 am not currently affiliated with. nor do I serve as an officer or directo. of any local associaUons. boards. commissions. (oundations. or companies with investments that woufd present a conmct or interest
ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

MARY JO WILLIAMS. RN, MBA
Mary Jo is the former Managing Director of Medical Group Support Services for The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG). In this capacity, Mary Jo was the outpatient Nursing Leader for the Northern Carlfomia Region of Kaiser Permanente. She had accountability for the scope of nursing practice of the thousands of outpatient Registered Nurses, Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nurse Midwives, and Nurse Anesthetists working across multiple settings of Kaiser Permanente, including medical offices and the call centers, and a liaison role to the Physician Assistants working for the Physicians of TPMG. In addition, she had accountability for defining the appropriate roles for LVNs, Medical Assistants and other support staff employed by TPMG.

Mary Jo had a key leadership role in labor relations with the California Nurses' Association and other labor unions, representing TPMG leadership. With her physician partners, she led numerous clinical and nonclinical regional initiatives to improve performance and to address changes in legislation. She participated and helped lead responses to other issues affecting the region as a whole, such as disaster preparedness and response.

Mary Jo retired in 2018, and is enjoying her more relaxing life on the Central Coast.

Employment history
French Hospital and Health Plan, 1976 - 1989
Various roles - hospital staff RN, outpatient offices RN, primary care manager The Permanente Medical Group. Kaiser Permanente
San Francisco Medical Center; 1989- 2000
Unit Manager, then Service Director for the OBGYN Outpatient Department Richmond Medical Center, 2000 - 2004
Director of Nursing Practice and Assistant Medical Group Administrator Regional Offices, 2004 - 2018
Regional Director of Nursing Practice 2004 - 2006
Managing Director; Medical Group Support Services, 2006 - 2018 Salud Paro Lo Gente, 2024
Nursing Practice Consultant
Education
Santa Clara University, 1973
Bachelor of Arts Degree, Spanish
Minor in Italian and English Literature
ATTACHMENT 2

2 City College of Son Francisco, 1976
Associate of Arts Degree, Nursing
Golden Gate University, 1996
Masters of Business Administration, emphasis in Health Care Volunteer Work
Kaiser Permanente School of Allied Health
Board Member 2016-2018
Monterey County Public Health Deportment
Volunteer Registered Nurse, Covid Immunization Clinics, 2021-2022 Monterey County Public Library
Adult Literacy Tutor, 2022-2024
Carmel By the Seo
Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees member (currently President of the Board). 2023- present
ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council
Staff Report
June 1, 2026

CONSENT AGENDA
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Mary Bilse, Environmental Programs Manager APPROVED BY: Brandon Swanson, Acting City Administrator SUBJECT: Letter authorizing the County of Monterey to execute all documents necessary to continue implementing the annual Used Oil Payment Program on behalf of the City during Fiscal Year 2026/27
RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the Acting City Administrator to send a letter authorizing the County of Monterey to execute all documents necessary to continue implementing the annual Used Oil Payment Program on behalf of the City during Fiscal Year 2026/27 BACKGROUND / SUMMARY:

For over 15 years, the Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau has successfully collaborated with the City and other local municipalities to implement a countywide Used Oil and Filter Recycling Program. This program is funded by an Oil Payment Program (OPP) grant from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau has served as the administrator of the OPP on behalf of all cities and the unincorporated area of the County, resulting in the leveraging of resources and consistency in outreach efforts.

In FY 2024/25, the County collected 152,356 gallons of oil and 14,209 used oil filters for proper disposal. The County also ran 800 ads through various media outlets, including radio, newspaper and online. In addition, the filter exchange program paid for 142 filters for residents that were given vouchers when recycling used oil filters during Community Clean Up Days. Additional program highlights are included in the County’s letter to the

City (Attachment 1). In order to continue this successful partnership, the City must provide a letter each year (Attachment 2) authorizing the Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau to act as the lead agency to administer the OPP 17 Program Cycle.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The program is funded by a CalRecycle grant and does not impact the City’s budget.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

Council authorized sending similar letters on July 6, 2021, June 6, 2022, July 11, 2023, July 9, 2024, and June 2, 2025 to continue the Used Oil Program.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Letter from Monterey County Department of Health and Annual Report for FY 24/25

2. Draft Letter to Monterey County from City Adminitrator

HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Elsa Mendoza Jimenez
Director of Health Services
County of Monterey
1270 Natividad Road
Salinas, CA 93906
O: 831 755 4500
F: 831 755 4797
CountyofMonterey.Gov
May 7, 2026
Brandon Swanson
City Administrator
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
PO Box CC
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Dear Mr. Swanson:

Each year the Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau (EHB) requests a letter of authorization from the City Administrator or designee authorizing the County of Monterey to execute all documents necessary to continue to implement the annual Oil Payment Program Cycle 17 (OPP17) on your city’s behalf. A sample letter is enclosed for your convenience. We request that you return the signed authorization letter to our office by June 6, 2026, to ensure timely submittal to CalRecycle.

For over 15 years, the EHB has administered a successful countywide Used Oil & Filter Recycling Program on behalf of all cities and the unincorporated area of Monterey County. The Program is funded by a grant from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and supports used oil and filter recycling activities throughout the County. Enclosed is the FY 2024-2025 Annual Report Summary detailing the activities, outreach events and volume collected as a result of this program. Below are a few highlights of program activities:
• Ran over 800 ads in English and Spanish through various media outlets. • Filter exchange program paid for 142 filters for residents that were given vouchers when recycling used oil filters during Community Clean Up Days.
• Collected 152,356 gallons of used oil and 14,209 used oil filters.

Continuing to pool funds allows both the Cities and County to continue to achieve greater efficiencies by maximizing resources, allowing consistency in outreach efforts, and preventing duplication of labor. I look forward to continuing working with your city in providing used oil and filter recycling services to our community.

Please contact Recycling Services at (831) 755-8907 should you need further information regarding this program.

Sincerely,
Ric Encarnacion, REHS, MPH
Bureau Chief, Environmental Health Bureau
Enclosure: Sample authorization letter
Docusign Envelope ID: DD0E6CFD-B64A-80C8-83A6-740AEC33CE2D ATTACHMENT 1

Recipient/Jurisdiction: Monterey County Status: Open
Fiscal Year: 2024-25 Program Advisor: Xiong, Jeremy
Annual Report Summary
Oil Collection Type Oil (Gallons) Oil Filters
Certified Collection Centers 106,771
PHHW and ABOPS 28,680 8,250
Residential Collection 16,905 5,959
Oil Collection Total: 152,356 14,209
Expenditures
PAYMENT NUMBER : OPP14-23-0251
AVAILABLE BALANCE 79,155.87
Administration Indirect / Overhead Cost 7,195.99
Personnel 22,978.46
Collection Curbside (allow resident 7,255.60
Education Other 1,159.63
Radio Ads 14,000.00
Materials/Construction Oil Containers 24,249.59
Oil Tanks 2,316.60
REMAINING BALANCE 0.00
PAYMENT NUMBER : OPP15-25-0251
AVAILABLE BALANCE 93,171.00
Administration Indirect / Overhead Cost 1,430.90
Personnel 7,566.39
Collection Curbside (allow resident 2,868.16
Education Other 599.65
Radio Ads 1,000.00
Materials/Construction Oil Funnels 2,274.80
REMAINING BALANCE 77,431.10
Docusign Envelope ID: B326E22D-F4F7-4811-AECF-5BF48EC51B95 ATTACHMENT 1

Program Highlights
Theme: One of the main activities of the Used Oil Program is to promote/increase used oil filter collection. What activities did you conduct to increase used oil filter collection?
The County of Monterey Used Oil and Filter Recycling Program provides outreach and education to residents of Monterey County on how to recycle used oil and filters. Monterey County Environmental Health (MCEH) placed radio advertisements, conducted 29 site visits to local Certified Collection Centers (CCC’s), hosted 7 filter exchange events, purchased DIY kits, and continued to cover the cost of used oil and filter curbside collection. The program also continues to cover the cost of maintenance and repairs of oil tanks at various oil collection sites. • Paid for 811 – 15 second radio ads both in English and Spanish radio iHeart Radio on the Total Traffic & Weather Network focusing on the residential and curbside collection programs. Advertisements are played on KDON 102.5, KION 101.1FM, KOCN 105.1, KTOM 92.7 and La Preciosa KPRC.
• Paid for 152 oil filters for residents that received vouchers when they recycled used oil filters at filter exchange events.

Did you increase or decrease used oil and filter collection compared to last year? How much and why? The total gallons of used oil collected in 2024: 152,356 gallons. This was an 8% decrease compared to 166,391 collected in 2023. The total number of used oil filters collected in 2024 was 14,209, representing an almost 50% decrease compared to the 28,153 collected in 2023. The decrease in used oil and filter collection data could be due to the following:
• Residents are encouraged to recycle used oil at the curbside; however, many residents recycle their used oil and filters at local CCCs, this method does not let us capture and report data for used oil filter collection • As of July 2023, we are no longer collecting used oil and filters from the Ag industry and the marinas (Moss Landing Harbor and Monterey Bay Boat Works).

Oil Collection at CCCs increased by 3%, 106,771 collected in 2024 compared to 103,622 collected in 2023. Filter data is not reported by CCCs.

Collection at PHHW/ABOP’s increased by 81% for used oil collection and increased 7% in filter collection. The increase in filters collected is mainly because information on HHW disposal is listed on Monterey County’s website, as well as the HHW collection sites' webpages. Also, when staff tables at community clean-up events, direct outreach on HHW is provided to the public.

Used oil collection for the Curbside program decreased by 12% and decreased by almost 4% for filter collection. MCEH staff placed radio advertisements for the curbside program, and local waste haulers also include used oil curbside collection in their quarterly newsletters. The program provides containers and filter bags to haulers. Staff used the manifest data provided by Bayside Oil, our used oil hauler, and contacted local waste haulers directly to obtain used oil collection at the curbside.

Were there any program changes from this year to last year? Compared to 2023, MCEH amended its contract with Bayside Oil so that we no longer pick up used oil and filters from the Ag Industry and the marinas (Moss Landing Harbor and Monterey Bay Boat Works). This decision was made due to the decrease in OPP program funding from CalRecycle. In 2024, MCEH decided to focus on funding curbside collection, providing used oil kits, education and outreach, as well as hosting filter exchange events for residents of Monterey County.

If you dropped a program or method, why do you think it didn't work? MCEH did not drop a program or make changes to the program in 2024.

What program or method has worked best for you?
Hosting filter exchange events has worked best for providing direct education and outreach to residents who are do-it-yourselfers. During these events, residents have access to Monterey County staff and can ask questions or address concerns about the used oil and filter collection program.

Did you develop any best practices or techniques to share with other grantees? Not at this time.

What can CalRecycle do to help you? Or what would you like to see modified to better assist you? The County of Monterey would like to collaborate with Certified Collection Centers (CCC) more often to gather their oil filter collection with the help of CalRecycle.
“I certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that I have read the Oil Payment Program (OPP) Guidelines (Guidelines), that the submitted Annual Report and Expenditure information is correct, and that all funds received under the OPP have been expended in accordance with the Guidelines.” X
Date
Print Name
Signature of Signature Authority (as authorized in Resolution) or Authorized Designee (as authorized in Letter of Designation)
IMPORTANT! Recipient must print out this page, obtain Signature of Signature Authority, upload signed document to the LoGOPP system, and retain the original document in Recipient's cycle file.

Annual Report Certification
Docusign Envelope ID: B326E22D-F4F7-4811-AECF-5BF48EC51B95 Elsa Jimenez
8/13/2025 | 10:35 AM PDT
ATTACHMENT 1

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

POST OFFICE BOX CC
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 620-2070
June 3, 2026
Mr. Ric Encarnacion, REHS, MPH
Bureau Chief of Environmental Health Bureau
County of Monterey
1270 Natividad Road
Salinas, CA 93906
Subject: Authorization Letter for the Used Oil Payment Program 17th Cycle, FY 2026/27 As the Acting City Administrator of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, I am authorized to contractually bind the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Pursuant to this authority, I hereby authorize the County of Monterey to submit a regional application and act as Lead Agency for the Used Oil Payment Program Cycle 17 for Fiscal Year 2026/27 on behalf of the City of Carmel-by-theSea.

The County of Monterey is hereby authorized to execute all documents necessary to implement the grant under the Used Oil Payment Program Cycle 17 (OPP 17).

For any questions, please contact Mary Bilse, Environmental Programs Manager, at 831-620- 2078.

Sincerely,
Brandon Swanson
Acting City Administrator
P.O. Box CC
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Cc: Shari Carlet, Acting Director of Public Works
Mary Bilse, Environmental Programs Manager
ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council
Staff Report
June 1, 2026

ORDERS OF BUSINESS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Todd Trayer, Police Chief
APPROVED BY: Brandon Swanson, Acting City Administrator SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation regarding Parking Management through paid parking and provide direction to staff
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a Presentation regarding Parking Management through paid parking and provide direction to staff
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY:

Executive Summary
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has periodically explored managed parking and paid parking concepts over the past several decades in response to ongoing concerns related to parking availability, congestion, visitor circulation, and traffic flow within the village. Multiple studies, pilot programs, and public outreach efforts have been conducted over the years, with varying levels of public support and implementation success.

This report provides a brief history of prior managed parking efforts, summarizes existing parking conditions within key areas of the City, and outlines potential benefits and challenges associated with a modern paid parking management program. The report also discusses current technology options, operational considerations, estimated implementation costs, potential program carve-outs, and additional potential program options that could be considered should the City Council wish to pursue additional analysis.

The intent of this discussion is to evaluate whether a managed parking approach could improve parking turnover, increase parking availability, reduce circling traffic, and enhance the overall visitor and resident experience while remaining consistent with the character of Carmel-by-the-Sea, not solely a conversation about revenue generation.

At this time, staff is seeking general direction from the City Council regarding whether further research and analysis related to a managed parking program should be pursued, and if so, provide staff with additional direction on specific geographic areas and operational approaches to focus on (e.g.: where, how many spaces, and why type of system).

Discussion
History:

In 1999, at the recommendation of a Parking Committee, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea contracted with Walker Parking Consultants to conduct a parking study for the City (Attachment 1). The resulting study provided ways for the City to regulate parking and impact traffic in the city through a managed paid parking program.

The Walker studies found:
• Carmel-by-the-Sea parking was among the highest occupancy observed in all of California.
• There is sufficient parking, but an imbalance between on and off-street lots. • Visitors were likely to have difficulty finding parking. • Significant traffic for those who search for parking. • Parking management would reduce visitor frustration and congestion. • Spaces for visitors likely occupied by employees of businesses in Carmel-bythe-Sea.

In 2002, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the implementation of paid parking in the business district based on recommendations from the Walker study. The plan was to install meters on city streets and charge $0.50 cents per half hour with unlimited parking for residents who purchased a $60 residential sticker. This plan also allowed for employees to purchase a $5.00 permit to park in designated employee-only parking areas.

Greg D’Ambrosio - Assistant City Administrator, was quoted in the September 13-19 2002, Pine Cone as saying; “It raises substantial money (as much as $1.5 million net for the City), and manages many of the historical problems with traffic congestion, noise and other things that have bothered the community and residents for years and years.” Although the City set up two streets with meters as a test program to demonstrate the effectiveness of paid parking, the City ended up removing them and not proceeding with permanent implementation after heavy criticism and opposition

from the community. There was considerable pushback due to the high costs for residents and the aesthetics of the “135 parking stations”. ~The Carmel Pine Cone, September 13, 2002, P.1 & 19.

In 2012, once again, the City Council began to take steps to try and improve downtown traffic and parking issues by approving a $233,000 Capital Improvement Plan to address congestion and parking in the village. In 2013, with those funds, the City again hired Walker Parking Consultants to assess the City’s current traffic and parking issues and provide analysis to the City. The 2013 Walker report (Attachment 2) offered recommendations to the City for addressing the traffic and parking concerns at the time, which were similar to those mentioned in the 1999 report. The recommendation by Walker was to remove the paid parking in the North Lot of Sunset Center and install paid parking downtown. The Council approved a pilot program to gauge the effectiveness of paid parking. The pilot program consisted of a single meter placed midblock along each of the ten blocks lining Ocean Avenue. City staff and Council in anticipation of the pilot program conducted multiple public workshops on paid parking as well as stakeholder outreach with businesses through face to face communication and partnering with the Carmel Chamber of Commerce. To aid employees, business owners and visitors, all day free parking spaces were created in areas surrounding the business district. This included the removal of the paid parking in the Sunset Center North Lot.

Ultimately, in early 2014, the City Council granted final approval for moving forward with the parking pilot program to include 10 kiosks placed along Ocean Avenue. During the pilot program, the City contracted with concierge personnel to walk along Ocean Avenue and assist motorists with the use of the kiosks. During the pilot program, a significant amount of time was spent to educate users, employees, and business owners. It is important to note that the intent of the 2014 paid parking pilot program was to increase traffic flow, minimize traffic and reduce the number of parking citations being issued to visitors (Council had previously raised the issue about the number of visitors receiving a $25.00 citation for violating parking time limits in the village). Once again, public opposition was strong and was a significant factor in the removal of paid parking. In late 2014, the decision was made to eliminate parking meters from the business district and not complete the pilot program as a result of a number of business owners and residents who objected to the City installing paid parking. The parking meters in the Sunset Center North lot, which were removed as part of the pilot program to ensure adequate free parking, were never reinstalled. This resulted in an approximately $163,000 loss per year in revenue for the city. Council then adopted an increase in parking fines from $25.00 to $40.00 for overtime parking violations.

In 2024, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea facilitated the (PACT) Parking and Congested Traffic Program in an effort to inform residents of a managed parking program and seek feedback through meetings, surveys, and presentations. https://ci.carmel.ca.us/pactprogram A brief of a business survey conducted by MRG Facilitator Brian Uhler and the

Chamber of Commerce Executive Director (Attachment 3) as part of the PACT Program found):
• 69% surveyed felt Carmel-by-the-Sea’s 2 hours parking made customers feel rushed.
• 53% felt a $2 fee was reasonable at that time.
• 61% felt a 10 a.m. start time for enforcement was appropriate. • The majority surveyed voted for 3 to 4 kiosks/pay stations The Carmel Residents Association (Attachment 4) had a mixed response to a paid parking program survey they conducted in 2023. Then, 68% were not “OK” with the proposed parking management program.

The paid parking program that was discussed as part of the PACT Program never came to fruition.

Existing Conditions:

Currently, parking in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea primarily operates under a traditional free-parking model with exceptions for tour bus parking on Junipero Avenue.

Spaces are either all day, or time-limited (e.g.: “ 2 hour or 30-minute zone”). Generally, the two areas of the city that see the most visitor use are the greater commercial area between 8th and 6th Avenues, and the areas which provide the best beach access.

Given the transient nature of these two areas, they could be the most appropriate locations to consider additional parking regulations, including paid parking. The following is a breakdown of available parking in the currently proposed focus area. This does not represent all parking in Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Core Commercial Area (Generally Junipero St. to Monte Verde (East to West); 5th Ave to 8th Ave. (North to South) These numbers are approximate:
(701) Standard 2 hour parking limit
(68) - Vista Lobos parking lot
(135) - Sunset Center North parking lot (212 total spots at the overall Sunset Center) Potential Benefits and Challenges:

It should be noted that the intent of a managed parking program is traffic flow management, turnover, space availability, and reducing circling traffic. This program is not centered solely on revenue generation.

Paid parking is a complex topic. The following is a summary of the most compelling potential benefits and challenges. If the City Council wishes to further pursue a paid parking program, staff will more deeply explore the areas discussed below, along with others that may arise during research and analysis.

Benefits - Depending on the scope and scale, implementation of a paid parking program could potentially supplement City revenues annually by over two-million dollars ($2M), contingent on pricing structure, occupancy rates, and enforcement models. This estimate is based on calculations from the previous Walker Parking reports and contemporary hourly charges. This additional revenue could be used by the City Council to improve services to residents, pay down the City’s unfunded liability, maintain strategic reserves, fund deferred capital maintenance projects, or numerous other items to benefit the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. In addition to fiscal benefits, the Walker studies point out that paid parking, as a parking management system, can also help to ease congestion and availability issues in high demand parking areas. Walker concludes that paid parking should not be viewed only as a generator of revenue, but should also be viewed as a way to ensure the availability of parking spaces when and where people need them. The report states that the biggest issue is typically not a lack of parking spaces but an uneven distribution of the demand for parking spaces, which in some cases can be resolved through a paid parking system.

Challenges - Enacting a paid parking program would not be without challenges. First, as evidenced by previous attempts to implement a program, community consensus has historically not existed regarding the best approach. To be successful, a paid parking program has required a great deal of stakeholder outreach and public hearings.

Second, a paid parking program also poses regulatory challenges should the Council wish to expand the program to the Del Mar beach parking area (approximately 112 additional spots). The Coastal Access and Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan (Sections G4-1, P4-1, P4-7, P4-44) and the Zoning Title (Section 17.20.180) contain language about retaining free parking and access to the beach.

In prior years, City staff reached out to Coastal Commission staff for some preliminary feedback on the concept of paid parking, particularly along the beach. In the past, when paid parking was being considered, the Coastal Commission staff felt that converting spaces near the beach to paid parking would be generally inconsistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP), and would not be supportive of the concept without significant mitigations to offset the reduction in free coastal access. For example, Coastal Commission staff has previously stated that if 100% of the revenue generated by the paid parking went to improve the beach overlay area of the city it may be more supportable (e.g.: pathway maintenance, landscaping, restroom maintenance, construct boardwalk from Del Mar to 8th Avenue, etc.). Because of this, staff does not recommend starting a program at Del Mar or along Scenic if Council wishes to move forward with some kind of program. These areas could be assessed should the City Council wish to expand an established managed parking plan later in the future.

Finally, execution of the program itself could pose challenges from the perspective of how to actually charge people for parking. If not done properly, parking pay stations could be unsightly and inconsistent with the character of the village. Technology is available that allows transactions to take place completely via smart phones, which removes the need for excessive numbers of physical pay stations, but introduces challenges when members of the public may be unfamiliar with or not have access to

certain levels of technology.

Managed Parking Additional Costs
Current California accessibility and payment regulations generally require some form of physical payment option to accept payment. This means that solely smartphoneimplemented systems will still require some option for a community member to pay at a pay station, especially to remain accessible for those without smartphones or who require accessibility, such as ADA compliant payment options. See Attachment 5 - California Vehicle Code Section 22508 (e).

Initial costs generally run approximately $8,750 per pay station, which today includes a series of normal fees, taxes, and potential tariff charges. The footprint for a pay station is smaller than in years past and as technology advances, and is likely to become even smaller. After year 2 of a program, operating costs move to approximately $5,000 per year for the service of these pay stations. The other services offered by companies usually come out of a transaction fee that is paid by the user (not the City) which averages from 0.40 cents to 0.45 cents, depending on the vendor.

The main additional costs are the parking compliance functions. The presentation by staff will cover the current intake of parking citations over the past years. This report touches on the option for Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council to potentially evaluate the City's current $40 citation fee. For example, as of this report, the standard fee for a timed-spot violation in the City of Monterey is $48. These fees help capture the time, equipment, personnel expenses used in Carmel-by-the-Sea’s attempt to keep parking transitions flowing.

Options:

As previously mentioned, staff is seeking a “yes” or “no” direction from the City Council at this point as to whether the merits of a parking management program through paid parking should be analyzed in detail and brought back to Council. There are options that the Council needs to consider and provide direction regarding the type of program the City may be interested in. These options will help to focus staff time if there is a desire to pursue a program. One goal, as we decipher a new managed parking plan, is to ensure there is no change in current parking for our Carmel-by-the-Sea residents.

They currently have free 2 hour parking downtown and an additional hour of parking if they purchase a parking pass through the Police Department ($35) in this core parking zone.

1. Paid parking in the commercial area only – With two previously completed reports by Walker Parking Consultants, and subsequent pilot programs, parking in the commercial area of the City is by far the most well understood. This previous research would provide staff a solid foundation to begin working from. However, as with previous attempts, business owners and residents have not fully supported paid parking, stating publicly that it falls outside the unique character of Carmel. Based on the history of

those pilot programs, public support may continue to be a factor in the successful integration of paid parking in the commercial area. Recently, there has been renewed public interest in revisiting managed parking concepts from many residents and business owners. This presentation shows multiple options with one being approximately 701 spaces in the core downtown area.

2. This presentation also includes a smaller pilot program consisting of approximately 86 parking spaces. This pilot provides an additional perspective on the potential impacts of implementing a limited managed parking program, including considerations related to parking utilization, user experience, and the overall financial effects of the program.

3. Other – The City Council may wish to explore a differently focused paid parking program, geographic layout, or overall configuration. This could include exploring the Del Mar lot, and tackling the potential regulatory challenges associated with the Coastal Act.

4. Maintain the current approach and allow parking enforcement operations additional time to fully develop and stabilize before considering implementation of a managed parking program.

Direction
Staff is seeking the following direction:
• Is the City Council interested in staff moving forward with further research and analysis on the merits of a parking management through a paid parking program in the City of Carmel-by-the-sea?
FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff work associated with developing a program is included in the FY25-26 Operating Budget. Future costs of a parking management program are unknown, until the scope and scale of a program is defined by City Council.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. August 1999 Walker Parking Consultants - Multi-Space Meter Parking Study

2. 2013 Walker Parking Study

3. Carmel Chamber of Commerce business letter-survey

4. CRA Resident Poll August 2023 results

5. California Vehicle Code Section 22508

6. Parking Management Program Presentation Slides

I
WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS

MULTI-SPACE METER

PARKING STUDY

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

SCHf.UMBERGER

TEST & TRANSACTIONS

MUNICIPALITIES SOLUTIONS
ATTACHMENT 1

•· .) If

DOWNTOWN CARMEL BY-THE-SEA
• WALKER

MULTI-SPACE METER PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS
' • PROJECT #37-7106.00/ AUGUST 12, 1999 f1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I TABLE OF CONTENTS
., .\ INTRODUCTION 1 •

STUDY AREA
,, ON STREET PARKING OCCUPANCIES
' OFF STREET PARKING OCCUPANCIES 4
' TOUR BUS PARKING 4 • SURVEY OF COMPARABLE CITIES 4 , REASONS FOR INSTALLING PARKING METERS 4 • HOW DO MULTl·SPACE METERS WORK? f) ADVANTAGES OF MULTl·SPACE METERS ,_ i,1 MULTI-SPACE METER LOCATIONS 7 f1 CAPITAL COSTS 9
,\ PARKING RATES RECOMMENDATION 9
, PARKING INCOME PROJECTIONS 9
.) DISPLACEMENT OF EMPLOYEE PARKERS 10
" OPERA TING EXPENSE PROJECTIONS l 1
, ,, •

APPENDIX
' TABLE Al
- ON-STREET PARKING OCCUPANCY
,, Ii TABLE A2
- ON·STREET PARKING OCCUPANCY LIST OF FIGURES
• Figure l : Study Area 3
TABLE A·3 - OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES Figure 2: Off·Street Parking Facilities 5 Ii Figure 3: Multi·Spoce Meter Placement
8 t EQUIPMENT PICTURES

I LIST OF TABLES
I Table l: SuNey al Comporoble Cities 6
Table 2: Capitol Cost Estimate 9
• Tobie 3: Income Projections 10
t Table 4: Operating Expense Projections 11
•
I
I
I
t
I
I
ATTACHMENT 1

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
t
t
•
•
t

DOWNTOWN CARMEL BY-THE-SEA

MULTI-SPACE METER PARKING STUDY
PROJECT #37-7106.00/ AUGUST 12, 1999
• Walker Parking Consultants' field personnel conducted parking occupancy counts of all on-street parking spaces (Friday, May 22) and off-street spaces (Tuesday, June 22) in downtown Carmel-ByThe-Sea. Peak occupancies reached 88% (on-street) and 70% (offstreet) . • The occupancies recorded above would have been even higher on Saturdays or on summer weekdays .
• On-street parking is considered fully occupied when occupancies reach 90%, since it is harder to find the last spaces and motorists hunting for them can create traffic congestion .
• All of the parking in the downtown area (with the exception of the Sunset Center pay lot) is free and most of the spaces are limited to 90 minutes .
• Free parking encourages downtown employees to park in the close-in spaces and move their cars from space to space to avoid a parking citation. This prevents visitors to the downtown area from finding convenient parking .
• Many visitors (when they do find a convenient parking space) want to park longer than the 90 minute limit .
• We have recommended the installation of multi-space parking meters, which (in coniunction with providing permit parking areas for downtown employees) would accomplish the following goals:

Increase the availability of convenient downtown parking for visitors to the City;
Allow visitors to park for an unlimited time without the fear of receiving a costly parking citation;
Provide specific on-street and off-street parking spaces in less convenient areas of downtown for employees at a
nominal fee ($5.00 per month);
Provide additional income that will allow the City to fund special programs for the benefit of the citizens of Carmel. • We proiect that the net operating income from the multi-space meters will be approximately $1,692,000 per year .

WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT 1

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
t
•
a
t
I
1,
•
'
I)
t
•
t
t
l
'
,,
I;

DOWNTOWN CARMEL BY-THE-SEA

MULTI-SPACE METER PARKING STUDY
PROJECT #37-7106.00/AUGUST 12, 1999
With the authorization of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea Parking 2000 Committee (Committee), Schlumberger, Test & Transactions, Municipalities Solutions, North America (Schlumberger) commissioned Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) to study the feasibility of installing multi-space meters in downtown Carmel,
Currently all on-street parking in the downtown area is free and most spaces are limited to 90 minutes from the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days per week,(l:Aost of the on-street spaces are at or near capacity most of the time between the hours of 11 :00 a.m . and 5:00 p,m. This problem is partially created by employees parking in the on-street spaces and moving their cars every 90 minutes (or whenever an enforcement officer is seen marking tires) .

Walker reviewed previous parking studies completed for the City, reviewed citation history provided by the Police Department, reviewed sales tax information provided by the Chamber of Commerce, met with the Committee, conducted occupancy counts of the on-street and offstreet parking, and surveyed comparable cities to determine how they regulated on-street parking .

The study area is bounded by 3
rd Avenue on the north, Torres Street on
the east, 1 0lh Avenue on the South, and Camino Real on the west. A map of the area is provided in Figure 1 on the following page .

On-street parking occupancy counts were conducted by Walker staff on Friday, May 21 at 11 :00 a,m., 2:00 p.m, and 5:00 p.m. A spreadsheet showing the occupancy of each block face in the study area for the three counts is provided in Table A-1 of the Appendix.

The following occupancies were recorded for the entire study area:
11 :00 a.m. • 88%; 2:00 p,m. • 83%; and 5:00 p,m, • 77%.

However, the central area of downtown bounded by 5'h Avenue on the north, Mission Street on the east, ?' Avenue on the south, and Monte Verde Street on the west experienced even higher occupancies for the 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m, counts. The following occupancies were recorded for this area: 11 :00 a.m, • 85%; 2:00 p.m. • 85%; and 5:00 p.m. • 87%. (Please refer to Table A-2 of the Appendix for a breakdown by street.)
WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS

INTRODUCTION

STUDY AREA

ON STREET PARKING

OCCUPANCIES
ATTACHMENT 1

•
8 9
It
It
•
•
I
�
•
I
I
8 I
I
lt
•
t
•
9 t
8 I
t
8 t
8 DOWNTOWN CARMEL BY-THE-SEA

MULTI-SPACE METER PARKING STUDY
PROJECT #37-7106.00/AUGUST 12, 1999
It should be noted that on-street parking is considered fully occupied when it reaches 90% occupancy. This is called the "effective supply" in traffic engineering terms. In other words, the patron may have to search for many minutes in order to find a vacant parking space .

Also, it should be noted that the occupancy counts were taken during a non-peak day and during the off-peak season .

WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS
2 ATTACHMENT 1

3rd Ave.
c..

C Figure 1 :::::,
Study Area �-
C
0 0
a
Cl)
�
4th Ave.
5th Ave.
a
�
6th Ave.
i ......_____.( L------l f □[D D D D D
o �
� .------,fa-- .-----, Ocean Ave�. _
::o .., _, a m � a,
�
7th Ave.
en
C
:::::,
Cl)
�
(")
(1)
� i
10th Ave.

ATTACHMENT 1

ft
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
t
t
•
•
•
•

DOWNTOWN CARMEL BY-THE-SEA

MULTI-SPACE METER PARKING STUDY
PROJECT #37-7106.00/ AUGUST 12, 1999
Occupancy counts were taken of all off-street parking facilities in the study area on Tuesday, June 22 between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. In addition, three other off-street parking facilities outside the study area were counted. The off-street facilities and the number of spaces for each are provided on Figure 2 on the following page. The off-street parking facilities within the study area were 68% occupied .

The three facilities counted that were not in the study area were 75% occupied. The total occupancy of the off-street parking facilities was 580 spaces or 70%. (Please refer to Table A-3 of the Appendix for a breakdown of occupancies by facility.)
Carmel has a total of l O bus parking spaces located between Ocean Avenue and Seventh Avenue along Junipero Street that are used by tour buses. The spaces are free to the tour bus companies; however, the amount of time for which they may park is restricted to three hours .

Walker conducted a telephone survey of comparable downtown areas to determine what their policies were regarding on-street, employee and tour bus parking. The complete results of the survey are provided in Table l on the following page .

The major motivational factor for most cities that install metered parking is to free-up close-in parking spaces for visitors and shoppers. In order to accomplish this, area employees must be forced to park on the fringe of or outside the downtown area. Merely posting the streets with a one hour, ninety minute or two hour limit does little to keep employees from parking in front of their respective stores. If employees do not see an enforcement officer drive by marking tires, they can park for free and do not have to move their vehicles. If an enforcement officer does mark the vehicle tires on their street, they have from that time until the amount of time allowed (one hour, two hours, etc.) to move their vehicles to another on-street parking space .

The installation of meters deters employees in two ways. First, the cost (even though reasonable for short term stays) becomes expensive over an eight hour day. Second, the enforcement officer does not have to mark tires; therefore, employees have no warning and have to pay the meter each time they park to avoid a citation .

WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS

OFF STREET PARKING

OCCUPANCIES

TOUR BUS PARKING

SURVEY OF

COMPARABLE CITIES

REASONS FOR

INSTALLING PARKING
METERS
4 ATTACHMENT 1

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
•
•
'
•
•
Figure 2
Off-street Parking
Facilities
i
l ��\f
I
3rd Ave .
s::
cii"
C/1
o·
�
4th Ave .
�
■
5th Ave
.
•
:
f ,� \
re � I
' 4 \
I d
;
C/1
re
I
. I : &' • &' , _D:::,sc:D D □
6th Ave. 0
=------ � D
' §-�����- :::,
" O liiiiiiil� CDQ.:--re-- ,---, Ocean � e e
Aver'--.---,
• � re
CD
S{2 10
. • -
'
'
�
I
-
•
•
•
t
•
t
•
•
�
t
t
'
a
7th Ave.
10th Ave.
l .

D
ATTACHMENT 1

•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
I
•
•
•
I
•
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
•
ta
[,
I
•
•
•
'
'
'

DOWNTOWN CARMEL BY-THE-SEA

MULTI-SPACE METER PARKING STUDY
PROJECT #37-7106.00/ AUGUST 12, 1999
Table 1 : Survey of Comparable Cities
City On-Street Parking Off-Street Employee Parking
/'-kters - 1 hr, 2 hrs, 3 hrs, 4
hrs & 8 hrs - . 15 + .75 per
Santo Cruz hour $ 16 to $3 l per month
/'-kters - l hr, 2 hrs, 12 hrs - $32.50/month, $90/quarter, N'onterey .25 per hour $324 60/yeor
Solvang Free - unlimited time Free
Pacific Grove Free - 2 hrs $65/six months; $120/yeor
Newport Beach Free - l hr, 2 hr & 4 hr
/'-kters - .25, .50 and
$1.00/hr, various time limits Free
/'-kters - .25 ea. 15 minutes,
Laguna Beach various time limits Free
Capitola Free - 2 hrs
/'-kters - .25 eo 25 minutes,
various time limits None
/'-kters - $1 .00/hr various
Sausalito lime limits $216/Quarterly
Free - 1 hr, 2 hrs, 4 hrs,
Lo Jolla unlimited None
Bus Parking
Free
Free
Free
None provided
$14/doy
$10/doy
$6/doy
$6/doy
None provided
The installation of meters will not only open up additional parking spaces to area visitors, it will allow them to park for more than ninefy minutes. The latter will be a tremendous aid to visitors who wish to spend an extended amount of time dining and shopping in the downtown area .

A secondary reason for installing parking meters is that the net income generated from the meters will allow the Cily to fund programs that will benefit the residents of Carmel. (Income, capital expense and operating expense projections are provided in a later section of this study.)
Multi-space meters work on basically the same theory as traditional parking meters. However, instead of installing one parking meter per parking space, it is only necessary to install one to three meters per block face. After parking their car, visitors proceed to the nearest multispace meter. Directions on the rate card of each meter instruct the parkers that they may purchase time by increment by inserting coins, currency, debit card or credit card into the meter. Once the patrons have inserted the proper amount of money for the length of time they WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS

HOW DO MULTI-SPACE
METERS WORK?
6 ATTACHMENT 1

�
•
•
•
t
t
t
t
•
•
•
•
t
•
t
t
t
t
'
'
'
'
'
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
'
,,

DOWNTOWN CARMEL BY-THE-SEA

MULTI-SPACE METER PARKING STUDY
PROJECT #37-7106.00/AUGUST 12, 1999
wish to purchase, a time dated receipt is printed from the meter.

Patrons return to their vehicles and place the receipt on the dashboard.

The receipt includes the expiration time and date; therefore, an enforcement officer can tell if the time has expired. (A picture of the proposed meters and accompanying specifications are included in the Appendix.)
Multi-space meters have several advantages over the traditional parking meters for cities such as Carmel-By-The-Sea.
• The number of meters is greatly reduced, which in itself makes them more aesthetically pleasing than the large number of traditional meters that would be needed for the downtown area ( 140 multi-space meters vs. 1,049 single space meters). • The multi-space meters can be painted or placed in aesthetically designed housings to blend with the overall architectural features of the city.
• Since fewer meters are required, maintenance and collection costs are less than the traditional meters.
• The multi-space meters allow for more payment options (coin, currency, debit cards and credit cards) .
• The multi-space meters allow for more options in purchasing various time increments .
• Multi-space meters may be powered by solar energy, eliminating the installation and operating cost of electricity .
• Patrons can park more than once on the same payment as long as they have not exceeded the expiration time on the parking receipt. • Income is not lost from patrons parking in a space that has unused time left on the meter, which often happens with traditional parking meters.

Schlumberger staff surveyed the downtown area and determined the number of multi-space meters that would be needed in order to adequately cover the downtown area. Multi-space meter placements are provided on Figure 3 on the following page. They recommend 140 multi-space meters for the on-street spaces and two meters for the bus spaces. Some of these parking spaces, which will be controlled by the meters depicted by the green dots, are currently unrestricted parking spaces.

WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS
ADVANTAGES OF MULTISPACE METERS

MULTI-SPACE METER

LOCATIONS
7 ATTACHMENT 1

Figure 3
Multi-space Meter � •
Placement
•
•
•
�
• •
• •
• •
•
•
•
• = Meters within core (126)
•
•
•
•
•
• •
po
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
3rd Ave.
•
•
•
•
•
4th Ave .
•
•
• • •
•
5th Ave .
• •
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
7th Ave .
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• •
•
• = Meters adjacent to, but outside, core (14) •
• = Meters for bus parking (2)
•
•
10th Ave.
•
_,':� .-
: ' I
• •
•
•
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT 1

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•

DOWNTOWN CARMEL BY-THE-SEA

MULTI-SPACE METER PARKING STUDY
PROJECT #37-7106 00/ AUGUST 12, 1999
Capital cost estimates for purchasing the required amount of multispace meters for the downtown area are provided in Table 2 below .

Table 2: Capital Cost Estimate
Unit Total
Equipment Cost!ll Cost
140 Multi-space meters $8,000 $1,120,000
2 Bus Multi-space meters 10,750 21,500
Utility Van 18,000
Change Counting Equipment 5 000
TOTAL $ l, 164,500
We recommend the following parking rates:
• 50 cents per half hour, no time limit for regular parking spaces, • $10.00 per hour, three hour time limit for bus parking spaces, • Free parking for disabled accessible parking spaces and commercial and passenger loading zones .

Parking income projections ore provided in Table 3 below. The projections ore based on the following data:
• Parking occupancy and vehicle turnover data from previous parking studies conducted for the city,
• Parking occupancy data from field work performed by Walker for this study,
• Quarterly sales tax information provided by the City, • Parking citations provided by the Police Department,
• Data provided by the Carmel Business Association .
• WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS

CAPITAL COSTS

PARKING RATES

RECOMMENDATION

PARKING INCOME

PROJECTIONS
9 ATTACHMENT 1

t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
t
•
t
t
t

DOWNTOWN CARMEL BY-THE-SEA

MULTI-SPACE METER PARKING STUDY
PROJECT #37-7106.00/AUGUST 12, 1999
Our projections do not include additional income that could be generated by the elimination of pavement markings, which restrict the number of automobiles that can park on any block face. Our projections also assume that the loss of income for violators would be off-set by the increase in parking ticket income .

Table 3: Income Projections
Generator
Vehicles 1,049 spaces X 1 .00 per hour per space X
8 hours X 365 days X .67 average occupancy
Buses 10 spaces X $10 per hour per space X
8 hours X 365 days X .50 average occupancy
TOTAL
Amount
$2,052,000
146 000
$2,198,000
The average occupancy of the metered parking spaces (.67) is based on the expected displacement of the majority of employees who are now parking in these spaces and moving their vehicles to avoid parking citations. We expect that many employees will purchase time when they are parking for short periods .

A majority of the displaced employee parkers will be able to be accommodated in the following parking areas:
• North lot at Sunset Center - 1 37 spaces;
• Vista Lobos par�ing lot - 68 spaces;
• Junipero Street median, between 3
rd & 6
1n
- 87 spaces·
• Junipero Street, between 3
rd & 5th - 48 spaces;
• Ocean Avenue, west of Monte Verde and East of Camino Real - 53 spaces .

The 393 spaces referred to above would be made available for employee permit parking only at a cost of $5.00 per month. These spaces will be able to accommodate up to 600 employees since employees work on different days of the week and different hours of the day. The income received from employee permit parking was not included in Table 3 since it would be off-set by the costs for administering the permit system.

I
WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS

DISPLACEMENT OF

EMPLOYEE PARKERS
10 ATTACHMENT 1

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

DOWNTOWN CARMEL BY-THE-SEA

MULTI-SPACE METER PARKING STUDY
PROJECT #37-7106.00/AUGUST 12, 1999
Annual operating expense projections are provided in Tobie 4 below.

The projections are based on data provided by the City regarding salary ranges and our experience with other cities regarding staffing levels. Projected staffing levels assumes that additional enforcement will be needed in the adjacent residential areas to protect that parking from being encroached upon by the downtown employees .

Table 4: Operating Expense Projections
One Parking Enforcement Supervisor
Five Community Service Officers 12
l
Finance Specialist (
3 l
Parking Receipts
Multi-space Meter Repairs 141
Amortization of Capital Costs l5l
TOTAL
!l I Includes benefits
Annual
Salary Ill Total
$45,000 $45,000
39,520 198,000
6,000
18,000
38,000
201 000
$506,000
12! In addition to the three officers who are currently working in this area . 131 Additional salary and benefits to convert one Finance Specialist from part time to fulltime .
l4! 3% of purchase price
151 $1, 164,500 (total capital costs) amortized over a 7 year period; at 6% interest
WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS

OPERATING EXPENSE

PROJECTIONS
11 ATTACHMENT 1

APPENDIX
ATTACHMENT 1

•••••• • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I
Location I
From I
To I
Side
Torres St. 3rd 4th East
3rd 4th West
4th 5th East
4th 5th West
5th 6th East
5th 6th West
6th Ocean East
6th Ocean West
Subtotal
unipero Ave. 3rd 4th East
3rd 4th West
Center Island East
Center Island West
4th 5th East
4th 5th West
Center Island East
Center Island
5th 6th East
5th 6th West
Center Island East
Center Island West
6th Ocean East
6th Ocean West
Ocean 7th East
Ocean 7th West
7th 8th East
I
Tobie A-1
On-Street Parking Occupancy
Friday, May 21
Spaces ::1 l :00 a.m. I
Total II
6 2
9 6
5 4
6 4
9 9
12 12
4 3
0 0
51 40
13 13
9 4
10 10
12 12
16 5
10 8
15 14
16 16
12 l l
12 10
17 17
17 16
5 5
6 5
12 12
2 l
12 12
Occupied
% 12:00 e-m. I % ls:oo p.m. I % I
33% 2 33% l 17%
67% 6 67% 2 22%
80% 5 100% 5 100%
67% 5 83% 3 50%
100% 7 78% 2 22%
100% 12 100% 3 25%
75% 2 50% 3 75%
0% 0 0% 0 0%
78% 39 76% 19 37%
100% 10 77% 6 46%
44% 5 56% 2 22%
100% 9 90% 7 70%
100% 10 83% 7 58%
31% 4 25% 4 25%
80% 7 70% 3 30%
93% 13 87% 10 67%
100% 15 94% 14 88%
92% 10 83% 7 58%
83% 10 83% 9 75%
100% 17 100% 13 76%
94% 15 88% 12 71%
100% 3 60% 3 60%
83% 4 67% 4 67%
100% 12 100% l l 92%
50% 2 100% 0 0%
100% l l 92% 8 67%
ATTACHMENT 1

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I Location I From I To I
unipero Ave. 7th 8th
Subtotal
Mission St. 3rd 4th
3rd 4th
4th 5th
4th 5th
5th 6th
5th 6th
6th Ocean
6th Ocean
Ocean 7th
Mission St. Ocean 7th
7th 8th
7th 8th
Subtotal
San Carlos St. 3rd 4th
3rd 4th
4th 5th
4th 5th
5th 6th
5th 6th
6th Ocean
6th Ocean
Ocean 7th
Ocean 7th
7th 8th
7th 8th
Subtotal
Dolores St. 3rd 4th
3rd 4th
Side I
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
Total
Seaces :: II 11 :00 a.m. I
26 25
222 196
14 13
1 l l l
7 7
12 12
13 13
17 17
5 5
5 5
17 15
17 16
14 12
15 13
147 139
5 5
13 13
13 13
13 13
15 15
17 17
4 2
5 4
lO 6
16 15
17 17
13 12
141 132
0 0
7 7
Occueied I % 12:00 e.m. I % ls:oo e.m. I '%
96% 26 100% 18 69%
88% 183 82% 138 62%
93% 7 50% 8 57%
100% 8 73% 5 45%
100% 6 86% 7 100%
100% 10 83% 11 92%
100% 13 100% 13 100%
100% 15 88% 14 82%
100% 4 80% 5 100%
100% 5 100% 4 80%
88% 13 76% 16 94%
94% 16 94% 17 100%
86% 13 93% 13 93%
87% 12 80% 15 100%
95% 122 83% 128 . 87%
100% 3 60% 5 100%
100% 9 69% 7 54%
100% l l 85% 12 92%
100% 11 85% l l 85%
100% 10 67% 14 93%
100% 14 82% 16 94%
50% 0 0% 4 100%
80% 0 0% 5 100%
60% 4 40% 5 50%
94% 14 88% 14 88%
100% 12 71% 16 94%
92% 10 77% 13 100%
94% 98 70% 122 87%
0% 0 0% 0 0%
100% 7 100% l 14%
ATTACHMENT 1

...... �-- ·--� .. -- "" .... ·-........................ ..

I Location I From I To I
Dolores SL 4th 5th
4th 5th
5th 6th
5th 6th
6th Ocean
6th Ocean
Ocean 7th
Ocean 7th
7th 8th
7th 8th
Subtotal
Lincoln St. 5th 6th
5th 6th
6th Ocean
6th Ocean
Ocean 7th
Ocean 7th
7th 8th
7th 8th
Subtotal
Monte Verde 6th Ocean
6th Ocean
Ocean 7th
Ocean 7th
7th 8th
7th 8th
Subtotal
Third Ave. Torres Junipero
Junipero Mission
Subtotal
Side I
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
West
East
w-est
East
West
South
South
Total
Seoces II ;
111 :00 a.m.I
1 1 10
15 13
16 16
18 18
4 4
4 4
17 13
15 14
15 15
16 15
138 129
1 1 10
3 2
6 3
3 3
18 17
18 18
16 15
14 14
89 82
5 5
6 5
13 1 l
13 13
14 14
12 12
63 60
0 0
7 7
7 7
Occupied
% 12:00 p.m. % 5:00 p.m. %
91% 8 73% 6 55%
87% 14 93% 12 80%
100% 13 81% 15 94%
100% 13 72% 14 78%
100% 0 0% 4 100%
100% 0 0% 4 100%
76% 15 88% 14 82%
93% 14 93% 14 93%
100% 14 93% 15 100%
94% l l 69% 14 88%
93% 109 79% l 13 82%
91% 1 l 100% l l 100%
67% 2 67% l 33%
50% 4 67% 5 83%
100% 3 100% 3 100%
94% 16 89% 17 94%
100% 17 94% 18 100%
94% 15 94% 15 94%
100% 12 86% 14 100%
92% 80 90% 84 94%
100% 5 100% 5 100%
83% 5 83% 5 83%
85% 12 92% 12 92%
100% 1 1 85% 13 100%
100% 14 100% l 1 79%
100% 10 83% l l 92%
95% 57 90% 57 90%
0% 0 0% 0 0%
100% 5 71% 6 86%
100% 5 71% 6 86%
ATTACHMENT 1

-----------------�----------�---···········
I Location I From I To I
Fourth Ave. Torres Junipero
Torres Junipero
Junipero Mission
Junipero Mission
Mission Son Carlos
Mission Son Carlos
Son Carlos Dolores
Son Carlos Dolores
Dolores Lincoln
Dolores Lincoln
Subtotal
Fifth Ave. Torres Junipero
Torres Junipero
Junipero Mission
Junipero Mission
Mission Son Carlos
Mission San Carlos
Son Carlos Dolores
Son Carlos Dolores
Dolores Lincoln
Dolores Lincoln
Lincoln Monte Verde
Lincoln Monte Verde
Subtotal
Sixth Ave. Torres Junipero
Torres Junipero
junipero Mission
Junipero Mission
Mission Son Carlos
Mission Son Carlos
Son Carlos Dolores
Side I
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
Norlh
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
Total
Spaces Ill 1:00 o.m. I
3 3
8 7
6 3
7 7
7 4
5 5
6 6
·6 6
7 7
2 2
57 50
5 5
4 4
3 2
0 0
6 4
7 4
4 4
6 4
3 3
6 6-
7 7
4 3
55 46
5 5
9 3
8 8
7 7
0 0
6 3
6 0
Occupied
% 12:00 p.m. I % ls:oo p.m. I % I
100% 3 100% 3 100%
88% 5 63% 3 38%
50% 2 33% 2 33%
100% 3 43% 2 29%
57% 6 86% 2 29%
100% 4 80% 3 60%
100% 6 100% 4 67%
100% 6 100% 3 50%
100% 7 100% 4 57%
100% 2 100% 0 0%
88% 44 77% 26 46%
100% 5 100% 4 80%
100% 4 100% 4 100%
67% 3 100% 4 133%
0% 0 0% 0 0%
67% 6 100% 5 83%
57% 7 100% 7 100%
100% 4 100% 2 50%
67% 5 83% 4 67%
100% 3 100% 3 100%
100% 5 83% 6 100%
100% 7 100% 5 71%
75% 4 100% 2 50%
84% 53 96% 46 84%
100% 5 100% 3 60%
33% 9 100% 3 33%
100% 8 100% 5 63%
100% 6 86% 6 86%
0% 0 0% 0 0%
50% 4 67% 3 50%
0% 6 100% 4 67%
ATTACHMENT 1

.,,, ...... . • q, ••
I Location 1- From I To I Side I
Sixth Ave. San Carlos Dolores South
Dolores Lincoln North
Dolores Lincoln South
Lincoln Monte Verde North
Lincoln Monte Verde South
Subtotal
Ocean Junipero Mission North
Junipero Mission South
Mission San Carlos North
Mission San Carlos South
San Carlos Dolores North
Son Carlos Dolores South
Dolores Lincoln North
Dolores Lincoln South
Lincoln Monte Verde North
Lincoln Monte Verde South
Subtotal
Seventh Ave. Junipero Mission North
Junipero Mission South
Mission San Carlos North
Mission San Carlos South
Son Carlos Dolores North
Son Carlos Dolores South
Dolores Lincoln North
Dolores Lincoln . South
Lincoln Monte Verde North
Lincoln Monte Verde South
Subtotal
Eif:)ht Ave. Junipero Mission North
Junipero Mission South
Total
Spaces
• •••
ll11 :00 o.m. I
8 1
9 9
8 8
9 9
9 7
84 60
10 10
10 9
10 10
10 7
10 10
9 9
10 9
9 7
10 9
10 9
98 89
7 4
7 2
9 6
7 6
8 7
8 7
9 6
7 5
7 4
9 3
78 50
0 0
4 4
•• ••••••••••••••
Occueied
% I 1
2:00 p.m. 1 % ls:oo p.m. I %
13% 8 100% 6 75%
100% 8 89% 8 89%
100% 7 88% 7 88%
100% 7 78% 7 78%
78% 8 89% 8 89%
71% 76 90% 60 71%
100% 10 100% 10 100%
90% 9 90% 10 100%
100% 10 100% 10 100%
70% 9 90% 10 100%
100% 9 90% 10 100%
100% 8 89% 3 33%
90% 10 100% 9 90%
78% 9 100% 3 33%
90% 8 80% 10 100%
90% 10 100% 9 90%
91% 92 94% 84 86%
57% 6 86% 7 100%
29% 5 71% 6 86%
67% 7 78% 5 56%
86% 5 71% 6 86%
88% 8 100% 8 100%
88% 7 88% 7 88%
67% 9 100% 9 100%
71% 7 100% 7 100%
57% 5 71% 6 86%
33% 7 78% 5 56%
64% 66 85% 66 85%
0% 0 0% 0 0%
100% 4 100% 3 75%
ATTACHMENT 1

.... -............................................................................. , I I I I I Ill 1 :00 a.m. I Total Occueied
Location From To Side Spaces % 12:00 p.m. I % I ls:oo p.m. 1 % Eight Ave. Mission San Carlos North 8 8 100% 6 75% 6 75% Mission San Carlos South 7 6 86% 7 100% 6 86%
San Carlos Dolores North 8 8 100% 4 50% 3 38%
San Carlos Dolores South 7 7 100% 7 100% 6 86%
Dolores Lincoln North 5 2 40% 5 100% 6 120%
Dolores Lincoln South 7 7 100% 7 100% 6 86%
Lincoln Monte Verde North 8 6 75% 8 100% 5 63%
Subtotal 54 48 89% 48 89% 41 76%
Grand Total 1284 1128 88% 1072 83% 990 77%
ATTACHMENT 1

r�•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1 Location I From I To I Side I
Mission St. 5th 6th East
5th 6th West
6th Ocean East
6th Ocean West
Ocean 7th West
Subtotal
Son Carlos St. 5th 6th East
5th 6th West
6th Ocean East
6th Ocean West
Ocean 7th East
Ocean 7th West
Subtotal
Dolores St. 5th 6th East
5th 6th West
6th Ocean East
6th Ocean West
Ocean 7th East
Ocean 7th West
Subtotal
Lincoln St. 5th 6th East
5th 6th West
6th Ocean East
6th Ocean West
Table A-2
On-Street Parking Occupancy
Friday, May 21
Total II Occueied
Spaces :: 11 :00 o.m. I % 12:00 p.m. I
13 13 100% 13
17 17 100% 15
5 5 100% 4
5 5 100% 5
17 16 94% 16
57 56 98% 53
15 15 100% lO
17 17 100% 14
4 2 50% 0
5 4 80% 0
10 6 60% 4
16 15 94% 14
67 59 88% 42
16 16 ·100% 13
18 18 100% 13
4 4 100% 0
4 4 100% 0
17 13 76% 15
15 14 93% 14
74 69 93% 55
1 1 10 91% l 1
3 2 67% 2
6 3 50% 4
3 3 100% 3
% 1s:oo p.m. I % I.
100% 13 100%
88% 14 82%
80% 5 100%
100% 4 80%
94% 17 100%
93% 53 93%
67% 14 93%
82% 16 94%
0% 4 100%
0% 5 100%
40% 5 50%
88% 14 88%
63% 58 87%
81% 15 94%
72% 14 78%
0% 4 100%
0% 4 100%
88% 14 82%
93% 14 93%
74% 65 88%
100% 11 100%
67% 1 33%
67% 5 83%
100% 3 100%
ATTACHMENT 1

-.-.--........... ................. , ............ .

I Location I From I To I
Lincoln St. Ocean 7th
Ocean 7th
Subtotal
Monte Verde 6th Ocean
6th Ocean
Ocean 7th
Ocean 7th
Subtotal
Fifth Ave. Mission San Carlos
Mission Son Carlos
Son Carlos Dolores
San Carlos Dolores
Dolores Lincoln
Dolores Lincoln
Lincoln Monte Verd
Lincoln Monte Verd
Subtotal
Sixth Ave. Mission Son Carlos
Mission Son Carlos
San Carlos Dolores
San Carlos Dolores
Lincoln Monte Verd
Lincoln Monte Verd
Subtotal
Ocean Mission Son Carlos
Mission San Carlos
Son Carlos Dolores
San Carlos Dolores
Dolores Lincoln
Side I
East
West
East
West
East
West
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
Total
Seaces Ill 1:00 o.m. I
18 17
18 18
59 53
5 5
6 5
13 l l
13 13
37 34
6 4
7 4
4 4
6 4
3 3
6 6
7 7
4 3
43 35
0 0
6 3
6 0
8 l
9 9
9 7
38 20
lO 10
lO 7
10 10
9 9
10 9
Occueied
% I 12:ooe,m I % 1s:oo p.m. I %
94% 16 89% 17 94%
100% 17 94% 18 100%
90% 53 90% 55 93%
100% 5 100% 5 100%
83% 5 83% 5 83%
85% 12 92% 12 92%
100% l l 85% 13 100%
92% 33 89% 35 95%
67% 6 100% 5 83%
57% 7 100% 7 100%
100% 4 100% 2 50%
67% 5 83% 4 67%
100% 3 100% 3 100%
100% 5 83% 6 100%
100% 7 100% 5 71%
75% 4 100% 2 50%
81% 41 95% 34 79%
0% 0 0% 0 0%
50% 4 67% 3 50%
0% 6 100% 4 67%
13% 8 100% 6 75%
100% 7 78% 7 78%
78% 8 89% 8 89%
53% 33 87% 28 74%
100% 10 100% 10 100%
70% 9 90% 10 100%
100% 9 90% 10 100%
100% 8 89% 3 33%
90% 10 100% 9 90%
ATTACHMENT 1

���·····�---·······························
I I I I I Total 111:00 a.m.

Occupied
location From To Side Spaces % 2:00 p.m. % 5:00 p.m. %
Ocean Dolores Lincoln South 9 7 78% 9 100% 3 33%
Lincoln Monte Verd North 10 9 90% 8 80% 10 100%
Lincoln Monte Verd South 10 9 90% 10 100% 9 90%
Subtotal 78 70 90% 73 94% 64 82%
Seventh St. Mission San Carlos South 7 6 86% 5 71% 6 86% Son Carlos Dolores North 8 7 88% 8 100% 8 100%
Son Carlos Dolores South 8 7 88% 7 88% 7 88%
Dolores Lincoln North 9 6 67% 9 100% 9 100%
Dolores Lincoln South 7 5 71% 7 100% 7 100%
Lincoln Monte Verd North 7 4 57% 5 71% 6 86%
Lincoln Monte Verd South 9 3 33% 7 78% 5 56%
Subtotal 55 38 69% 48 87% 48 87%
Grand Total 508 434 85% 431 85% 440 87%
ATTACHMENT 1

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
►
•
Map lot
th. � l Vista Lobos
5 Harrison
l l Sunset Center
12 Sunset Center
14 Sunset Center
13 Sunset Center
13 111 Sunset Center
3 Post Office
2 Norton Court
4 Harrison Library
10 City Hall
7 Ocean Ave.
9 Ocean Ave .
6 Ocean Ave.
8 Ocean Ave.

Subtotal
0 Beach & Ocean Ave
Tobie A-3
Off-Street Parking Facilities
Parking Occupancy Counts
(Tuesday June 22)
Total Occupied
� �
68 45
19 15
137 65
34 30
30 12
18 6
129 112
18 12
37 19.
5 4
9 8
17 17
12 12
10 10
14 l2
557 379
122 112
b Scenic Road (Ocean to City Limits) 127 87
C Forest Theater
Subtotal 121
Grand Total
1B.
267
824 111 Streets surrounding Sunset Center; no time restrictions 2 201
580
%
Occ
upied

66.2%

78.9%

47.4%

88.2%

40.0%

33.3%
"86.8%

66.7%

51.4%
80 0%

88.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

85.7%

68.0%

91.8%

68.5%

11.1%

75.3%

70.4% 121 lots a, b and c are outside the study area and not on the Area Map .

Time
3:00 PM l :23 PM
12:55 PM l :12 PM
l :05 PM
l: l O PM
2:05 PM
l :30 PM
l :40 PM
l :50 PM l :54 PM
12:30 PM
12:32 PM
12:35 PM
12:38 PM
2:30 PM
2:35 PM
2:55 PM
ATTACHMENT 1

WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS

ANN ARBOR
525 A, is Drive, Suite l
Ann Arbor. Ml 48 l 08
734.663.1070

ATLANTA
125 Town Pork Drive, Suite 37 5
Kennesaw. GA 30144
770.218.1144
AUSTIN
708 Congress Street, Suite l 00
Austin, TX 7870 l
512492 .0850
BO3TON
20 Pork Plozo, Suite l l l l
Boston, 10A 021 16
617.350.5040

BURBANK
2550 Hollywood Wa-1, Suite 204
Burbank, CA 91505
818.953.9130

CHICAGO
505 Davis Rood
Elgin, IL 60123
847.697.2640
DENVER
5350 S. Roslyn Street. Suite 220
Englewood, CO 80 l l l
303.694 6622

INDIANAPOLIS
6602 E. 75th Street, Suite 210
Indianapolis, IN 46250
317.842 6890
KALA\>VIZOO
21 21 Hud�on A <!nue
Kolomozoo, Ml 49008
616.381.6080

MINNEAPOLIS
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 425
M;nneopolis, /v\N 554 16
612.595.9116

NEWPORT BEACH
4700 Von Korman A:enue, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949.553. 1450

PHILADELPHIA
l 00 Four Foils Corporate Center, Suite 3 l 0
West C0nshohocken, PA 19428
610.940.5800

SAN FRANCISCO
150 Exec. Pork Boule.ord, Suite 3750
Son Francisco, CA 94 134
415.3301895
TAMPA
4902 Eisenhower Boulevord, Suite 281
Tampa, Fl 33634
813.888.5800
\ YALKER EUROPE, LTD.

SW. Mikolojo Street 81
50-126 Wroclav,, Poland
Ol l.4871342.6634
,,.,w.v.v,olkerporking.com
ATTACHMENT 1

WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS
October 28, 2013
Police Chief and Public Safety Director Michael Calhoun City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Department
P.O. Box 600 (Southeast Junipero and Fourth Avenue)
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California 93921
135 Main Street, Suite 1030
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415.644.0630
Fax: 415.664.0637
www.walkerparking.com
Re: Downtown Parking Analysis and Parking Recommendations - Draft Carmel-by-the-Sea, California
Dear Chief Calhoun:

Thank you very much for the opportunity to perform this study for you and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Please find attached our draft findings and analysis of parking conditions in Carmel-by-the-Sea's downtown commercial district along with recommendations for managing the busy parking system.

This report contains a significant amount of data that we collected (which we detail in the appendices to the report) along with summaries and recommendations. We look forward to discussing the report with you and receiving your feedback at your earliest convenience.

Thank you very much again.

Sincerely,

WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS
Steffen Turoff
Project Manager
ST:dpa
ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT

PARKING ANALYSIS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
OCTOBER 28, 2013
WALKER
PAR�ING CONSULTANTS
ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
OCTOBER 28, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
WALKER
AARKIN<:; CONSlllTANTS
33-1758.00
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... ii STUDY AREA AND CURRENT CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 1 PARKING INVENTORIES (PARKING SUPPLY) ........................................................................................ 1 OCCUPANCY COUNTS ......................................................................................................................... 4 EFFECTIVE SUPPLY ................................................................................................................................... 6 PARKING ADEQUACY ........................................................................................................................... 7 LENGTH OF STAY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 9 COMPARABLE MUNICIPALITIES ................................................................................................................ 12 FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 PAID PARKING AS A PARKING MANAGEMENT TOOL ................................................................... 14 PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND TIME LIMITS ......................................................................................... 15 ADDING PARKING SUPPL y ..................... Dra-rt································· ................................... 1 s RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 16 RECOMMENDED POLICY .................................................................................................................... 16 METHODS OF IMPLEMENTING PAID PARKING ........................................................................................ 17 RECOMMENDED: PAY-BY-CELL .......................................................................................................... 17 RECOMMENDED: MULTI-SPACE METERS (MSMS) ............................. � .............................................. 17 TYPES OF MULTI-SPACE METERS ................................................................................................... 18 NOT RECOMMENDED: PAY AND DISPLAY ....................................................................................... 18 NOT RECOMMENDED: PAY-BY-SPACE .............................................................................................. 18 RECOMMENDED: PAY BY PLATE ........................................................................................................ 18 RECOMMENDED: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS .......................................................................... 19 ENFORCEMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 19 RECOMMENDED SYSTEM COST ......................................................................................................... 20 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 20 APPENDIX A - INVENTORY AND OCCUPANCY DATA ....................................................................... A-1

LIST OFT ABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Parking Space Inventory by Type .............................................................................................................. 2 Table 2: Summary of On-Street Parking Space Inventory ..................................................................................... 2 Table 3: Summary of Off-Street Parking Space Inventory ..................................................................................... 2 Table 4: Summary of On Street Parking Demand .................................................................................................. 4 Table 5: Summary of Effective Supply Factors Applied to Parking Inventory .................................................... 7 Table 6: Study Area Effective Supply Summary ...................................................................................................... 7 Table 7: Summary of Effective Supply on Survey Days .......................................................................................... 8 • ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
OCTOBER 28, 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WALKER
?ARKING CONSUtJANTS
33-1758.00
Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) conducted a quantitative analysis of parking demand and supply in the downtown district of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Among our quantitative findings were the following:
• Peak parking demand was observed on a weekend (Saturday) afternoon during which time the occupancy rate for the combined on- and off-street parking system was 87%. • The on-street parking occupancy during the (Saturday afternoon) peak was 90% but approximately two-thirds of the blocks in the area studied exceeded 90% occupancy during the peak, effectively resu.lting in a lack of available on-street parking along most streets in the commercial core. Peak occupancy conditions during the weekday count were essentially the same for on-street parking though lower for off-street parking. • The on-street parking supply of two-hour and unrestricted parking spaces was found to have a deficit of 70± spaces during theAqkr, ;+
• During the lunch time peak, 39 of 9�lk� ipbces surveyed hourly along Ocean Avenue and Dolores Street were occupied by cars staying 3+ hours, this despite time limits ranging from 30 minutes to two hours. 24 of these spaces were occupied by cars staying 4+ hours; we conclude from this data that, despite a diligent enforcement effort, long-term parkers are occupying a significant number of spaces designated for visitors and customers.
• Even during the periods of the highest parking occupancy-rates, parking spaces were found to be available in City-owned off-street parking facilities and on-street parking spaces not in the immediate center of the commercial district. • Carmel-by-the-Sea's parking challenges are more an issue of an imbalance of parking demand rather than a shortage of spaces; available spaces exist but proper policies are needed to redistribute parking demand and increase the availability of parking spaces in the busiest locations.

The overall, peak occupancy rate of ·the parking system in Downtown Carmel is among the highest we have observed among the dozens of parking demand studies that Walker has performed in commercial districts throughout California. Recent improvements in parking enforcement technology would provide the City with a greater ability to enforce existing parking restrictions, however paid parking, even if implemented only in those spaces experiencing the highest demand, would result in better management of the parking system overall (and could lower "ticket anxiety" for Carmel-by-the-Sea visitors). All of the comparable California coastal cities Walker surveyed for this assignment have implemented paid parking to better manage their parking systems.

While the aesthetic requirements of the City may make the implementation of paid parking more challenging than in other cities, new technologies could help mitigate the impact of paid parking on the streetscape.

The current parking occupancy conditions suggest that during busy periods, visitors are likely to have difficulty in finding an available parking space when visiting Carmel-by-the-Sea, resulting in a significant amount of traffic generated by visitors not driving to their destination iii
ATTACHMENT 2

CURRENT PARKlNG CONDlTlONS ANALYSIS
WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS
ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
WALKER
fAR:KING CONSUtlANT$
OCTOBER 28, 2013 33-1758.00
Table 1: Parking Space Inventory by Type
Sp.ace.s by t.ocallon and eontr<:,I Spaces %total
On-street 1,511 78%
Off-street City controlledA 312 16%
Off-street privately controlled,
publicly av ailable6 106 5%
Total Study Area Parking Supply 1,929 100%
Alncludes the Vista Lobos, Sunset Center, City Hall, Harrison Park Branch Library and Post Office parking lots.
8Carmel Plaza.

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
Table 2: Summary of On-Street Parking Space Inventory
On Street Potklng Space$ t>yJyp�
Study Area Total
�II 30min II�
I 794 II 128 II 18 I
Loading Other*
26 39
No Time
Restriction**
506
Tot al
1,511
* Other includes, spaces reserved for police vehicles, spaces reserved for buses, ADA spaces, library patron spaces, and spaces timed for 60 and 90 minutes.
**Including spaces subject to residential parking permit requirements.

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
Table 3: Summary of Off-Street Parking Space Inventory
Number of Spac:es by· Yyp;
Reserved I ADA !Unreserved I Total
16 I 16 I 386 I 418
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
2 ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
OCTOBER 28, 2013

OCCUPANCY COUNTS
WALKER
f'A�KING CONSUiTANTS
33-1758.00
Field staff performed occupancy counts in the study area on Thursday, July 11, 2013 and on Saturday, July 13, 2013 in order to identify peak weekday and weekend parking conditions.

The counts began at 11 :30 AM, 2:30 PM, and 5:30 PM in order to capture parking demand during lunch time, midafternoon and the dinner hour. Based on our experience, at least one of these times would reflect peak parking conditions in a commercial district with Carmel-by-theSea 's characteristics. A space was marked as occupied if a vehicle were parked in it or if the space was otherwise unavailable.

Table 4: Summary of District-wide Parking Demand
Spa:ceType on Street Off Street Study Areo Total
Number of Spaces 1,511 spaces 418 spaces 1,929 spaces
Date of Time of Number Occupancy Number Occupancy Number Occupancy Count Count of Cars Percentage of Cars Percentage of Cars Percentage 11:00AM 1,347 89% 208 50% 1,555 81%
Thursday 2:00 PM 1,260 83% 229 55% 1,489 77% July 11, 2013 5:00 PM 1,148 76% 245 59% 1,393 72%
11:00AM 1,214 80% 177 42% 1,391 72%
Saturday 2:00 PM 1,365 90% 305 73% 1,670 87% July 13, 2013 5:00 PM 1,313 87% 240 57% 1,553 81%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
The overall peak parking demand for the study area occurred during the 2:30 PM count on Saturday. During that interval, 87% of the available parking spaces were occupied, including 90% of on-street and 73% of the off-street spaces surveyed. While 2:30 PM on Saturday represented the time of peak parking demand we note the demand for on-street spaces varied little from the peak observed on the weekday or on Saturday afternoon. However, the demand for off-street spaces varied considerably more.

Table 4 suggests that the parking system overall has enough parking spaces to accommodate peak demand, not to mention more typical demand.1 However, further analysis of the data suggests widespread areas of on-street parking were effectively not available. Meanwhile, at least 100 off-street parking spaces were observed to be available during the peak. The lack of availability of some spaces occurring at the same time that availability is observed in other spaces, particularly off-street spaces, suggests an imbalance of parking and not necessarily a shortage of parking spaces that could be remedied with the creation of more supply. 1 It is worth noting that within the Goals and Objectives of the City's General Plan, it is stated "avoid overbuilding parking capacity by using average demand factors instead of peak demand when establishing parking requirements." (02-5 P2-27). We note that this pragmatic approach should be considered when managing parking demand in the City's commercial district as a whole as well. 4 ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
OCTOBER 28, 2013

EFFECTIVE SUPPLY
WALKER
?ARKING CONSlJCTANTS
33-1758.00
It is unrealistic to expect parkers to search for and find the last available parking spaces without experiencing significant frustration and perceiving that parking is inadequate. A margin of extra spaces in the supply minimizes circulation problems so that drivers can find spaces in a reasonable amount of time.

At the same time, an evaluation of a parking system needs to account for factors that can reduce the number of spaces available to the parking public. In an imperfect world, drivers sometimes "mispark," taking up more than one space when they park. Some vehicles are so large that they do not fit into one stall. Workers performing routine work or maintenance on the street, in a parking lot or a nearby facility may need additional spaces for their equipment and their safety.

To account for these factors, Walker Parking ��)ffln/sflssesses the adequacy of a parking system by incorporating a "cushion" into the�r4<i�sl,�ply. This cushion, or effective supply factor, lowers the calculated number of available parking spaces.

Visitors in particular, who by definition are less familiar with the area in which they are parking, need to be able to find spaces in a conveniently located, well-marked area. The effective parking supply factor thus allows for a more efficient use of a parking facility. The calculation of the effective supply factor for the study area requires careful consideration of several factors.

These factors include the size of the parking system, the type of spaces, the users' familiarity with the system, and the level of turnover. Typically parking spaces purposed primarily for employees need a smaller effective supply factor than spaces intended for visitors. Visitors are less familiar with the parking system tend to have higher turnover rates over the course of a day. They are more likely to park in different places and on different days.

Conversely, drivers familiar with the area tend to park more efficiently. This tendency is because members of these groups park in the location on a daily basis, are more familiar with the parking system, typically use the same parking areas each day, and frequently park in one place all day. As a result, on the one hand, they create less congestion. On the other hand, when they occupy a parking space, one long-term parker parked all day can prevent many short-term parkers from finding a space.

The effective supply factor applied to parking spaces can also be a function of the expectations of drivers and the desirability of the destination. In a high-demand location, the historic standard of 0.85 for on-street spaces we suggest would be too low. Recently in the parking industry we discuss a standard of one to two available parking spaces per block. We believe this standard to be appropriate for Carmel given the high demand for spaces and block faces that may contain 17± parking spaces.

Consequently, in our analysis of the effective parking supply, we apply an effective supply factor of 0.90 for time-restricted and unrestricted on-street spaces, as well as publicly available 6 ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
OCTOBER 28, 2013
Table 7: Summary of Effective Supply on Survey Days
�pace Type On Street Off Street
., ..

Effective Supply 1 , 340 spaces 377 spaces
Date of Time of Number Adequacy/ Number Adequacy/
Count Count of Cars (Deficit) of Cars (Deficit)
11:00AM 1,347 (7) 208 169
Thursday 2:00 PM 1,260 80 229 148 July 11, 2013
5:00 PM 1,148 192 245 132
11:00AM 1,214 126 177 200
Saturday 2:00 PM 1,365 (25) 305 72 July 13, 2013
5:00 PM 1,313 27 240 137
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
WALKER

PARKING CONSULTANTS
33-1758.00
$fud.y Area Tot�I
1,717 spaces
Number Adequacy/
of Cars (Deficit)
1,555 162
1,489 228
1,393 324
1,391 326
1,670 47
1,553 164
During the interval of peak demand, our ove[;)J;,Q[ t the parking supply within our study area shows an overall surplus of 47± spaces (Table 7). The surpluses are many times higher during other periods when counts were performed. However, this surplus should not distract one's attention away from the 25± space deficit of on-street parking spaces. Table 8, below, provides a summary of the on-street parking adequacy and deficits by street for the interval of peak parking demand. Table 8 shows an actual deficit of 63± two-hour on-street parking spaces and seven unrestricted spaces.
8 ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
OCTOBER 28, 2013
WALKER
PA�KING CONSULTANiS
33-1758.00
We note that the spaces inventoried consisted of time restricted spaces. During our field work, parking enforcement was observed to be very active, chalking tires and issuing citations.

However, in our experience enforcing time limits is an extremely time consuming and labor intensive effort. Drivers who regularly stay parked for more than the posted time limit (typically employees) become adept at determining the timing and pattern of enforcement, moving their vehicles (and alerting others to do so), and wiping off chalk marks applied for enforcement purposes. These efforts are made in order to avoid receiving a parking citation.

Figure 3: Map of LPI Area
For the LPL field staff for Walker Parking Consultants recorded identifying license plate information from each car parked in the two LPI areas on an hourly basis with the first inventory starting at l 0:00 AM and the last inventory starting at 8:00 PM. The LPI was performed on a weekday in July 2013.

The collected data were then analyzed to determine how long each vehicle was parked in the LPI area. Cars parked for three hours or longer were assumed to belong to area employees. Cars parked for less than three hours were assumed to belong to visitors [tourists or residents]. Based upon our assumptions, we drew the following conclusions.

Overall, Walker Parking Consultants counted separate 534 vehicles occupying the 92 parking spaces surveyed during the LPI. Table 9, below, summarizes the lengths of stay of the 534 vehicles inventoried during the LPI.

ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
OCTOBER 28, 2013

COMPARABLE MUNICIPALITIES
WALKER
?ARJ<ING CONSUIJANTS
33-1758.00
Per the scope of services for this assignment, Walker was requested to perform a survey of parking policies in three comparable municipalities in order to determine how cities similar to Carmel manage their parking systems. In determining the comparable cities, Walker used criteria provided by the staff of the City-of-Carmel-by-the Sea. Table 10, below, summarizes the criteria.

Table 1 O: Criteria for Selecting Comparable Municipalities Population between 3,500 and 25,000
Located in a coastal county of California
Tourism is an important part of economy
Strong "sense of place/quality of life" community
Similar scope of services ("hybrid delivery:" provides safety and posterity services but does not provide enterprise services like water, sewer, transit, harbors or airports)
Management/governance reputation
Slow growth
Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 2013
Based upon these criteria Walker understood that Carmel-by-the-Sea has identified the following cities as comparable:
• Capitola
• Carpinteria
• Laguna Beach
• Pismo Beach
• Sausalito
• Scotts Valley
From this list, Walker determined the following cities in California as the most appropriate for parking policy research: Capitola, Laguna Beach, Pismo Beach, and Sausalito. In surveying each of these municipalities, Walker sought information on how each cities' parking policies addressed on- and off-street parking demand and supply in core commercial areas. Table 11, below, summarizes the findings of the survey.
12 ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
WALKER
PMKJNt'; CONSt.llTANT$
OCTOBER 28, 2013 33-1758.00

FINDINGS
Carmel-by-the-Sea experiences a high demand for on-street parking spaces in its commercial core. While a preliminary review of data provided by City staff and observations of the enforcement operation suggest a diligent effort at enforcement, our findings indicate that the operation of a parking management system in the study area suffers from structural challenges:
• Policies are inadequate to address and manage the high demand for parking in the district;
• Outdated and inefficient technology; and
• An insufficient number of enforcement staff, particularly given the large area that is enforced, the type of technology and the policies in place.

Walker reviewed a number of parking system foli<;t�8"N)�tices, procedures and technologies for the purpose of addressing the challengeslet{<!J ��l:Jsl of the parking system in Carmel-bythe-Sea' s commercial core. Notable among these considerations, City staff instructed Walker that any new parking policies should minimally impact the streetscape in terms of the infrastructure needed to implement the new policies.

We have determined that options for improving management of the parking system and parking space availability include improving the enforcement technology and related procedures, establishing some measure of paid parking, or a combination of these two measures.

We believe that the goals and recommendations contained in this section are consistent with the City's Circulation Element based on its policies related to parking's impacts on overall land use goals and, by extension, the efficiencies gained through shared parking. The goal of these recommendations is to maximize the efficiency of the parking system in order to improve the customer service experience of drivers to Carmel's commercial district while minimizing the need for parking spaces that may sit empty for significant periods of time, thus harming the special nature of the district.

PAID PARKING AS A PARKING MANAGEMENT TOOL
Without paid parking, popular commercial districts suffer from the same challenge. Business owners and employees arrive at the destination first and park in the most convenient and visible spaces. Visitors and customers who arrive later, and are less familiar with the area, then face challenges in finding parking as the best spaces are taking up by long-term parkers. By charging an hourly rate for spaces, long-term parkers park in less expensive locations and make way for later arriving short-term parkers.

Despite frequent perceptions to the contrary, paid parking should be viewed as the most efficient way, and usually the only efficient, way to manage and allocate parking demand. It should not be viewed primarily as a generator of revenue. Paid parking should be viewed as a way to ensure the availability of parking spaces when and where people need them. Parking availability is typically the most important criteria of the parking system. 14 ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
OCTOBER 28, 2013
WALKER
PARKIN(; <..':ONSUUANTS
33-1758.00
area could improve availability for the general public, typically improved parking management measures are more effective in improving parking availability than is simply creating more spaces because the biggest issue is not a lack of parking spaces but an uneven distribution of the demand for parking spaces between on-street spaces (for which there is high demand) and off-street spaces (for which there is lower demand).

Draft
16 ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
WALKER
PARK!Nt'i< CONSUlTANT$
OCTOBER 28, 2013 33-1758.00

METHODS OF IMPLEMENTING PAID PARKING
RECOMMENDED: PAY-BY-CELL
A credit card and a cellular (not necessarily a smart} phone is all the motorist needs to use this system:
• The cell-by-phone vendor sets up an account with/for the City:
• Signage advises motorists to call a designated phone number to pay for parking:
• Upon parking, the motorist calls the pay-by-cell vendor's automated payment line:
• First time users register their license plate and provide credit card payment information:
• The motorist is prompted to selectrrt,,-�i� parking time:
• The pay-by-cell vendor chargeis-tfre �ofist or the City a convenience fee, typically $0.35 per transaction: and
• The pay-by-cell vendor deposits the parking fees into the City's established bank account, keeping the convenience fees.

PbC systems can send a text message to the cell phone to advise of time expiration and can offer the option to add time if within the City's time limits.

While PbC systems are currently being implemented throughout the country only in rare (though an increasing number of} cases has PbC been implemented by itself, without an additional method by which to pay at a parking meter. The PbC option would provide Carmel-bythe-Sea with the attractive option of paid parking with no parking meters. However, challenges with a PbC only system in Carmel would consist primarily of the need to inform the public of the existence of the system as well as how to use it. Signage on the sidewalk in some form would likely be necessary to communicate this information to the public; something that we understand should be avoided or minimized.

Zone
Locauon
Mey 18
TN68579 Ii!> Zo1'4! 2004
End t.me· 9:22 AM
:@� � (}
�� ".i?i /., .,, - ,..

CJ
We have analyzed the use of PbC as a standalone payment system without additional payment options and reiected this option. However we believe that it is likely a component of a larger payment solution. Figure 4: Sample PbC Screen
RECOMMENDED: MULTI-SPACE METERS (MSMS)
MSMs, which accept credit cards and may also accept paper currency, have been implemented by cities specifically to reduce or eliminate the sidewalk clutter of a single space 18 ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PA.RKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
OCTOBER 28, 2013
To m1nim1ze the impact on the streetscape, Walker considered the installation of MSMs at one or several strategic locations around but not in the commercial district, such as the Vista Lobos and Sunset (Center) lots for those parkers who chose not to pay for parking with their cell phones. Drivers could be directed to these lots using signage and either A) pay for parking in the peripheral location and drive to their destination, parking on street or B) choose to park free in these lots, thereby furthering the goal of redistributing parking demand away from the busy core of the commercial district. A pay-by-plate (PbP) MSM system could be integrated with a PbC system. However, Walker rejected the employment of PbP MSMs in these peripheral locations. We recommend PbP only if the MSMs are located in close proximity to where paid on-street parking is being implemented, basically on the street.

RECOMMENDED: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERM/[;) raft
WALKER
PARKING CONSli�TANTS
33-1758.00
We note the use of residential parking permits at meters in a number of coastal cities including several of the comparable cities noted earlier. To implement this policy, City residents would register their license plates as special parking Figure 5: Sample Multispace permits, entitling them to park in paid parking spaces without neeoing Meter ---------- (MSM) to purchase time. In other words, such a policy would likely fit with the parking enforcement regimen of pay-by-plate MSMs and pay-by-cell.

To the extent that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) must approve new parking policies in the City, the creation of this policy of preferential parking permits could be subject to scrutiny or challenge. However, as noted, there are other California coastal cities that allow residents to purchase parking permits for use at parking metered spaces.

ENFORCEMENT
The proposed system would be enforced via mobile license plate recognition (LPR) with fully integrated multi-space meter, pay-by-cell, permit and mobile LPR software systems. Walker typically recommends system capabilities and performance based specifications, not system providers; however, a T2-based system brought to market in the last two years is one of very few installed systems that incorporates all these capabilities has been beta tested.

With virtually all parking payments utilizing license plates and being enforced via mobile LPR, the T2 based system is a cutting edge solution. Walker has identified only a handful of installations that have fully integrated permit, multi-space meter, and pay-by-cell and mobile LPR software systems. Most of these systems were implemented on college campuses but can serve municipalities as well. Loyola Marymount University (LMU) in Southern California 4 We note that residential permits do not help and may hinder the turnover of metered spaces.

However, they should be considered, if necessary, to get residents comfortable with the idea of paid parking.
20 ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
OCTOBER 28, 2013
WALKER
?AaKING CONStJHANTS
33-1758.00
• Improved signage directing the public to use the Sunset and Vista Lobos parking lots, which are underutilized;
• Use proceeds from the City's parking in lieu fee program to provide more parking spaces within the district;
• The leasing of a limited number of available parking spaces from the owners of private off-street parking lots for use by employees or visitors. Leasing existing available spaces is far more cost effective than building new parking; • lncenting the use of alternative modes by employees to access the district. These incentives could include bicycle parking facilities in existing off-street parking facilities, subsidized transit passes for employees, or potentially a shuttle to serve employees and visitors to the area;
• Eliminating paid parking for theOt;a tllic in the Sunset Lot in order to encourage greater use of this parking facility;
• In an effort to provide balance to a more efficient parking citation issuance process, implement an ambassador-style approach to enforcement that emphasizes compliance over issuance of citations arid takes into account the experience of visitors to Carmel.
• As part of the ambassador approach to parking enforcement, and in an effort to be more fair and customer focused, establish a system of graduated or tiered parking citation fines whereby first time offenders pay a fraction of the current citation rate and second offenders pay more per citation than for a first-time parking violation.

Habitual offenders, who typically represent the bulk of the parking management challenges, would then pay several times the current citation rate. • The creation of a Parking Benefit District (PBD) for the commercial core which would receive and allocate a portion of the parking revenue generated in the area for public improvements. Members of the PBD would also advise the City regarding the comprehensive management of on-street and off-street parking supplies to ensure that policies be maintained to distribute parking demand evenly throughout the parking system to maximize parking availability for the public. If parking spaces are going to generate revenue, on many levels it makes sense to return at least a portion of that revenue to the area from which it is generated. 22 ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PROJECT NUMBER 33-1758.00
Table A- l: On-Street and Off-Street Parking Inventories ........ B ·-�� .. J 11-t'';'.��""
1� ... 0,..., Jiio,i�.,.Ll�•}; __ t:,��.
i,· 1 �
--'- 4 °i;..._,�rJti.., .:,.· .
f.�f -'�'.

I I I f'�f -��f 'I� Junop«oA,•
C
e,,,:•;,k>od om ;;:&_ ; �-//:::':• � ?
,. �
ll
-1tF',..-1,:r,.t:/_l-i::f ;,··
l.i -..ic#'
.
.,or
."·_·T�:.: .. r-1
,
>
,.

L.L.l �'
� .
�le-:, ____ _,_�_1:1:i::d.. r:--_:'. __ :;1�=-��:�
•I
•ff· '.l ; •• .
::�alt V 1J �;;/
Oc1110n
71h
".
51h
3'
,.,,- ·v.,....;�·---
�- "
JL�'$�.;�;1_;{ },-.,":1 61 :J;�:(�f:if� .. rx;:�
�i.�\�;·:,:��� "lf;t._-:i: __ • ·1
,�;,·.-_;•: �� ,---,, r ::-·,.
,r•_;.:.:,
-"
�-!
,u". ��___!f
3 '
Sllblofal I 111 �
. .,,,,�
., .. .,.. I &lh I D
.. t. Ocean 7th
71h
�
41hStreet I Oc.an l
=�·-'" ,, ... _
:"f".IJ, �_
,.� ,,:I
..!l.
1 J a.sl
•/; l.'.:'LL:1· • ·' ::...:C] ,&
ol al �
I ... ..w.t�ui-���·1.·1t� _J .,,. I ,., f ...... ·[1hm►J.,.,.al' •• ,,.u t-l "'� Z=1 .iu-o l I I .. , .h ] _ .1 � .. .;;.i """'= lublolot _[ .t ·.p•iilli ft- � I 3
Ju�•o
Jun�o I' 1;1 ·-,l. founh Avo. I M�� I '°" C-• I ·r· .
'°" cooo, :::
•
• • - - I t . I .! , r 1
:

A.l�o [��
Jur.ip..-o l -� j
SonC,Yk.11 I Dolores ,.
llr,coln ' '
h�o
SanC_g,k,s l Dolor�
_,,
w,'
.,
1_sl ll
•·
15 "'"'
.!l'"
,�t, _ _'il
• t""·-
I
15 •I • d�..J.,, f � '
Mont�\_'�de_l is 4 t: .. h.
�.nnte V�d.• I CIJ'°'1e>va I ,1:.-.....ol
��
;1-�_ . _ _-•J;
I.cl..::�

5.::JnCarku l Dobre-a ..
_.
-"'
"
I
.

Ill
t.to�;:�:da l �::n�::8 L[ �I_ q
Etghl-.v� I Dobe I ��::a. t 'i ] I k. I 11 1
� :� CaionOV<l \. ,..!,;.)M fil 1
, .. JIIC� Q!H,tr�tf'OJ���p�Cfl
·-�_. �L ... :.2 d .� · "' ��,
A IVlsto Lobos
B IPost Office
C Harrison Library Park Branch
D City Holl
Carmel Plaza
Sunset Center (Norlt1_1 /\liarket
G Sunset Center (Son Carlos/ Mddle)
H Sunset Center (Southwest)
Sunset Center (Southeast)
Totals
Source: Walker Parking Consultants.2013
� �e��J��
OCTOBER 28, 2013
1)1.IJ� of$PO�by r:¥" ··
-�-�
;\·�.- � J
/
� , .. ·l �· ;;:· i·:
�A.t·�.-�1 '!»t"l�Clf.''
4 I
3 2
3 4
16 2 I 58
18 2 16
1 4
4 102
2 f 18
3 26
17 2 27
16 386
(JJ
18 22
8 106
120
31 20
33 418
A-I
ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT PARKING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PROJECT NUMBER 33-1758.00
Table A- 3: Parking Occupancy Counts Weekend
STREET f�OIA 10 2hr 30min
11 .. ir,� S1. 3rd,..,,..,. c.:,,,..,
Ul'Nl"ti9CAY�� "( ""'•/\'I-- n>.11er.v.e 70 2
�i,n:i. 3rd A�e!IUII. • hJ.V"'"'"'"' 106 6
r..i,,�a, -,11 ... .-. 1�.�- 79 13
BH-�SIU ,•,p• ill'O� -..�'P, 98 13
,.,� �"�" t,1,-� 70 IS =-o
�-v� -,,-'I•�- I\AV.,,...,. 19 2
'11, ---- M� a 0
tl/rdt1,,-- ,r,.... �""' 0 0
,_,·nu A.,� Ofl.llli"" Ur,c;<lk)' � 9 1
.-Av••·~- - �•e V<llldtl\'. 16 2
lljj!\�
'4.,_,.. , ........ , ;,\Jttl4?.v..tt'M. 58 3
···--· C-.01'.4'!'<• 76 II ,;entnAv�-; ,., •-� (l;l!JIIQ',IQ,, 55 4 NUt,tllER Of SPACES OCCUPIED
lOmin Lc-oding Other Roi,uls:v
0 0 3 109
2 0 I 0
0 4 0 68
0 0 0 4
0 0 0 13
0 0 0 60
0 0 a 45
0 0 0 2
0 0 0 35
6 0 0 21
0 8 4 0
0 1 I 26
0 0 0 16
SATURDAY. 11 July 1013 11:00 AM
OCCUPANCY PE?CENlAGE
Tot,� I 2 hr I 30 min I 10 min I l•>c>Jong I Other I Regcl,,r I k-lal 184 73%
115 82%
164 79%
115 87% �
98 9'J%
45 45 75%
45 80%
73 94%
115 JW,;.
83'f.
33%
46%
68%
65%
63%
50%
IL'0%
67%
75%
58%
36%
0%
50%
0%
-
-
-
-I
55% I
-I
-I
-
0% I 17% 98%
-l 25%
80%
0%
00'. T 0%
0% I 0%
-I
0%
-I 0%
73% I 57%
3 3% I �%
�UPPLY ,.oEOUACY ;::;f.fl'.:;,;
JO rrnn I 10 min I Loading I Olhe1 I Regular I Tokll
al 01 OI OI OI OI o
:� I � I � I � I I� I O I �!
II
J
;&l
27 i:;,:
9 i'T
ii
4 27
�-•..;.._ �-· -- ;.. �-•�::..� 17 2 0 0 0 38
75 57 74% 50% 0%
Tolals 673 74 8 13 9 437
NUMBER ()f SPACES OCCUPIED
STREET FROM TO :'hr JC•min IOmin Loading Olher Reaulor
.AJnic;e1o•we, :l<.J'"'i<ffi</8 81hA•1- 86 I 0 0 7 106
r'A�l
( ._ !-VM.S. !J!t,.,\v� 123 10 I 0 2 0 -c--. .,,,.._..,, ·--- ll"Vft"�);-u. 100 14 0 0 D 64
•• ' llhAv....,., 113 12 0 0 0 7
L�:.1'4· •'. . �: IAA�Ylt'lllll ' .. 78 22 0 0 4 14 M«ll•ll«di·•. l)lhA...,.,_ 17 4 0 2 0 66 �DD\Q.\fOSf' 811\A�enu& 0 0 0 a 0 62

1.214 85% 58% 44% I 50% l ,3%
SATURDAY. 11 July 2013 2:30 PM

OCCL'PANCY PERCENTAGE
Tol<JI �hr 30min lOmin Loudng Clht-r
= = 17% JO%
136 95% 77% 25% 50%
178 100% 74%
100% 00%
118 100% 92% 80%
89 89% 100% 67'11
62 86% 80% 37 35 13 22 IS 126
"'t..;1,.11�
9,S";
94%
100%
93%
96%
78%
!iU;,1-'l < ,,._OEC,UAC"r' (i: f-f-lCl:!
l,-,1 ,I I , rv I )Qr,, r I IOmir, I L0J-J•n� I r."'e' I P,w!Jr I lr,I � ss,:. I o I • I o I 2 I 10 I ; 7; I •
__9_1% I ,;; I I I 2 I O I I I O I ;·;;
·�
! 1�1 !id
06%
OJ'!!. (1: ir.1 ; -�:.
78',, 10 10 � .... � Q«t> ,, M.111<,n- � 0 ,J 0 0 0 I 25% :S'I lnifl>"-1! ......
illl'i/i,� l'tftll-� IOOlli:;t'
�·h.,_...

I STREET
�
1Toli!.1sl -c,A� l!:!!!!!!?JL_
-,.... ._
�-- '
. ·--ti
·-
FROM
l;llq�•t,,.,. �-
t"S:: �
.-a, !<llriAII�
Eltt. l(lhAl,er;.ii, ·''
l_. 12
•M-•<'V-,dl>, 19 M:>nl•V"'<:kt 61
�-11:Q 76 �··-�-\{-,' 64
- ,');,,. 24
Totals 773
TO 2hr
0 86
l:!5
97 110
74 19
I 0 0 0 36
2 3 0 I 20
4 0 10 6 0
13 0 2 I 26
7 0 0 0 16
,) 1 0 0 41
93 5 14 21 459
NUIV�ER OF SPACES OCCUPIED
30min lOn11n loiJ..ilng Olrif:'r �o:g,J,i,
0 0 0 0 0
I I 0 6 104
II 0
16 61
14 7
22 7
59 59
49 IOCff. 100% 92% Q�. Pl f.1i
45 95% 67% 27% 100% IOOll 8:.-'J; p: :/.}
81 98% 100% 91% 86% ••-i; _l_:>} f1\
118 100% 68% 67% SO% 96% QJ1i, ii!'· ;2; i
t:
:
87 97% 64% 801. 90"- /5: :!)
69 104% 75% 100% 89% 93% (-i; :�;
l.3o5 97% 73% 28% 54% 54% 91% O(J'f; ; �:.t: 12 10
SATURDAY, II July l013 5:00 PM
OCCUPANCY PERCENTAGE SUPPLY ADEQUACY iDtHCi:•
l'Jl:J1 .J0rr11n l•)n-t1n. to•yi1ng O1ht:r p��\.!/'.]1' T.-.ill Jh, 3(;Jrr1n 10 min I toudlng I 01n�r I R,:oulJ' lutr.JI 198 90% 17% 10..t'r. 33% 94% 85% 2 I 11
138 97% 85% 50% O:!'J!, :�i
179 97% 84% IOOll SO% 90% 931' {f:
131 91% 70% 100% 93% :�-)
106 95% 92% 1CO% 40% 47% 86%
82 IOOll 75% 33% 86% 85% 59 74% 74% 13 13
llt ..... ,.� . �,_, 4 4 100% 100% �MA"vtall! !1 30 43 100% 100% 77% 81% lffl•IV,� fTOilp - ,� 'tiina 17 46 100% 100% 45% 100% 85% 84% -
0 10 6 0 82 100% 100% 91% 86% 9� ,,,
I�"°"
Source: Walker Parking Consultants. 2013.
0 82
100% 100% 1% 86% �
23 103 91% 58% BS� 81%
9 78 94% 6•% 45% ao%
0 0 0 23 103 91% 58% 85% 81% 6 0 3 I 1 10
0 D O 9 78 94% 6•% 45% ao% 0 0 0 8
0 0 0 38 i,4 90% 100% 83% 86%
418 1,313 95
%
76 %
rota1, 1 1sa 1 97 50% 6 % 38% 83% 87% 1 • 1 16 1 1s 1 418 I 1.a13 1 95% 1 76% I = I 62% I = I 83% 1 87% I ,,,�, I 12 I 3 1 10 I 16 I J• I 21 I � ����!;�
OCTOBER 28. 2013
A-3
ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

Chamber logo here
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Business Community Information and Survey
To: Carmel Business Leaders June ##, 2023
From: Lance Wills, Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Brian Uhler, MRG Facilitator (on behalf of the City)
RE: Parking and Congested Traffic (PACT) Program
Dear Business Owners and Managers,
We write to update you on the PACT program and ask for your input. The City Council is considering significant changes in the business district to include adding paid parking.

The contemplated program’s overview, goals, FAQs, maps, data, financial projections and resources such as historical information and previous studies can be found at: https://ci.carmel.ca.us/pactprogram.

We understand and share the concerns raised by business leaders, some of which include: (1) aesthetics, (2) adequacy of parking for employees, and (3) the availability of parking for patrons.

We know adding paid parking will displace employees who park in the business district. Here’s some good news: 44% those attending public PACT meetings, support allowing employees to have permits for nearby “permit parking” areas (compared to 36% wanting to restrict these areas to residents only).

This possibility helps address the looming concern about adequate parking for our area employees.

Key considerations of contemplated PACT program:
• Current license plate-based parking infrastructure allows for payment by phone • Consideration for only a few or even zero pay stations (for aesthetics) • Signs may indicate something like “pay for parking by texting Carmel to 12345” • Current 2-hour signage would be swapped out for payment signs (minimal added signs) • Phone technology to patrons: “parking is about to expire; would you like to add time?” Further, to help visitors who may be unfamiliar with the technology or to provide added convenience, the system would allow for participating businesses to enter their patron’s information as a service.

Request:

We ask for you to complete the attached survey which should take less than 10 minutes. Your input will be tallied and provided to the City Council so they can make informed decisions.

Thank you,
Lance and Brian
ATTACHMENT 3

Carmel-by-the-Sea
Survey of Businesses
Hard Copy: Mail or Drop off: City Hall, Attn: City Clerk, PO Box 800, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921 Electronic: (add web address-google forms or survey monkey?) Business name: __________________________
Name of Manager or Owner completing survey: ____________________________ Contact email address ___________________________ Contact phone ___________________

1. Rank from highest (#1) to lowest (#5) your concerns with adding paid parking (use each number only once):
___ Adequate parking for employees
___ Adequate parking for patrons
___ Inconvenience to customers/visitors
___ Negative impact on “bottom line”
___ Other (write in) _______________________________________________________

2. Employees of nearby businesses use on-street parking and negatively affect my business (circle one) Agree Disagree Not sure

3. The current 2-hour parking limitation causes customers to feel rushed (circle one) Agree Disagree Not sure

4. If paid parking is established in the business district, do you believe the current regional rate of $2/hour is right for Carmel (circle one)
a. Yes
b. No, it should be lower
c. No, it should be higher
d. Not sure/no opinion

5. If paid parking is established, what time should enforcement start and end (circle answer) Start time: 9 a.m. 10 a.m. 11 a.m. Other _________ Not sure _________ End time 6 p.m. 7 p.m. 8 p.m. Other _________ Not sure _________ ATTACHMENT 3

6. How many pay stations/kiosks should be in the business district (circle answer) Zero 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or more Not sure/no opinion

7. To help incentivize local’s use of Carmel businesses, offering free parking for residents inside the paid parking areas should be supported (circle answer)
Yes No Not sure/no opinion

8. If “free for resident parking is approved in the paid parking areas, eligibility should include (circle answer)
a. Only those who reside and pay property tax in Carmel-by-the-Sea b. Carmel plus 4 neighborhoods immediately adjacent (such as Carmel point) c. All neighborhoods calling themselves “Carmel” (like Carmel Valley) d. Not sure/no opinion

9. For visitors who cannot or do not want to use smart phones, you would offer taking payment for parking (e.g. you would post “pay for your parking here” signs) Yes No Not sure/no opinion
NOTE: If you answer “yes” to this question, if a paid parking program is later established, the City will contact to you to set-up an account.

ATTACHMENT 3

P a g e | 1 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Survey Approach
• 18.6% of CRA Membership participation (132 of 710 email contacts responded). • Emailed to membership July 29th & Survey closed August 20th.

Multiple reminders provided in follow-up emails.
• Neutral introduction provided to each of the 16 topics, with most topic introductions included links for more background.
• Each topic followed by directional statements requesting views be expressed as “Agree, Disagree” or No Response.
o No Response can infer: no interest, no time, no viewpoint, or not informed enough to reply.
• Bar graph per topic shows each statement with % of Agree, Disagree or No Response • All comments provided per topic follow each graph.
16 Current Hot Topics Surveyed

1. Revised Housing Element

2. Design Traditions Revisions

3. Reinstating Design Review Board

4. ADU’s Ordinance Update

5. Police Station+ Rebuild

6. Parking & Traffic Management

7. Revised Telecom Ordinance

8. Addresses & Post Office

9. Trees in Carmel

10.Village Parks Maintenance

11.Beautification of Public Spaces

12.Capital Improvement Projects

13.Climate Action Planning

14.Fire & Ambulance Services

15.Police Protection Services

16.Scout House & Flanders Mansion

17.General Comments – No Topic
APPENDIX Includes
• Email sent to members welcoming their survey participation • All introductions provided to each topic in the original survey ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 2 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Topic #1 Housing Element – Findings
Open Comments
• Unrealistic and overreaching state laws need to be fought. • We must fight for local control. I am very concerned about the visual impact of increased density, especially in the downtown areas.
• Our City is unique and should be considered that way by the state. We do have some responsibility to increase housing. It should be on an individual basis. • This mandate is extremely unrealistic given the property values within our Village. Lack of Parking, traffic, and overcrowding are key problems related to this mandate. • The Village is built up. The mandate is firm. The City must insist that we can meet only minimal additional housing.

39.4%

85.6%

72.7%

84.8%

77.3%

48.5%

4.5%

13.6%

4.5%

8.3%

12.1%

9.8%

13.6%

10.6%

14.4%
a) We welcome incremental affordable housing
inside Carmel-by-the-Sea by including ADUs,
duplexes+, repurposing parking lots, and adding
2nd floor residential space to downtown buildings
with the 30 ft height limit and others.
b) With State laws that require qualifying lowincome housing projects to be approved if they comply with objective standards, our Village needs
strong objective standards that preserve our
Village character.
c) Understanding we must update our Housing
Element; we do not support this mandated
development in our Village that is built out with
little available land.
d) Our City must retain and maximize local control
and public oversight for new and major
remodeling of buildings in our Village – protecting
the charm of the community where we live.
e) We must prevent the future 7th RHNA cycle
from issuing unrealistic new housing for our
Village.

1. Updating Housing Element (RHNA) with plans for 349 new housing units for 6th Cycle over 2024 -2032
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 3 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • I could consider squeezing in another 50 to 100 units, but not more than that.

We need to fight more for local control, pushback vs. state, raise awareness of Our Neighborhood Voices.
• A cohesive community exploration of the viable options is always bes.t • What about water?
• Find the water before mandating anything.
• Units above commercial buildings OK. Not sure where other units might be located. • Would have been so much better if this were a county instead of City mandate. I am very against adding housing in parking lot areas in Carmel. I feel that it should be preserved with a Village feel!!!
• Our small town cannot and should not accept 349 new homes just because the current politicians think I good idea.
• State mandates for housing in a community like Carmel are ridiculous. This is just one more example of big government mandating our lives!
• Somehow encourage owners of vacant properties to put them into rental stock, perhaps with subsidies.
• This “one size fits all” approach by the state is outrageous! • Our Village is too small to add 349 more homes. There’s a lot of room in California eastbound.
• We must retain local control of our housing needs.
• We must take back local control as is explicitly stated in our State constitution. • Our downtown area cannot support any more housing, due to the automobile parking issues, and traffic.
• We MUST retain LOCAL Control.
• The States approach does not make sense for cities that are basically built out. • We cannot lose local control of our one hundred seven-year-old planning standards. • Affordable housing, yes. Mandated state allocations, no. Keep it local and true to our design standards. Protect the charm of our Village!
• Stop fighting the mandate itself-we do need housing for our service workers, elders, and locals downsizing. Put effort into making sure denser development meets City charm & light footprint.
• We must preserve the unique town character.
• Yes, in my backyard has my support.
• We should not be relinquishing strict control of zoning and building permits to state mandates.
• It is critical that the City adopt strong guidelines to protect the character of the Village.

The City needs to be proactive. At present, it seems to be barely reactive. • Mr. Newsome’s won’t be governor for long. So, citizens of Carmel must unite to keep what little Village we have left.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 4 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • I deplore the transformation of Carmel into a wealthy enclave, and I welcome a plan to bring more economic diversity back to this remarkable Village. • This proposal would effectively remove parking availability within Carmel exacerbating the lack of parking and would further increase density without available land. • Disagree to take over current parking. Plenty of opportunity with in the existing one square mile to add ADU’s; create bungalow courts or duplexes. • Very opposed to encouraging this, and that incudes use of parking areas such as the north side of the Sunset Center.
• We also need to use the utmost Common Sense when evaluating remodels and design.

Not everyone will agree on different designs but let’s use some common sense. • Strongly opposed to further densification and subdivision of lots. • State wants to take over all our local zoning and building standards and should be prevented from doing so.
• Carmel by the Sea is a unique and very small Village and should not have change its character to house low-income people!
• Second homeowners and real estate speculators should be required to help pay for affordable housing. They both have contributed mightily to the problem. • Carmel By The Sea should not add 349 new housing units. Has the City challenged how this number was determined? This exercise is a total waste of time and money given our lack of water to service even 10% of this number of additional units. • Affordable housing should be subsidized by speculators in real estate. • Don't let a ridiculous state mandate ruin one of the few fine and functional California towns. (originally provided in #17 Summary)
• Having Flanders and Scout House lie idle is not acceptable when we are in need of housing. (originally provided on #10 Parks)
• There must be allowances for affordable housing to be available - it is not just the wealthy elite who live here. (originally provided in #12 Capital Improvements) • Discourage proposals to tax/penalize part time homeowners. They pay full taxes and only use facilities when here. (originally provided in #17 Summary) ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 5 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Topic #2 Design Traditions (Architecture) – Findings
Open Comments
• Must keep local control.
• Characteristics outweigh style. If style doesn't conform to require design characteristics to support charm and character of our Village, then it will be architecture that doesn't fit regardless of style.
• Make written guidelines clear. Provide (documents) ongoing feedback & guidance to proposed plans to avoid entitled-rich-people-who-do-what-they-want-anyway lawsuits; enforce standards.
• Too much emphasis is put on FOREST. Getting home insurance is a problem now because of fire hazards!!! Some trees and enhanced views should take priority now.

56.8%

68.2%

68.2%

79.5%

70.5%

10.6%

15.9%

15.2%

4.5%

2.3%

32.6%

15.9%

16.7%

15.9%

27.3%
a) This Steering Committee & City Staff have
been revising the Guidelines with focus, clarity,
and brevity.
b) The updated Guidelines must specify the
architecture styles that are and are not
encouraged in our Village.
c) The revised Guidelines should specify the
characteristics of a structure, color, material,
consistency, and landscaping that fit its location
with modesty.
d) The updated Guidelines should direct new
construction that aligns with our forest, natural
environment, and architectural heritage.
e) The appendix should include requestor
process, check list and supported reference
materials or links to these sources.

2. Design Traditions 1.5 revised Design Guidelines Project - Carmel Architecture
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 6 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • Let’s not be over restrictive. Creativity is always good. Think outside the box. We don't all need storybook cottages!
• Metal roofs should not be allowed.
• For Pete’s sake on "A", I hope so!
• Different styles of homes should be allowed; there shouldn't be a prohibition against contemporary or any other style of home. The focus should be on attractive homes that fit within the scale of the neighborhood and the community. • And respect current owners’ privacy and views.
• City should welcome new residents, make building process easier, not a nightmare. • Very opposed to the new historical proposal - it looks more like personal taste and puts a financial burden (lower property value)on owners that should never be supported. • This survey is very narrow. Our City should have standards but not restrict design to outdated old fashioned preferences or be unimaginative. • Somehow encourage owners of vacant properties to put them into rental stock, perhaps with subsidies.
• This “one size fits all” approach by the state is outrageous! • Our Village is too small to add 349 more homes. There’s a lot of room in California eastbound.
• We must retain local control of our housing needs.
• We must take back local control as is explicitly stated in our State constitution. • Our downtown area cannot support any more housing, due to the automobile parking issues, and traffic.
• We MUST retain LOCAL Control.
• The States approach does not make sense for cities that are basically built out. • We cannot lose local control of our one hundred seven-year-old planning standards. • Affordable housing, yes. Mandated state allocations, no. Keep it local and true to our design standards. Protect the charm of our Village!
• Stop fighting the mandate itself-we do need housing for our service workers, elders, and locals downsizing. Put effort into making sure denser development meets City charm & light footprint.
• We must preserve the unique town character.
• Yes, in my backyard has my support.
• We should not be relinquishing strict control of zoning and building permits to state mandates.
• It is critical that the City adopt strong guidelines to protect the character of the Village.

The City needs to be proactive. At present, it seems to be barely reactive. • Mr. Newsome’s won’t be governor for long. So, citizens of Carmel must unite to keep what little Village we have left.
• I deplore the transformation of Carmel into a wealthy enclave, and I welcome a plan to bring more economic diversity back to this remarkable Village.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 7 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • Remember we don't want to look like a box of crackers - all the same so let's use common sense that not everybody's likes should be cookie cutter! • Document to be user friendly for staff, architects & residents. The document must emphasize retention of Carmel’s Village Character.
• New buildings should be in keeping with the character of the residential environment that gives Carmel its much-loved appearance.
• The Design guidelines must reduce the time and expense for applicants to get final approval or rejection of their plans.

Topic #3 Design Review Board – Findings
Open Comments
• Support Carmel's entire architectural history and not just English Revival. • Our update should not specify specific building styles....only characteristics, quality, fit, etc.
• Too many restrictions will have our town looking like tract housing that all looks alike.

Each design should be considered on its own merits in style. • Not sure about the brevity part of #1. But clarity - yes! • Carmel is not fairyland. Architecture is art and it takes many forms.

28.8%

58.3%

36.4%

44.7%

19.7%

30.3%

26.5%

22.0%

33.3%
a) Existing building project approvals with City
staff and the Planning Commission works as is.

They correctly address architecture & code
requirements. A DRB is not needed.
b) A DRB can ensure new construction fits our
Village and can speed up new and major
remodel project design approvals – especially for
newer owners & architects for our area.
c) Combine a new DRB with the established
Historic Resources Board.

3. Reinstating a Design Review Board (DRB)
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 8 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • Nore Winter's 200 pages are bloated, not user friendly & need to be streamlined • I do not think that large glass windows, concrete and square boxed houses or building complement Carmel by the sea.
• Just keep it simple and clear with an emphasis on a quick uncomplicated approval process.
• There should be a couple photos that show examples of acceptable modern architectural styles.
• We must assure that the new guidelines maintain the old-world charm of CBTS. • Contemporary architecture, as we have seen of late, is not representative of quaint Carmel by the sea.
• Recommend allowing metal shingle roofs which are 100% fireproof, and are the lightest roof material, therefore substantially reduces risk of earthquake damage. • I feel like the focus is not about clarity and brevity, but about control. I'm not sure I agree that all the control desired by all the people is in our best interests. Some of the statements above are extremely vague.
• Modern design should be excluded from Carmel by the Sea. That is not what brings most people here and it detracts from the charm of the Village. • We must keep Carmel unique with its charming architecture, and not allow modern styles, people come to Carmel to visit the charm.
• Awkward questions.
• Must keep local control.
• Characteristics outweigh style. If style doesn't conform to require design characteristics to support charm and character of our Village, then it will be architecture that doesn't fit regardless of style.
• Make written guidelines clear. Provide (documents) ongoing feedback & guidance to proposed plans to avoid entitled-rich-people-who-do-what-they-want-anyway lawsuits; enforce standards.
• Too much emphasis is put on FOREST. Getting home insurance is a problem now because of fire hazards!!! Some trees and enhanced views should take priority now. • Let’s not be over restrictive. Creativity is always good. Think outside the box. We don't all need storybook cottages!
• Metal roofs should not be allowed.
• For Pete’s sake on "A", I hope so!
• Different styles of homes should be allowed; there shouldn't be a prohibition against contemporary or any other style of home. The focus should be on attractive homes that fit within the scale of the neighborhood and the community. • And respect current owners’ privacy and views.
• City should welcome new residents, make building process easier, not a nightmare. • Very opposed to the new historical proposal - it looks more like personal taste and puts a financial burden (lower property value)on owners that should never be supported.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 9 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • This survey is very narrow. Our City should have standards but not restrict design to outdated old fashioned preferences or be unimaginative. • Remember we don't want to look like a box of crackers - all the same so let's use common sense that not everybody's likes should be cookie cutter! • Document to be user friendly for staff, architects & residents. The document must emphasize retention of Carmel’s Village Character.
• New buildings should be in keeping with the character of the residential environment that gives Carmel its much-loved appearance.
• The Design guidelines must reduce the time and expense for applicants to get final approval or rejection of their plans.

Topic #4 ADU – Findings
Open Comments
• A Design Review Board can meet more frequently to help builders and clients design homes they like within the character of the Village that brought most of them here in the first place.
• DRB is a must for our Village, residents need to be on this board, people that live in our Village only.
• Pacific Grove has a DRB that provides important input • Right on!

84.1%

12.1%

87.9%

5.3%

69.7%

1.5%

10.6%

18.2%

10.6%
a) It is essential that local control tied to our
design guidelines are in place with new ADU
projects.
b) Our Village should offer low-income units
option of pre-manufactured ADU's that will
receive over the counter approval.
c) New ADU’s must be visually consistent with
the property’s primary residence.

4. Auxiliary Housing Unit (ADU) Ordinance & Update
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 10 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • If design guidelines are clear the planning commission should be able to handle this. HRB has different charter and expertise.
• Don’t know enough about the powers of this board, but if it facilitates maintaining original character of Village construction, yes please. The IKEA-box style fill-all-available-squarefootage-for-maximum-investment $ styles are a blight. • Uninformed members inevitably dictate their own uneducated architectural taste • Current system is working fine. Contemporary houses that fit design standards should be welcome. Character and progress can go hand in hand.
• The Design Review Board should never have been disbanded. • A DRB is an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy. Whether the current planning process works is another question.
• Just be fair concerning each project.
• Unfortunate we are unable to duplicate Comstock type houses due to design restrictions.it is what we love the most about our community.
• Good in my view except involving Historical Resources Board. • They are overly restrictive.
• This survey does not capture the complexity of this issue and the heritage can be maintained while honoring and respecting newer designs. • Planning Commission is too bogged down with design ad has little time for long range planning etc.
• We need a design review board that helps everyone to focus on the character of the Town. • The Historic Resources board has treated the "Man from Monte Carlo" and others very shabbily. It should not further muddy an applicant’s process with the DRB.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 11 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Topic #5 Police Station Rebuild - Findings
Open Comments
• Don’t make it too big.
• Do we really need it? Let’s concentrate on the housing mandate. • We as a community need to find a way to fund this multi-million-dollar project. Top priority!
• Let’s at least have a private room where the police may interview individuals as opposed to standing in the public police lobby.
• The inside should be done first. The outside may just need painting, landscape. It looks pretty good.
• Too much money that could be spent on other enhancements to our City. • Get an architect that understands the character of Carmel, not someone who throws up modern boxes!
• Difficult to answer without the details. Do the inside first. Paint and landscape the outside is fine.
• Needs to be high-security so that if a flash mob coordinated with social media were to attack the station, it would be secure. Not a pleasant thought, but given the relative proximity to the Bay Area, it is within the realm of possibility. • Spend 5 minutes in the Police Station. It needs to comply with the law (ironically) and our employees in there deserve to work in a safe place. We dishonor our Force by not supporting forward movement on this, SOON.

55.3%

78.8%

80.3%

28.0%

31.1%

23.5%

7.6%

2.3%

43.9%

25.0%

21.2%

13.6%

17.4%

28.0%

43.9%
a) Fast-track this project, as it has been
considered more than once in the past.
b) Make sure this project addresses long-term
needs and is not a patchwork approach, even
with more time and investment.
c) Assure this new/major rework visually fits the
overall character of our Village.
d) The police facility should be minimally
remodeled only for safety, security, and
accessibility.
e) Expand this police station project to
incorporate the Public Works facility.

5. Police Station Rebuild Plans
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 12 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • We have little crime and working here should be considered a privilege. It is important to have a comfortable working environment, but spending millions is completely unnecessary.
• With the size of force and the low crime, Carmel does not need gyms, locker rooms, holding cells, etc. etc. just make it safe and clean, and function. • It’s way past time to get this done. The police station is in very poor shape. • Sooner rather than later, please.
• Both facilities are old and in need of major upgrades. • Police station should be prioritized for safety and accessibility (walkable from Village).

Public Works doesn’t need to be in prime access location? • Let’s make a decision now and move forward.
• A budget should be developed up-front so we don’t design a project we can’t afford to build. The plan should be practical.
• Get it done.
• They need to make this building look like Carmel. The current building doesn’t fit the Village. I think one at a time when it comes to public works unless they are in the same building.
• The remodel must include needed functional improvements to better improve the work and public service environment.
• Do what is necessary to provide full service.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 13 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Topic #6 Parking & Traffic Management – Findings
Open Comments
• I am opposed to paid parking on the streets of Carmel. I am supportive of finding ways to make employee parking easier and more affordable for employees. I am supportive of creating more parking possibilities.
• We need more parking spaces in a facility that could be paid parking funded by a bond.

We need more spaces, not just more money while we annoy residents and tourists alike. • Paid parking has never worked in the past, the two-hour limit is fine, meters are slightly, let’s help make our visitors feel welcome.
• No paid parking. We require more enforcement.
• The plan includes only 4 kiosks in the whole downtown district. Technology has changed drastically since 2014. There is no comparison.
• I fully support the proposal of downtown paid parking. It will reduce congestion and useless circling of cars. Although there will be no more cars and no fewer spaces, they will be utilized for shopping more efficiently.
• Paid Parking does not belong in Carmel.
• No paid parking.

37.9%

68.2%

39.4%

61.4%

38.6%

18.9%

23.5%

13.6%

23.5%

12.9%

37.1%

25.0%
a) The new mobile technology and its resulting
new revenue for paid parking in our Village is OK
but would like to minimize kiosks in this rollout.
b) Paid Parking, as newly proposed for our
Village, is not OK and is unwelcoming.
c) Incremental parking control officers and
expanded work hours are required, with either
the existing time limits or potential paid parking,
to deliver on revenue goals.
d) Possible paid parking proposals for our Village
must include net new parking space and more
workable options for employee parking.

6. Parking & Traffic Management
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 14 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • Definitely need viable options for employee parking. Vista Lobos, Sunset Center north and south lots could be workable solutions.
• Don't like idea of paid parking at all. I will not patronize businesses if paid parking area.

Paid parking brings higher level of confusion and stress for visitors, encourages economic divide & discriminates against those who can and cannot pay to be in our town. • Employee parking is a priority.
• It will discourage people to come to our town and shop and dine. • Enough kiosk would be needed so people can easily identify and use and not have to walk blocks to find.
• Residents should pay less/nothing for parking - special resident's sticker. • Proposal for car free zone in downtown each Saturday and Sunday. Reference Back Bay Boston's car free zone on Newbury Street every weekend during summer months. It's a roaring success, especially for the retail businesses.
• I think there should be a few blocks in downtown which are pedestrian only. It is just not OK to have delivery trucks, bicycles, pedestrians, motorcycles, and motorized wheelchairs, and parking on all those narrow streets.
• Eliminate paid parking; add 4-5 parking officers & staff with Veterans and Handicapped Personnel. Cost less also.
• I would be happy to pay for parking if there is a yearly fee and automated enforcement.

If I have to pay at a kiosk every time, I will drastically curtail my trips to downtown. • The City needs paid parking. Tourists don't care whether parking is free. Residents should be able to get a sticker every year that allows them to park for free (like Laguna Beach does).
• No new parking STRUCTURES to be built in Carmel proper. • Not sure what 6c, above, means, so I didn't answer.
• If the City has decided to do this don't waste $100k+ on useless studies and public sessions. Paso Robles has been a failure and they are now discussing removing it after a couple of years. The revenue didn't happen as expected and EVERYONE hates it. • I would rather pay for parking then drive around looking for a parking space • Do not need paid parking. We visited Paso Robles. Their system is fraught with problems and has not benefited the City financially.
• Exempt City residents so long as their vehicle(s) have a valid residential sticker • Oppose it and will avoid going downtown if it is implemented as most of my neighbors agree.
• I believe this is necessary because businesses have not taken responsibility to have their employees park outside the business district.
• No paid parking. No loss of parking lots currently in existence. No parking proposals that push more tourists and workers into residential neighborhoods. • No paid parking as neighborhoods will suffer from many visitors flooding neighborhoods.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 15 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • More meter gals or guys are needed. That would be an easier and cheaper and more Carmel solution, especially if we hired retired individuals.

Topic # 7 Cell Towers – Findings
Open Comments
• We need to reduce visual clutter. Have the cell companies put wires underground if they want poles everywhere.
• Let’s get the power lines underground where they belong. Then the cell issues will make better sense to be careful.
• Don’t lose sight of underground utilities to reduce visual clutter. Might help keep the power on, too!
• Once one cell tower is allowed, we cannot stop additional towers. • We cannot lose local control in our Village.
• We need to get serious about under grounding utility lines. • Verizon reception at Monte Verde and 10th is poor.
• Our poor cellular coverage is a public safety problem. Calling for emergency services is inhibited in several areas of our community and even within my home.

83.3%

53.0%

28.0%

70.5%

5.3%

29.5%

48.5%

8.3%

11.4%

17.4%

23.5%

21.2%
a) Local control of proposed residential wireless
facilities is essential. Do not allow ministerial
approval (over the counter); they must receive
public review.
b) Our Village has good current cellular coverage
today without adding more towers in the
residential areas.
c) We need better cellular coverage requiring
additional towers.
d) Residential areas of our Village are already
visually impaired by utility poles, lines and
equipment that must be constrained with all
possible controls and oversight.

7. Wireless/Telecom Ordinance Revision
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 16 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • Remove the intrusive traffic cams in residential areas (e.g., Santa Lucia Ave). Clutter, impedes pedestrian walkway, and invasion of privacy.
• Keep towers and poles away from our tiny town.
• My ATT is fine. Can’t speak for other carriers.
• We need better cellular coverage WITHOUT additional towers. • Future advancements will address coverage issues. Let the industry solve this, Carmel shouldn’t have to.
• This is a number one safety issue.
• The City has wasted a lot of money on this. Let’s learn from this and not let it happen again with another project. This was saved only by diligent public involvement. • Bury the poles.
• Time to underground power.
• Approve more smaller boosters among existing buildings. The county needs to work on black out areas in Carmel Woods. Carpenter street & west towards the police station needs addressing.
• Requiring additional towers or whatever equipment it takes to get service. • Question 7c misleads the public that if you want better wireless telephone service, you need more towers. More towers in closer proximity are for video service. • Need to underground utilities!
Topic # 8 Addresses & Post Office – Findings

59.1%

56.8%

38.6%

13.6%

30.3%

28.8%

43.9%

66.7%

10.6%

14.4%

17.4%

19.7%
a) Do not implement standard address house
numbers in our Village, we are OK with the
occasional inconvenience.
b) We prefer the privacy of no addresses, no
mail boxes and going to our post office for mail
pickup.
c) Provide standard postal address to streamline
package deliveries and to locate residences –
while we continue to pick up mail at the post …
d) Provide standard postal addresses, with mail
boxes and postal delivery to our homes
throughout our Village.

8. Addresses & Post Office
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 17 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Open Comments
• I love not having addresses in our Village...even without occasional inconveniences. • The main problem is the US Postal Service does not recognize Carmel by the sea as a City who has no physical addresses. This impacts financial institutional approvals. • I am okay with having an address and still going to the post office for mail. But I would also be fine with mail delivery.
• No address on houses; no postal delivery. Why? Our PO will disappear. Our closest PO will be at the mouth of the Valley.
• Once we move to addresses then it leads to solicitation then leads to more trucks then drones etc.
• Some homes already have addresses. Should be optional. Name of house combined with address OK.
• Once homes are given addresses it will inevitably lead to the eventual closure of the downtown post office.
• If you place a house locator e.g., 7NW visible from the street, packages can be delivered easily. 19 out of 20 homes (during my informal walk on every street of CBTS) do NOT have house locator signs. No wonder packages can't be delivered successfully. • Go back to where you came from.
• Leave as is!!
• Just give us an address so we can be found by delivery drivers, friends, etc. • Let's get going on standard addresses ASAP.
• Keep Carmel Carmel.
• No to numbers. residents to make a Village looking sign with address for their home or fence.
• The post office seems curiously uninterested in making sure we get mail that comes to the post office. I cannot imagine that they will be able to competently deliver mail at all. • It is ridiculous to insist on not having a way to clearly identify the location of a home. It is not quaint; it is a malfunction. I moved here knowing it was this way, but that doesn't make it right.
• Our address system has worked for over 100 years, it's good for all to walk to the post office.
• No addresses are an integral part of the charm and uniqueness of Carmel by the Sea.

Inconvenience is minimal.
• I strongly support addresses. Getting credit cards, Real ID and services like AAA are very difficult for the past 6 years. And I can still chase the tow truck when he can't find my house. That won't last forever.
• Inconvenient but part of our Village.
• Most companies have GPS to locate physical addresses. • We are okay with system as it is.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 18 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • If you buy into the town, you get the standards and character of the town. There is already a program in place to deliver to those who are unable to get to the post office. It is handled and works fine. Don't change it.
• This is one of our unique features--keep the charm as is. • PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE implement standard address house numbers for houses in the Village!!! It's long overdue.
• No on addresses. Our City was founded on the post office concept. • Monterey EMTs don't know how to find addresses - this is a serious emergency issue! It's happened 2x this yr.
• Leave system as is; house numbers will lead to merger of "93921" with 93922&93923.

Feds control this decision.
• Either option c or d would be a vast improvement over the current headache, e.g., it is now virtually impossible to get a new Comcast setup since they closed their office that had the physical map.
• We need street addresses. It is too difficult to arrange utility services, deliveries, etc. No postal delivery is fine, but it’s time to join the 20th century, if not the 21st. • Have a way for homeowners to select from a variety of signs with the current XYZ 3 NE zzz type of addresses on so they will be standardized and have every house have them. • Lack of address is so much more than an occasional inconvenience. It is insane and unsafe.
• Keep Carmel unique and a Village. No need for postal addresses. • It needs to be done. Utility bills addresses all make up a different system. It's only a matter of time before the City is sued. Why waste money fighting it? Get the addresses done and get it done it twelve months not twelve years of debate. • I strongly oppose standard addresses requiring large banks of boxes at street corners.

This would chip away at our community character and small Village social fabric. Do not be fooled, our Post Office will not survive in spite of promises!!! • Need the safety and reliability of post office. Who is crazy enough to think the post office will stay open if there is local delivery? Get ready to go to the crossroads so the post office can save money.
• We like Carmel's traditional arrangement. The Post Office is about the only place we can meet other residents these days!
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 19 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Topic #9 Trees in Carmel – Findings
Open Comments
• We need to encourage & fund care for trees, but also put the right trees in place to minimize storm related power outages.
• The above questions are too complex. Tree removal and replacement should be handled on an individual site basis. A blanket regulation for the number of trees per property is not always possible.
• Property owners should not need incentives to properly care for their own trees or those surrounding them!!
• Trees are Carmel along with the Ocean.
• Trees are what make Carmel special!!
• The trees in our Village (esp. City owned) are not well maintained. Permit costs for residents still too high!
• The Friends of the Forest Organization should be of help in these matters. • Trees make Carmel-by-the-Sea. If you dislike trees, Marina & Sand City are nice places to live too.

16.7%

88.6%

75.8%

84.8%

65.2%

75.8%

5.3%

10.6%

4.5%

16.7%

7.6%

6.1%

13.6%

10.6%

18.2%
a) Village trees, public & private, demand too
much maintenance, and they limit sunshine and
views.
b) Our Village trees are an important investment
demanding care to assure their health,
replenishment and safety are addressed.
c) Regularly provide guidance to all property
owners, especially new owners, on the
significance, care, and considerations for their
trees in our Village.
d) Public new and old trees, dead or alive (and
stumps needing removal) must be cared for with
added funding to catch up on past delayed
maintenance.
e) Provide incentives for property owners to
care for the trees on their property and public
space immediately adjacent to their property.

9. Trees in Carmel & updating our Forest Master Plan
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 20 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • Love our trees!
• Allow owners to prune and remove if necessary old trees! They do have a lifespan and a new tree can be planted to replace.
• Trees need to be maintained by our City taxes. Individuals need to remove dead trees.

Businesses need to remove dead trees and care for their own trees. Our City officials are ignoring some "Inns" that have dead trees on their property. • Leave the good ones and chop the bad ones seems pretty simple to me? • Part of owning property should include maintaining trees, especially new homeowners.

Also, City should check to see if trees are planted following construction. No one is checking this part of the permit.
• What if owners cannot afford or do not want an incentive to do the work on City trees adjacent to their property?
• Save the Monterey Pine forest!
• We need to maintain our trees and stop planting more under utility wires. • Need to avoid lawsuits against the City by owners who were injured or have property damage from fallen trees or branches for which the City overrules an arborist recommending removal. Human life and limb are higher priorities than tree limbs. • Not only are trees good for the environment, but they also help the value of our real estate and attract tourism, the key income elements of our community. • The trees are an intricate part of our Village, along with the architecture. I don't understand why the City allowed beautiful redwoods to be cut down across the street that were healthy; it's a shame!
• Replace dead trees in similar location whenever possible. Can we require homes to allow trees to be planted in front of them?
• I like the idea for incentives.
• Incentives for property owners only for trees on private property. • Public safety is at risk due to dead and dying trees and limbs in Carmel. I am very concerned about the current irrational policy and process in place. • Including replacing young trees where old have been removed. The shade and green cover are essential to our town's character and clean air and natural habitat. Prioritize the trees which benefit everyone.
• Way too many trees in Carmel in Carmel by the Sea today. Many, many beautiful public views have been lost over the 70 years.
• Balance ocean views and planting trees. Dead trees used for utility poles are an eyesore.

So many overhead wires look like a third-world country. There should be a long-range plan to put all wires underground.
• Old Monterey Pines are a threat to our safety and should be removed upon reasonable request.
• Forestry standards should be informed by post-storm damage assessments on how the tree maintenance could have been adjusted to avoid damage.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 21 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • Trees are a liability given how difficult it is to stay on top of maintenance and allow homeowners to proactively remove potential hazards. Carmel used to be dunes -- the 100-yr tree "experiment" may have been a failed one.
• Trees are important, but the City needs to be more responsive to requests to remove dying and/or trees in danger of falling or causing harm. • This is a common decency to do.
• We are woefully underfunding our Forestry efforts. You don't need a new master plan to figure that out.
• Public trees should be maintained by the City not by homeowners. That is a crazy idea. • Cypress no oaks.
• Tress need to be maintained to prevent dangerous situations. Learn from Lahaina. • Do not require upper canopy trees under power lines. The pine trees should only be planted in groups. Replace the isolated pines that are 97 years old with a VARITY of trees. They are a hazard.
• The native Monterey Pine is too large and dangerous for continued mass plantings.

Cypress is also too large for single lots. Focus on smaller species that could be more manageable and accomplish a forest canopy.
• Balance ocean views and planting trees. Dead trees used for utility poles are an eyesore.

So many overhead wires look like a third-world country. There should be a long-range plan to put all wires underground.
• Old Monterey Pines are a threat to our safety and should be removed upon reasonable request.
• Forestry standards should be informed by post-storm damage assessments on how the tree maintenance could have been adjusted to avoid damage. • Trees are a liability given how difficult it is to stay on top of maintenance and allow homeowners to proactively remove potential hazards. Carmel used to be dunes -- the 100-yr tree "experiment" may have been a failed one.
• Trees are important, but the City needs to be more responsive to requests to remove dying and/or trees in danger of falling or causing harm. • This is a common decency to do.
• We are woefully underfunding our Forestry efforts. You don't need a new master plan to figure that out.
• Public trees should be maintained by the City not by homeowners. That is a crazy idea. • Cypress no oaks.
• Tress need to be maintained to prevent dangerous situations. Learn from Lahaina. • Do not require upper canopy trees under power lines. The pine trees should only be planted in groups. Replace the isolated pines that are 97 years old with a VARITY of trees. They are a hazard.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 22 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • The native Monterey Pine is too large and dangerous for continued mass plantings.

Cypress is also too large for single lots. Focus on smaller species that could be more manageable and accomplish a forest canopy.
• The forest is our defining Village feature. In the last 15-20 years our forest has not been properly maintained. We must fund it properly & have a forester that understands our unique environment.
• Carmel is a "Village in a (Monterey) Pine Forest", not just any forest. Carmel is ecologically and spiritually one with our local native Monterey Pine Forest, being the only Peninsula City that made the forest central to its character. • Trees or even worse "totem poles" with utility lines attached should have the lines rerouted so that all totem poles can be removed in the City. A total eyesore. • Monterey pines are fundamental to Carmel's character and should be emphasized in plantings.
• I lament over the loss of our forest and trees. City folks don't understand the relationship between human habitation and Mother Nature - they need to be educated and more involved rather than living in fear and destroying their environment when they move here. (originally provided in #17 Summary Comments)
Topic #10 – Village Parks – Findings
Open Comments

90.2%

6.8%

50.8%

2.3%

72.7%

15.2%

7.6%

20.5%

34.1%
a) Apply for grants and/or alternate sources to
fast-track funding dollars for the needed work
on our public parks.
b) If we struggle to maintain our parks, we
should explore alternate uses for this valuable
land.
c) Other than our City Beach, our primary public
space for our youth is Forest Hill Park that
critically needs major enhancements, and
infrastructure refresh.

10. Village Parks Management & Investments
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 23 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • Kids in First Hill Park are routinely getting hurt (and don't report it) - this park is a disgrace to our Village.
• Public green spaces, parks and beach, are part of our City identity, and should be maintained as a priority.
• Essential.
• Dogs should be allowed in Devendorf Parks ”remove the ban!” • With high property taxes, City should be able to maintain our parks. • We have $ 40 million. Let’s put it to good use in Carmel in all areas and cap pensions. • Keep the parks and spend the money to make them beautiful. • We are one square mile, for god's sake! We have an overabundance of paid employees.

One wonders what they are all doing.
• Unsure about what "infrastructure" needs exactly you speak of in 10 C. • Should homeless encampment ever occur in our parks, it needs to be addressed immediately, including referrals for appropriate social services. I am moving here from Santa Monica partially for this reason! Once it starts, difficult to reverse. • We should support our parks and ensure they are properly maintained by public works department.
• Forest Hill park is not priority, tired of trotting out our youth as excuse all the time. Let’s assess actual usage/users/accessibility by all residents when prioritizing funding for maintenance and repairs.
• Tennis court has tree hanging over that is bound to poke someone's eye out. Been like that since winter.
• With the parking fees maintain the parks!
• Preserve wildlife habitat wherever possible.
• Attract more volunteers and get them to fundraise and plan these projects, friends of forest Hill Park etc. If there's one thing to do - it's activate for a cause. • Much significant work is done by volunteer groups and that should be recognized, augmented, and better coordinated.
• Forest Hill Park should remain wild, as it has always been, except for the southern playground and open field. Please don't fiddle with it. It is a reminder of what Carmel is and what the founders wanted our public spaces to be...natural!. • That part of Pescadero Canyon along 2ND Ave controlled by the City must be better maintained. It is too frequently a high fire risk.
• Leave Forest Hill park as it is!!!
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 24 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Topic #11 Village Beautification – Findings
Open Comments
• Carmel Cares needs our support.
• Should not require Carmel Cares to pick up. City should perform this work. • Kudos to all the volunteer groups that help this cause. The rusted trash cans are a disgrace to our Village.
• Businesses operating downtown may be renters and not on the property. Business owners that beautify and maintain areas in front of their property should be publicly recognized as an encouragement to continue.
• #11b - That is City property and should be maintained and cared for by the City employees. Trash cans are currently being replaced.
• Labor intensive but necessary.
• Return residential trash cans that were recently removed; City should do more for beautification!
• Encourage homeowners to minimize street parking.
• Keep Carmel-by-the-Sea free from stickers & graffiti. • Again, with high tax base, should not be a problem to keep beautiful. • Squirrel trash cans need to go and new cans with open holes in their stead. Some of our sidewalks and dirt areas around trees need grooming. Some businesses need to take much better care of their own storefronts.
• Just keep it clean and nice!

91.7%

77.3%

63.6%

0.8%

8.3%

10.6%

7.6%

14.4%

25.8%
a) Support Carmel Cares, Carmel Garden Club,
MTNP Weedies and other community teams
who volunteer to help care for these public
spaces.
b) Create a program for businesses to help
maintain their landscaped areas.
c) Upgrade or replace public trash cans,
increasing trash and dog waste disposal.

11. Beautification of Public Spaces
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 25 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • Need bins that fit in with architecture of town. A few metal ones already installed are terrible. Look like they belong in a huge shopping center. • Thank goodness for Carmel Cares!
• We need trash cans with open tops. Replace all Squirrel cans. Need Butt receptacles. • Recommend annual review by the Council with public comment. • We need to keep Carmel well-groomed for many reasons including property values and tourism among a few. It is absurd that a community spending over $40,000,000 a year on one square mile can't keep it maintained.
• Carmel Cares is doing a great job. Coordinated effort with the City is essential. • MTNP group are an old volunteer group. They have also assisted in upkeep of the Flanders garden.
• Trash cans, dog waste seems to be under good control (pink dog bags working great).

Carmel Cares seems to be working well, also campaign of "Love Carmel Like a Local".

Maybe try boosting volunteerism/participation?
• City should fund more of the activity above.
• Plaudits and thanks to Carmel Cares. The town should prune broken tree limbs along Scenic and elsewhere. A dead tree is unsightly, NOT sculpture. • Property Owners must take responsibility for keeping their property clean, and landscaped. It is an embarrassment that volunteers need to tidy and beautify private property.
• Lots of deferred maintenance around...thank goodness for volunteers, they deserve more support.
• Get the neighborhoods involved. Have an expedited process that can approve/ authorize neighborhood projects.
• Trash cans disappeared when bus stops taken out.
• More flowers and plants, less weeds, cleaner sidewalks. • The City needs to do more. Tourists heavily impact these areas & expect these areas to be well kept & beautiful. Thanks to Carmel Cares for all of their efforts!!! • Thanks for Carmel Cares.
• Our public spaces should be planted in a way to as much as possible recreate the harmonious and rich natural habitat of the native Monterey Pine Forest our founders created Carmel within, respected and cherished.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 26 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Topic #12 Capital Improvements - Findings
Open Comments
• There must be allowances for affordable housing to be available - it is not just the wealthy elite who live here.
• Resources should be provided for preventive maintenance instead of reacting to what is broken.
• Didn't know the City had a 5-year plan. Our City has plenty of money to take care of these types of projects. But there is no evidence of Reserve funds identified for specific purposes to have ongoing planned for maintenance.
• This is a City Council issue. A budget issue.
• Our residential streets are poorly maintained & disgraceful. City spends too much on CIP with little to show for it.
• Difficult to answer these questions without further knowledge from the City. • Let's repave some of our streets. If it weren't for Carmel Cares, etc. our streets would be a mess with trash and weeds. We should hire some of these out. • Again, just keep it clean and well maintained!
• Pave the streets and fix the sidewalks. Start a plan with deadlines. 11th on side of our house has lost 12 feet of pavement. 11th is very narrow. • Our Village roads are a mess. Without volunteers, our streets would be full of trash and butts.
• We used to resurface our residential streets on a regular basis. A few streets every year.

49.2%

25.8%

56.8%

46.2%

25.8%

44.7%

7.6%

10.6%

25.0%

29.5%

35.6%

43.2%
a) Given the constrained resources and funding,
our Village is well maintained.
b) Neighborhood streets are repaved or
resurfaced routinely.
c) There is a huge backlog of maintenance
projects.
d) Capital projects are prioritized and approved
based on what is broken or the “squeaky wheel”
model.

12. Capital Improvement Projects
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 27 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • Many of the CIP projects are consistently behind schedule. The City needs to ensure more timely completion of projects.
• Regarding #12d - broken must be prioritized. Squeaky wheels do not need to be simply because of ongoing complaints.
• Overall, I think they are doing a good job of prioritizing, and I trust they are putting safety first, then help-the-most-people projects at the forefront. • A long-range plan that is prioritized should be available and followed for all major capital improvements.
• We have a 40-million-dollar budget. Things should get taken care of! • The City should reclaim easements in the public right of way. • Please get the streets paved!! The roads are terrible, especially after this last winter. We are not Illinois- fix the streets!!
• The people who do this work are great - very helpful and responsive. • Shameful state of our streets. Nearly every street needs replacing. Deplorable. • The Carpenter Street entrance to Carmel needs repaving, i.e., Serra, Camino del Monte, etc.
• Not sure about the status of the capital projects in order to comment. • Streets - absolutely terrible - why pay so much for such poor results. Is way too much money going to CalPERS, or what is happening?
• The City needs to contribute more to the CIP & complete projects rather than pushing to the future. Let’s consider a tax to really accomplish all of the needs. • Need more City funding of capital improvements.
• A number of roads are in need of pothole/tree lift repairs. Funds should be earmarked for these purposes instead of paying off City police chiefs for unknown indiscretions. • Our streets are badly in need of re surfacing not just covering potholes. (originally submitted with #17 Summary)
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 28 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Topic #13 Climate Planning – Findings
Open Comments
• 13b - absolutely ridiculous! There is not enough power to support this concept! • We all know, or should know, there is a climate crisis. • I also live in an area that routinely gets hit by hurricanes, without my gas stove and fireplace I would not survive! We lost heat a few years ago and I was so thankful my gas fireplace worked!!
• Spending too much money on this, especially consultants & surveys. • When sea level rise washes away the gardens & homes by Scenic Drive & Del Mar parking, building sea walls is not the answer.
• Some encouragement toward electric OK, but shouldn't force people with gas cooking to change.
• Natural gas is a great option when the power goes out. • It’s ridiculous to eliminate natural gas. Our footprint here is very small. Let's put our energy into what needs to be done first. Let’s keep our water clean, eliminate plastics and such that go into our oceans. This is needed far more. • Let's not go overboard here I haven't noticed any of our City falling into the ocean.

55.3%

18.2%

77.3%

12.9%

61.4%

4.5%

31.8%

20.5%

18.2%
a) Assign the critical ongoing public review and
tracking responsibilities on these plans to the
appropriate public commissions (Forest & Beach
and/or Planning).
b) We need to encourage switching from gas to
all electric on heating, water, stoves, and more
throughout our Village to decrease the use of
fossil fuels.
c) We need to ensure funding will be available to
protect and maintain our City beach sea wall and
abutments.

13. Climate Action Plan Implementation
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 29 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • What do we do when the power is out, and we don't have gas stoves, heaters, and fireplaces??
• We have enough to do without this. True "Climate change" takes thousands of years to study. The earth goes through changes. Let’s worry with decreasing plastics, landfill reductions, etc.
• Absolutely do not ban gas appliances.
• Address the effects while judiciously avoiding the divisive politics of the cause. • Natural gas is imperative during our frequent power outages for generators and cooking.

Here is little need to stop using gas.
• When the power is out for 4 days, who has hot water and can cook food? Those who have gas appliances.
• If the power goes out, gas stoves and water heaters still work. Protect the electrical lines and then I would agree.
• We do not have a strong electrical grid to go all electric. • Our electrical infrastructure cannot currently support eliminating gas. PG&E outages during winter storms require gas backup for heating and cooking. • Do not support all electric appliances.
• This is key to preserving the best part of our town's ”nature, the beach, the forest, the parks, the green & open space. Agree it is a priority. Not knowledgeable enough to comment on the operational piece.
• Mother nature will win the battle. This is a long-term challenge. • I would be in favor of encouraging all electric IF we were able to underground our electrical wires. We have a gas stovetop which has been a lifesaver during the many outages, and I can't let that go.
• Without immediate projects to strengthen sea walls in vulnerable areas, we have high risk to lose portions as happened in 1983.
• Do NOT ban use of gas or compromise its use by private owners in any way. • Elderly, diseased, and dead trees that block solar systems should be replaced with lower canopy trees (state laws support this).
• We should encourage the switch, but demand it (gas/electric). • Remodels & new construction should be electric. Let’s see how existing commissions handle this & if they cannot handle this. If not, create a new commission with people more informed & intune with the latest information.
• Need new construction to be all electric but not conversions. • An entity composed of individuals with scientific expertise should oversee appropriate implementation of elements of the plan, incorporating new insights on the unfolding crisis.
• Given the size of our City I believe the expenditure of City funds to this end has been a complete wasted effort.
• Get some science into this issue!
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 30 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Topic #14 Fire & Ambulance – Findings
Open Comments
• Local ambulance and fire are critical. Please do not remove at any cost. I would be dead if not for local ambulance service.
• Excellent response and services to be supported.
• A THANK YOU TO THEM FOR Their excellent response and service to our community. • City government issue. Let's hope for the best.
• We need our own ambulance and fire truck. Do not get rid of our ambulance! I have no idea about response times, or evacuation plans.
• Keep it as is!
• Do not ever get rid of our ambulance or our own fire truck. • Every SECOND matters with myocardial and cerebral infarction for survivability, well documented in medical literature. Safety is a prime directive of government. • We are a small community next to large ones. We can leverage their investment instead of reinventing the wheel.
• Keep resources local. Have Carmel by the Sea own fire and ambulance assets such as buildings and equipment. Contract with Monterey for fire and ambulance staffing. • Neighbor has needed paramedics numerous times in past months; response was always excellent.

59.1%

46.2%

40.9%

78.0%

3.0%

6.8%

14.4%

1.5%

37.9%

47.0%

44.7%

20.5%
a) Emergency response times and staff meet
expectations.
b) Leveraging Monterey teams for management
and coverage works.
c) There are adequate prevention services,
evacuation guidance and education.
d) We must keep physical fire and ambulance
equipment and staff in our Village.

14. Fire Protection & Ambulance Services
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 31 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • See comments on street addresses and EMTs finding people with emergencies. • Carmel fire and first responder are always first on scene. The existence of Carmel fire at their location AND THEIR FAMILIARITY with the local speeds response times and has saved lives and property.
• I am not well versed on this subject due to being in my home part-time. • I have always supported having our own Fire & Ambulance service as they know our Village best & respond best.

Topic #15 Police & Safety - Findings
Open Comments
• I'm not concerned about the cameras and privacy, I'm more concerned about the visual clutter of the cameras.
• Enforce drivers ignoring stop signs and residential parking signs. • Another thank you for their hard work providing safety to our community. • 15d - unclear question. I support the installation of the cameras throughout the Village. • Do we have adequate policing in Carmel? I don't know. • Police visibility is important to deter people with nefarious intentions. We do not want to become victims.
• Big mistake to cut # of officers & try to make up for it with technology. Need more PD presence, hardly ever see them.
• Cameras are a must for all reasons we all know about. • Pretty safe place to live so let's just keep it that way!

53.8%

72.7%

38.6%

52.3%

22.0%

3.0%

22.7%

15.9%

24.2%

24.2%

38.6%

31.8%
a) Provide more visible patrolling downtown and
in residential areas.
b) Our Police Department staff are personable
and skilled in what they do.
c) There is inadequate staffing for parking
enforcement.
d) We look for more insights on the use,
functionality, and locations of the new license
plate camera system.

15. Police Protection & Services
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 32 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • We need more police officers.
• Forget about cameras except some downtown and ingress and egress from the Village. • Let’s not spend our dollars doling out parking tickets. • Police surge capability required for potential future civil unrest or social media enabled flash mobs intending to loot. License plate/face cams facilitate conviction and subsequent deterrence.
• The Police department is stellar; kind and efficient. We could get a lot more parking revenue from more parking officers than their cost would be. • Get the cameras working again! Parking enforcement is waaayyyy understaffed. • License plate cameras got out of hand and vendor company needs to be reined in. Okay on entrance/exit to town, but remove in residential areas (e.g., Santa Lucia Ave). • Police presence is lacking, especially on busy holidays and weekends. Encourage parking on only one side of the street at all times so vehicles can get through. With pedestrians and bikers and clogged parking, our streets are a hazard for all. • Need more parking control officers!
• Thank you for your service.
• When first responders live locally, the Village benefits. Subsided housing. Or perhaps the five years of interest free mortgage that CHOMP has used in the past to attract needed specialties for something similar could be used.
• I do not see as many routine drive by's of City police cars on the street. • Having cameras are only needed at all possible entrance and exits to the Village. • Our police and parking staff are generally very good at the job.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 33 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Topic #16 Flanders & Scout House – Findings
Open Comments
• It would be sad to lose the Scout House, but this property would be ideal for incremental housing.
• Make a decision and move ahead as these properties deteriorate before our eyes. • The life of the scout house is over and has been over for 30 years. Flanders is an albatross and should be sold even at a loss.
• The City should not be in the business of rehabbing historic buildings. Look at the results.

Private ownership will do a better job.
• Retain these facilities for public purposes in perpetuity. • Not familiar with Scout House.
• Both are albatrosses around City's neck & need to be finally resolved and sold ASAP! • Not enough info to respond.
• Sell!
• Sell them with exact requirements as to use and refurbishment. • What if the Mission/Catholic church want to purchase Flanders and turn it into a retreat.

Would be quiet, no traffic.
• If Carmel can't keep them up, sell them to private person. • Scout House as Community Center for meetings and activities. Lost cost. Flanders needs occupants friendly to the City and residents.

49.2%

35.6%

50.0%

40.2%

7.6%

30.3%

30.3%

31.1%

30.3%

48.5%

20.5%

34.1%

18.9%

29.5%

43.9%
a) Consider selling the Scout House (corner of
8th & Mission).
b) Retain ownership while we approve new
operators of Scout House.
c) Consider selling the Flanders Mansion (in
Mission Trail Nature Preserve).
d) Retain ownership while we approve new
operators of Flanders Mansion.
e) Kick-the-can to later for now.

16. Scout House & Flanders Mansion
% Agree % Disagree % No Response
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 34 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • If we consider selling the Scout House, we should only do this if we use the $'s plus others to fund a good multi-use meeting facility (e.g., at Vista Lobos). • The City has been unsuccessful in revitalizing these assets. Time to sell. • Sell Flanders already! It is continuing to degrade. We voted to sell it. To allow a small contingent to derail the sale goes against the will of the majority. • Scout House is prime location to work with developer & Carmel Foundation, more senior housing. Flanders non-profit venue rental to generate its own income for maintenance (e.g., Filoli) and public meeting space (e.g., Carmel Woman's Club) for local groups. • Sell both as soon as possible!!!!
• These facilities are excellent venues for studios, shops, temporary exhibits, and civic and/or cultural group meetings.
• Seriously pursue curatorship for Flanders this time; City lost MAJOR OPPORTUNITY with loss of (word scrambled as received)
• Low-income housing?
• Utilize the Flanders mansion property to create housing to meet RHNA quotas. • Repurpose for City worker housing units?
• Flanders sitting empty is an advantage to no one.
• Explore all options that are credible. We should not be in a rush while the Council has so very many issues confronting it. If a good proposal comes forward it should be thoroughly explored.
• Explore options for occupancy and maintenance.
• Flanders is a complete embarrassment for the City. The last effort to find an operator went off the rails. The City must find a way to overcome the title restrictions to deal with this legacy asset.
• Having Flanders and Scout House lie idle is not acceptable when we are in need of housing. (originally provided on #10)
FINAL - Open Comments #17 – No Topic Specified
• My opinion may not be shared by some, but I miss the parklets. • No taxes on non/resident owners - City budget is ridiculously high for number of residents. Maximum Strict law for cell towers. City Council and staff too progressive and out of touch with many property owners.
• To me, the biggest challenge in our Village is juggling priorities and $'s. There are so many needs and not enough time, funds, staff etc. This is why we pay the "big bucks" to our City Council (ha-ha) and look for good judgement overall. We simply must protect the character and charm of our town.
• I lament over the loss of our forest and trees. City folks don't understand the relationship between human habitation and Mother Nature - they need to be educated and more involved rather than living in fear and destroying their environment when they move here. (also copied this to #9 Trees)
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 35 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • This survey was too lengthy to think of anything else at this time. • Thank you for asking our opinion and surveying the membership to determine what CRA should promote and advocate!!
• This survey is important in my opinion. Some leading questions which will be obvious to the public but may just be correct in the asking. I hope you are successful in the survey.

Thank you for all your work.
• I support all efforts to maintain and preserve the unique charm and character of our Village. Modernization and development are generally unwarranted. • Maybe a question or two on police cameras would be helpful. Perhaps also a few questions on the City budget and spending priorities. Also a few questions on tourism and marketing efforts for CBTS. Survey is great! Very good questions! Please do this more often, maybe twice a year!
• This should become a City-driven annual process sent to all residents, and results presented to the public annually as an event to look forward to. We need to become more proactive with our residents to become more involved in their awareness of our City's situations in all these subjects & matters.
• Surveys should be taken if CRA has specific views that are shared publicly. How those surveys are worded must be carefully considered to be free of bias. • It would be great to take a survey each year.
• Consider funds for street repaving. Some businesses aren't caring for their storefront, esp. those empty. (Dolores b/t Ocean and 7th). Small trees/decorative pots have been removed on Dolores b/t Ocean and 7th. It looks terrible; too much concrete! We need trash cans in areas where there are none. Cigarette butt disposals needed. Dead trees removed, including B & B's.(Homestead House has two huge eyesores). Library to consider volunteers to increase hours. Parking increased to 4 hours. • Decisions by CRA should be made entirely on what the property owners want, not what the CRA Board decides they want. All-important topics should be put to a resident’s vote, not the opinion of 8 or so people who may be self-serving in their decision making. • Maybe a question or two on police cameras would be helpful. Perhaps also a few questions on the City budget and spending priorities. Also a few questions on tourism and marketing efforts for CBTS. Survey is great! Very good questions! Please do this more often, maybe twice a year!
• Discourage proposals to tax/penalize part time homeowners. They pay full taxes and only use facilities when here. (also copied this to #1 Housing) • This should become a City-driven annual process sent to all residents, and results presented to the public annually as an event to look forward to. We need to become more proactive with our residents to become more involved in their awareness of our City's situations in all these subjects & matters.
• Surveys should be taken if CRA has specific views that are shared publicly. How those surveys are worded must be carefully considered to be free of bias.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 36 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • It would be great to take a survey each year.
• Consider funds for street repaving. Some businesses aren't caring for their storefront, esp. those empty. (Dolores b/t Ocean and 7th). Small trees/decorative pots have been removed on Dolores b/t Ocean and 7th. It looks terrible; too much concrete! We need trash cans in areas where there are none. Cigarette butt disposals needed. Dead trees removed, including B & B's.(Homestead House has two huge eyesores). Library to consider volunteers to increase hours. Parking increased to 4 hours. • Decisions by CRA should be made entirely on what the property owners want, not what the CRA Board decides they want. All-important topics should be put to a resident’s vote, not the opinion of 8 or so people who may be self-serving in their decision making. • Maybe a question or two on police cameras would be helpful. Perhaps also a few questions on the City budget and spending priorities. Also a few questions on tourism and marketing efforts for CBTS. Survey is great! Very good questions! Please do this more often, maybe twice a year!
• Discourage proposals to tax/penalize part time homeowners. They pay full taxes and only use facilities when here.
• This should become a City-driven annual process sent to all residents, and results presented to the public annually as an event to look forward to. We need to become more proactive with our residents to become more involved in their awareness of our City's situations in all these subjects & matters.
• Surveys should be taken if CRA has specific views that are shared publicly. How those surveys are worded must be carefully considered to be free of bias. • It would be great to take a survey each year.
• Consider funds for street repaving. Some businesses aren't caring for their storefront, esp. those empty. (Dolores b/t Ocean and 7th). Small trees/decorative pots have been removed on Dolores b/t Ocean and 7th. It looks terrible; too much concrete! We need trash cans in areas where there are none. Cigarette butt disposals needed. Dead trees removed, including B & B's.(Homestead House has two huge eyesores). Library to consider volunteers to increase hours. Parking increased to 4 hours. • I am happy to see this survey & look forward to seeing the results. • Hope to see the results printed in a future newsletter. • Why are we not pushing back on number of ADU's demanded of Carmel by the Sea. Very disappointed that we are not challenging the number of units we are told to build.

Parking: consider where residents will park if employees and more visitors park in residential areas. Many old garages are not big enough to house our cars. • Thanks for your good work.
• This is a good example of being faced with many critical issues at once, giving us little time to make sure we do it right. It seems that some issues take forever (e.g., Flanders Mansion, Scout House), and others are foisted on us after the fact to react to. This survey is a great idea and should be given to CRA members at least once a year. The results ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 37 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 should be presented at a Council meeting, and at Planning Commission, Forest and Beach, etc. meetings (for items relevant to them). THANK YOU!! • Would like to see more surveys and then our City council actually vote accordingly. Would like to see more concern for protecting Carmel's charm. Big houses are going in far too frequently. Let’s limit lot combinations.
• I think this was a very thoughtful and comprehensive survey. I hope my comments are helpful. The balance between community security and individual rights and privacy are somewhat at odds; I believe the balance should favor community security. Individual rights and privacy are put into immediate and sharp focus if one is attacked, robbed, or burglarized.
• This survey is well done, and you've covered current issues well. • Excellent Survey
• I found the survey to be confusing in the way some statements were worded. I left many unanswered. Better no answer than confusion. To clarify: YES, to addresses YES to paid parking YES to police station complete remodel.
• Thank you for the time spent putting this together.
• Consider joining with the www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com efforts to assist blocking the State of California from assuming control over our planning rules and design standards.

We have done very well protecting our Village over the past 107 years. • Thank you for asking for membership input and would be a good idea to survey the membership annually. A future topic of interest could be marketing and tourism in Carmel by the Sea.
• #4: Not similar if the original were an ugly modern box style house! Pre-manufactured because it’s cheaper? Is it really, or just a boondoggle for certain companies? Need policy/enforcement to ensure ADUs used for long-term housing, not kept vacant (just built to increase property value) or for temporary vacation rentals. Other topics increasing participation & involvement of residents to create a strong community network. Survey every year, thx. You do a good job of capturing top-of-mind topics! • Our streets are badly in need of re surfacing not just covering potholes. (also copied this to #12 CIP)
• Input should be solicited for ALL property owners, whether full-time or part-time residents, and whether or not members of CRA. Thank you for such a well-done survey and the chance to participate.
• This survey is well done, and you've covered current issues well. • Excellent Survey
• I found the survey to be confusing in the way some statements were worded. I left many unanswered. Better no answer than confusion. To clarify: YES, to addresses YES to paid parking YES to police station complete remodel.
• Thank you for the time spent putting this together.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 38 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • Consider joining with the www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com efforts to assist blocking the State of California from assuming control over our planning rules and design standards.

We have done very well protecting our Village over the past 107 years. • Thank you for asking for membership input and would be a good idea to survey the membership annually. A future topic of interest could be marketing and tourism in Carmel by the Sea.
• #4: Not similar if the original were an ugly modern box style house! Pre-manufactured because it’s cheaper? Is it really, or just a boondoggle for certain companies? Need policy/enforcement to ensure ADUs used for long-term housing, not kept vacant (just built to increase property value) or for temporary vacation rentals. Other topics increasing participation & involvement of residents to create a strong community network. Survey every year, thx. You do a good job of capturing top-of-mind topics! • Our streets are badly in need of re surfacing not just covering potholes. (also copied this to #12 CIP)
• Missed beach fires which I support with smokeless pits and Airbnb. We have called the City NUMEROUS times. They don't even return our calls. We are tired of them on our street.
• Thank you for conducting this survey.
• Coordinating with PG&E, the Village needs to begin, soon, relocating all electric lines underground. Currently they are very unsightly and an ongoing fire hazard. • Allow more space for comments. Word limits too restrictive. • Surveys are good. This was a good experience. Thank you • We should investigate the resurrection of a regional/international Carmel film festival which would benefit our hotel and restaurant community. Perhaps Kyle Eastwood and Brad Pitt might be some individuals who would support this endeavor. Surely Sunset Center and The Forest Theater would likewise benefit from having a film festival return to Carmel.
• To me, the most pressing current concern is the need to underground all utilities. The recent incident in Maui and the horrible disasters a few years ago in Santa Rosa and Paradise show how vulnerable our City is. And imagine how much nicer the City would look without all the poles and wires - and how much more reliable our electric service would be during winter storm season. This should have been done years ago. • This was a well-organized and complete survey!
• Resist and challenge ridiculous state housing mandates that would destroy the unique character of our community.
• Don't let a ridiculous state mandate ruin one of the few fine and functional California towns. (also copied to #1 Housing)
• No one or very few are going to read the information in the Tab or HERE section because it would take all day. It would be best to summarize the policies instead.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 39 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 • This survey could be advantageous to the community if it is considered and applied per the majority consensus.
• Thank you, CRA - putting this questionnaire together had to be a demanding task - but it really allowed us to express our ideas on a long list of town issues. Amazing job! • Address Trucks double parking on City streets. Businesses should have responsibility for employees parking out of the business district. Drivers stopping at the south end of heavily used San Antonio cannot see oncoming traffic without pulling into the intersection. Put in more stop signs at intersections. Major thoroughfare San Antonio is too congested with parking allowed on both sides of street. Some of the questions in this survey represent a bias and could be better balanced.
• Excellent survey - should do it every 6 months. Also use it as an opportunity to educate members. Thanks for doing this.
• Excellent survey. The character of our community is very important. • Great work by the CRA. Pleas update this survey annually and publish the results. • Excellent survey!
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 40 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Appendix
Original Email to CRA Membership (7/29/2023)
There are many significant projects underway or planned that are critical to the future of our Village. The CRA Board is guided by the feedback of our members, and we would be grateful to hear your views! Our CRA mission statement ends with the word "advocacy".

With this in mind, your CRA Board members frequently invest time to research and prepare to speak on behalf of the Board at City Council, Boards and Commissions meetings. We always encourage and support your participation and opinions are expressed as well.

Please invest 20 minutes of your time to provide your CRA Board with your views on these Carmel topics making headlines and influencing the future character of this Village where we choose to live, play, and enjoy. You can optionally respond on just the items of your specific interest.

Take our Survey Online HERE
Topics you will find in this extensive and important survey includes Revised Housing Element, Updating our Design Guidelines, Reinstating a Design Review Board, ADU's, Police Station Rebuild, Paid Parking, Revising our Telecom Ordinance, Addresses in Carmel, Trees in Carmel, Village Parks Management, Beautification of Public Spaces, Capital Improvement Projects, Climate Action Plan, Fire Protection & Ambulance Services, Police Protection & Services and others.

As you will see, we ask if you Agree or Disagree with each of the statements shown and also welcome all comments as well. Your individual responses will remain confidential and will only summarized overall. Be sure to press the SUBMIT button at the very end of the survey to successfully provide your feedback.

Thank you in advance for your time to complete the survey along with your on-going participation and membership.

Kind regards,
Carmel Residents Association Board of Directors
PO Box 13, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Ca 93921 [email protected] www.carmelresidents.org
ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 41 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023 Introductory Paragraphs per Survey Topic

1. Updating Housing Element (RHNA) with plans for 349 new housing units for 6 th Cycle over 2024-2032 (HERE) Our City is mandated by the State to update our Housing Element with plans to identify targeted sites and supporting programs that could provide for the new 349 housing units. The goals include affordability and closer to work living options. The City does not build these units, but our City update is required to enable property owner and developer projects where they express interest.

2. Design Traditions 1.5 revised Design Guidelines Project – Carmel Architecture (HERE) This ongoing project will refresh our Commercial and Residential Guidelines documents to direct the architectural components of building in our Village, along with supporting Zoning/Code updates.

3. Reinstating a Design Review Board (DRB) (HERE) This Board, if implemented, will advise new building or major remodel projects early in their conceptual planning to advise and guide the professionals & property owners on the fit into our Village setting, strongly leveraging the Commercial and Residential Design Guidelines.

4. Auxiliary Housing Unit (ADU) Ordinance & Update (HERE) These ADU’s, sometimes called “granny flats”, today are approved “over the counter” using State laws, as Carmel’s current ordinances do not currently comply with State requirements. As of Spring 2023 Carmel has 71 ADU’s in our Residential areas.

5. Police Station Rebuild Plans This project is a significant multi-year & multimillion-dollar capital investment for our Village to deliver a revised facility that supports the roles, responsibilities, operations, and retention for/of our police staff for our community.

6. Parking & Traffic Management (HERE) An evaluation and recommendation for paid parking are being prepared with the goals of reducing congestion, improving availability, and contributing over $ 2 million in gross annual revenue to the City.

7. Wireless/Telecom Ordinance Revision (HERE) Our current ordinance is being updated to align with federal and state laws and regulations, while they work to minimize the visual impacts (clutter) of new or refresh of existing cell towers keeping local oversight – especially as they are targeted for placement in residential neighborhoods.

8. Addresses & Post Office (HERE) Our Village has not had standard addresses since its founding days. Not having standard addresses can be both charmingly quirky and inconvenient. Based on citizen requests, the City staff are exploring the possibility of implementing addresses (with all aspects considered), while maintaining our local post office.

9. Trees in Carmel & updating our Forest Master Plan (HERE) Our Village is commonly known as a “Village in the Forest by the Sea”, supported by our founders and the 13,000 public trees managed by our Forester and staff. The value our public & private trees bring to our Village is dramatic, plus they contribute to the air we breathe.

ATTACHMENT 4

P a g e | 42 of 42 Carmel Residents Association – Key Topics 2023 Survey – All Results as of Aug 29, 2023

10.Village Parks Management & Investments (HERE) (Devendorf, Picadilly, Mission Trail Nature Preserve, Forest Hill Park, plus 6, yes 6 more) These parks provide great outdoor enjoyment of the nature throughout our Village. They require added maintenance and are routinely augmented by volunteer efforts as well.

11.Beautification of Public Spaces (not in prior item, these includes Scenic Pathway, Del Mar & North Dunes (at end of Ocean Ave), downtown public medians & landscaping, residential public medians, bump outs & easements). These also require maintenance and are routinely augmented by volunteer efforts.

12.Capital Improvement Projects (HERE) (Not previously covered items. Below includes maintaining public buildings, all roads, all drainage, infrastructure, etc.) Our Village Public Works team prepares and manages the delivery of projects, properties, infrastructure, and maintenance throughout our town – with an ongoing 5-year plan.

13.Climate Action Plan Implementation (HERE) Our Village has an officially completed and approved Adaptation and Action Plan - July 2022. These are assessed vulnerabilities and challenges of climate change – from sea level rise, infrastructure, weather/storms, fuel emissions and much more. Ongoing efforts are needed to deliver on increased resiliency in our Village for future generations.

14.Fire Protection & Ambulance Services (HERE) Our Village over the decades plus has invested in our local facilities and vehicles, while the personnel are aligned to the Monterey + staffing for leverage of management, training, backup and overall services coverage.

15.Police Protection & Services (HERE) Our Village Police staff are responsible for law enforcement and crime prevention for citizens, businesses, and visitors. They also include community outreach for seniors, parking enforcement and animal services to name a few.

16.Scout House & Flanders Mansion. Both are currently dormant City-owned facilities that have received ongoing interest from local people, teams and organizations for repurposing and revitalization.

17.Open Comments Welcome
Note: a complete BLANK PDF version of the Survey is included on our CRA webpage www.carmelresidents.org/august2023-hot-topics-membership-survey Carmel Residents Association
PO Box 13, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Ca 93921
[email protected]
www.carmelresidents.org
ATTACHMENT 4

22508 CVC INFORMATION
Vehicle Code - VEH
DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD [21000 - 23336] ( Division 11 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
CHAPTER 9. Stopping, Standing, and Parking [22500 - 22526] ( Chapter 9 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
22508.
(a) A local authority shall not establish parking payment zones or fix the rate of fees for those zones except by ordinance. The rate of fees may be variable, based upon criteria identified by the local authority in the ordinance. An ordinance establishing a parking payment zone shall describe the area that would be included within the zone.
(b) A local authority may, by ordinance, cause streets and highways to be marked with white lines designating parking spaces and require vehicles to park within the parking spaces.
(c) An ordinance adopted by a local authority pursuant to this section with respect to a state highway shall not become effective until the proposed ordinance has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department of Transportation. The proposed ordinance shall be submitted to the department only by action of the local legislative body and the proposed ordinance shall be submitted in complete draft form.
(d) An ordinance adopted pursuant to this section establishing a parking payment zone or fixing rates of fees for that zone shall be subject to local referendum processes in the same manner as if the ordinance dealt with a matter of purely local concern.
(e) Except as described in Section 22508.2, a local authority may accept but shall not require payment of parking meter fees by a mobile device. 22508.2.
(a) A local authority in the City and County of San Francisco, City of Long Beach, or City of Santa Monica may require payment by a mobile device in a parking payment zone only if it meets both of the following requirements:
(1) Installs signs no more than 100 feet from any space where payment is required that clearly states that payment is required and how payments may be made.

ATTACHMENT 5

(2) Adopts by ordinance or resolution an accessible and equitable parking cash payment plan that does not utilize parking meters or payment centers in parking payment zones. The plan shall provide reasonably accessible alternative means for payment of parking fees using cash. The plan shall assess the feasibility of potential strategies, including, but not limited to, accepting cash payment for parking from a mailed invoice requested through the mobile payment system. The local authority shall consult and work collaboratively with relevant local stakeholder organizations that may include, but are not limited to, racial equity, privacy protection, and economic justice groups, in developing the accessible and equitable parking cash payment plan. The plan shall be approved by the local authority.
(b) A local authority in the City and County of San Francisco, City of Long Beach, or City of Santa Monica that adopts an accessible and equitable parking cash payment plan and implements at least one mobile device parking payment zone pursuant to this section shall, on or before January 1 of the fourth year in which the first mobile device parking payment zone has been implemented, submit to its governing body and the transportation committees of the Legislature, consistent with Section 9795 of the Government Code, an evaluation report of the impact of all mobile device parking payment zones implemented by the local authority on equity, accessibility, and costs. The report shall evaluate the effectiveness, impact on privacy, impact on equity, impact on traffic outcomes, cost to implement, change in citations issued, and generation of revenue.
(c) A civil fine for parking in a parking payment zone that requires payment by mobile device and lacks a parking meter shall be one-half of the civil fine for failing to pay for parking in a metered zone. This subdivision shall not apply to a person who paid for parking but stayed in the spot beyond the period for which the person paid.
(d) A local authority in the City and County of San Francisco, City of Long Beach, or City of Santa Monica may operate a mobile device parking payment zone authorized by this section for five years following the date of creation for each city and county, or city, of the first mobile device parking payment zone, or until January 1, 2033, whichever is sooner.
(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2033, and as of that date is repealed.

ATTACHMENT 5

Parking Management Program
Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
June 1, 2026
Chief Trayer

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 1
• Explore managed parking options
• Review updated technology
• Discuss potential impacts and benefits
• Receive Council’s direction on a managed
parking program
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 2
Purpose of Presentation
ATTACHMENT 6

• Currently have a traditional free parking model
• Growth in visitation over decades
• Our local community and visitors complain and
have for decades
• Multiple studies/surveys conducted
• Parking studies dating back to the 50’s
• Most recent were attempts in 2021, then ‘14,
’02.
• Significant outreach
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 3
History of Parking in Carmel-by-the-Sea
• High demand in core business area
• 5th to 8th Ave (N/S)
• Junipero to Monte Verde (E/W)
• Residential parking program implemented
• Scenic/Del Mar, Torres St/Ocean, Casanova /Ocean, Monte Verde – overnight controls, San Carlos/ Camino Del Monte
• Employee parking impacts
• The community often sees parking as a barrier
• Parking frustrations & perceived parking scarcity
• Vehicle circulation/congestion
• Technology has improved and now managed parking is more mainstreamed
• Current system works during non-peak periods
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 4
Current Parking Conditions
ATTACHMENT 6

• Improve parking turnover
• Increase parking for residents
• Improve overall visitor experience
• Improve parking compliance efficiency
• Increase CSO’s ability to assist community
• Potential financial sustainability benefits
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 5
Why Consider Managed Parking

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Special Considerations
• Residents-first approach to parking
• Determine what is a reasonable time to park in
downtown?
• Locations/Visual impact of required equipment
(pay stations)
• Usability by parking customers
• Pedestrian safety & reducing driving congestion
• Consider a 5-hour maximum for parking spaces.
• Financial impact vs. costs
ATTACHMENT 6

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
What Does Managed Parking Mean?
• Pay-by-Plate technology
Mobile pay: App is not required, but available
Text
Call
Remote time extensions
Pay Station (Card or Cash)
Validations option
• Solar pay station availability
• License Plate Recognition compliance
• Occupancy analytics/Usage data
• Residential preferences
Some Options
(A) Every Carmel-by-the-Sea resident could have
2 hrs. free parking
(B) Carmel-by-the-Sea residential parking permits
($35/year) can park for up to 3-5 hours and are
entered in the License Plate Reader system
(C) Free-unlimited parking for residents who registers
their vehicle (parking permit still
required annually)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 8
Residents
ATTACHMENT 6

Employee Parking Strategy
• Employees park outside the high demand areas
• Free parking at Vista Lobos, Sunset Center, &
many residential areas
• Better turnover supports local businesses
• Preserves convenient customer access in the
commercial core.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 9
Business Impact
Parking Entity Options
• 60-90 day implementation
• Widely used throughout
California/Monterey region
• Requires installation of additional signage on current poles (free)
• Install minimal pay stations around off of Ocean Ave., but around the corner from heavy parking areas (TBD)
• Signs will guide non-smartphone users to pay stations • Pay stations can be wrapped, or decorated to suit Camel-bythe-Sea CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 10
Options
ATTACHMENT 6

Fees
• Pay station fees (from 0-4 kiosks)
• Transaction fees (potentially .45 cents/usage)- convenience fee paid by user (approximately $315 / day (2 transactions per day minimum)
• Monthly fees
• Signage (free and unlimited)
• Parking Compliance Officer costs for time violations, data input, equipment
*** Initially could cost approximately $35,000.00 + and annually close to $5,000 +. ***
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 11
Managed Parking Initial Costs
Approximately 86 Standard Parking Spaces
(does not include 20 minute/loading/white /ADA spaces)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 12
Our Village Parking Map (Pilot Option)
ATTACHMENT 6

These estimates do NOT account for operational costs.
• Potential Parking Spots = 86
• Managed Parking Hours = 10 a.m. – 7 p.m.
(9 hrs.)
• Parking management could start at 8 a.m.
• Hourly Rate for example = $1.50/hr. + .45
cent service fee (paid by user)
• Estimated occupancy of spots = 65%
• Take a few holidays out: 360 days
• $754.65 /day estimate at 65% occupancy
Revenue Potential = $271,764
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 13
Illustrative Parking Management (Pilot Option)
Approximately 701 Standard Parking Spaces
(does not include 20 minute/loading/white /ADA spaces)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 14
Our Village Parking Map (701 spaces)
ATTACHMENT 6

These estimates do NOT account for operational costs.
• Potential Parking Spots = 701
• Managed Parking Hours = 10 a.m. – 7 p.m.
(9 hrs.)
• Parking management could start at 8 a.m.
• Hourly Rate for example = $1.50/hr. + .45
cent service fee (paid by user)
• Estimated occupancy of spots = 65%
• Take a few holidays out: 360 days
• $6,151.28 /day estimate at 65% occupancy
Revenue Potential = $2,214,459
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 15
Illustrative Parking Management
701 # space

0.65 %
occupancy
9 hours per
day
360
days per
year
Hourly
Rate
Estimated
Annual
Income

1.00 1,476,306

1.50 2,214,459

2.00 2,952,612

2.25 3,321,689

2.50 3,690,765

3.00 4,428,918
Approximately 112 Standard Parking Spaces
(does not include 20 minute/loading/white /ADA spaces)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 16
Our Village Parking Map (Del Mar Option)
ATTACHMENT 6

These estimates do NOT account for operational costs.
• Potential Parking Spots = 112
• Managed Parking Hours = 10 a.m. – 7 p.m.
(9 hrs.)
• Parking management could start at 8 a.m.
• Hourly Rate for example = $1.50/hr. + .45
cent service fee (paid by user)
• Estimated occupancy of spots = 65%
• Take a few holidays out: 360 days
• $982.80 /day estimate at 65% occupancy
Revenue Potential = $353,808
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 17
Illustrative Parking Management (Pilot Option)
.

Other Factors
• Explore Village Guest Parking option for specific
hotels
• “Parking Turnover” = Additional Revenue
• Parking Compliance (Citations) – Data on next slide
• Increasing back to 3 compliance officers
• Citation Fee (Currently $40)
• Local jurisdictional checks
• # of Pay Stations
• They can be wrapped specifically for Carmel
by the Sea
• Artist’s/ Community opportunity
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 18
Additional Talking Points
ATTACHMENT 6

`
Parking Compliance History
Goal is compliance and availability, not citation
generation.
2025 Parking Citations = 3,480 ($139,200)
One Community Service Officer (CSO) w/ Animal Control
responsibilities
2024 Parking Citations = 5,309 ($212,360)
Predominantly One CSO, but two for the first part of the year 2023 Parking Citations = 6,253 ($250,120)1-2 CSO’s
**We pay $12.50 to the County for every citation
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 19
Parking Citations ($40.00 each)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 20
If yes, then…
• Does the idea of Managed Parking Program work
for Council & the Community?
• Would the 701 spots be a good start?
• Del Mar parking is an option, but would require a
completely different approval path
• Citation Fee discussion
• Surrounding agencies
• Residential considerations
ATTACHMENT 6

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 21
Next Steps
If approval of managed parking initiative:
• City determines the appropriate vendor
• Council makes final determination on hourly fee
• Council determines start time for parking: 8 a.m.
or 10 a.m. preference
• Return in August 2026 for an update
• Allows us to experience 1 month of parking
compliance officers impact
• Seek funding for vendor
• Community campaign to update residents and
businesses prior to implementation
Questions?
Seeking direction and authorization to
proceed with a managed parking program
or
Take no further action
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 22
ATTACHMENT 6

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council
Staff Report
June 1, 2026

PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Evan Kort, Senior Planner
APPROVED BY: Brandon Swanson, Acting City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution 2026-033 - Consideration of an Appeal (APP 26134, Diamond) by John and Patricia Dilks, of the Planning
Commission’s approval of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit application DS 25206 (Diamond) for non-excluded
development (ground disturbance for an 800 square accessory dwelling unit attached to an existing rear terrace, landscaping, drainage improvements and associated site work) and the installation landscaping consistent with the proposed landscaping plan as authorized by the Coastal Development Permit, located at Scenic Road 5 northwest of 8th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District, Park (P) Overlay District, and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay. APN: 010-312-012-000.

RECOMMENDATION:

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment 1):
1) Finding that denial of the appeal and upholding approval of the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA guidelines and local environmental regulations, pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities and no exceptions to the exemption contained in Section 15300.2 can be made; and