6-1-2026 Presentations rec'd as of 6pm 5.29.26 — Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council, June 1, 2026

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
• 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
• 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

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
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
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)
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)
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)
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
`
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
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
APP 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace)
Consideration of an appeal, APP 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace), by Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC, of the Historic Resources Board's April 20, 2026 decision to support a property owner-sponsored National Register of Historic Places Nomination for the "Reimers' Stonehouse Terrace" located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District. APN: 010-145-018-000. Consideration of options including a resolution to deny the appeal (Attachment 1), a resolution to grant the appeal (Attachment 2) or other actions related to the appeal as directed by Council.

City Council Meeting
June 1, 2026

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 1
San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue
• Cottage built c.1904 (first depicted on the 1910 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map), altered over the decades • Mixed-use L-plan building built in 1977, designed by Olof Dahlstrand, largely unaltered CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 2

“Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” Site
c.1904 Cottage (substantially altered)
• Original owner Ruth Milwain (1858-1947) bought lot 7, Block 91 in 1904 from the Carmel Development Company. Born in Placer County, she was the daughter of a carpenter who immigrated from New York to California during the Gold Rush. The family later settled in Oakland where Mr. Milwain opened a contracting business, and where Ruth’s brother, William Milwain, worked as an architect. Ruth likely received help from her father and brother to build the small cottage in Carmel. In 1916, Ruth bought adjacent lots 3, 5, and 9. • No original permit or plans are available, but the building was first depicted on the 1910 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map as a one-story, wood-framed, L-plan cottage with porch.
• The 1930 Sanborn Map indicates the cottage had been expanded with a small southeast addition (possibly approved under BP# 984, issued May 1925).

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 3

“Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” Site
c.1904 Cottage (substantially altered)
• Norwegian immigrants Niels Juel Reimers (1899-1969) and Kristi Reimers (1903-1964) purchased lots 5, 7 and 9 in the late 1930s. The couple lived in the cottage while Niels worked as an electrician and Kristi managed the Carmel Inn. Permits issued in 1944 (BP #1104) and 1948 (BP #1710) indicate the Reimers received approval for an unspecified addition, a new foundation, and addition of rock veneer to the cottage. • The 1962 Sanborn map reveals the cottage footprint had changed from an L-plan to a U-plan, and the northeast porch had been enclosed. • In 1977, Olof Dahlstrand renovated the building to accommodate a shop and restaurant by adding a one-story east addition with roof deck.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 4

“Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” Site
1977 Olof Dahlstrand Project
The Reimers hired local architect Olof Dahlstrand to transform the 11,009 square-foot subject property into the mixed-use development that exists today. Dahlstrand remodeled the c.1904 cottage (BP #76-191) and designed a complementary L-plan, Organic-style building to the north/west, with commercial units on the first floor, apartments on the second floor, and tuck-under parking.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 5

“Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” Site
1977 Olof Dahlstrand Project
A vehicular driveway adjacent to the north property line provides access to the parking level.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 6

“Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” Site
1977 Olof Dahlstrand Project
Pedestrian access is served via stairs leading from the San Carlos Street sidewalk into a central courtyard.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 7

“Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” Site
8 “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” Background
Receipt of Feb. 2026 Letter from the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) re: a review and comment period for a property owner-sponsored National Register of Historic Places Nomination agendized for review by the State Historical Resources Commission on May 7, 2026. The property owner-sponsored nomination prepared by Barbara Lamprecht, a qualified professional, concludes the property is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under National Register Criterion C: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. As summarized in section 8, page 9 of the Nomination form:
9 “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” Background
Phase I Intensive Survey/DPR 523 Form: The City had not previously evaluated the property for potential historicity. To facilitate review and comment on the Nomination, by the HRB and by staff, the City retained the services of Margaret Clovis, a qualified professional, to prepare an intensive survey "as initiated by the Department" (CMC 17.32.060.B.1).

Ms. Clovis conducted a site visit, completed primary and secondary-source research, and prepared a DPR 523 Form documenting the property. She concluded the 1977 “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” appears significant as a good example of the Organic style designed by local architect Olof Dahlstrand, yet is ineligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory at this time due to the fact it has not yet reached 50 years of age and does not appear to be “exceptional importance.” Staff, in agreement with Ms. Clovis, per CMC 17.32.060.B and D, prepared a Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory with a custom expiration date aligning with the property's 50-year-of-age mark: October 21, 2027.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
10 “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” Background
HRB Consideration on April 20, 2026: The Historic Resources Board was asked to consider the property owner-sponsored National Register of Historic Places Nomination along with a City-prepared Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources. The Board did not issue the Determination of Ineligibility. The Board passed a motion (3-0) to “to recommend the Stonehouse building go on the National Registry and we support the application and the report by Barbara Lamprecht.”
Prior to the motion, Board Members provided comments in support of the Nomination, summarized as follows:

Olof Dahlstrand, a master architect and prominent civic leader who served on the Carmel Planning Commission and City Council, created an outstanding, forward-thinking, adaptive re-use design for the Reimers, a longtime Carmel family since the 1920s, by integrating old and new to combine retail, office and living space around a central landscaped courtyard – a typology specific to Carmel.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
11 “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” Background
The Board’s comments – and staff comments – were relayed to OHP for inclusion in the May 7, 2026 State Historical Resources Commission hearing item packet. The State reviews and
recommends nominated properties to the “Keeper of the National Register.” The Keeper has 45 days to determine listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Ultimately, due to incomplete noticing, the State pulled the “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” National Register Nomination from the SHRC May 7, 2026 agenda; the next possible meeting date is August 2026.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
12 “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” Background
Following the HRB meeting, Ms. Clovis prepared an addendum memorandum for the Council’s consideration. The memorandum responds to the HRB’s request for additional information and reaffirms Ms. Clovis’ independent conclusion that the property is not eligible for listing (on local, state, or federal registries) at this time. Planning staff concurs with Ms. Clovis’ assessment.

Key Points:
• The NR Nomination does not contain sufficient analysis to determine exceptional significance • The property type as a commercial building with a landscaped courtyard • Lack of academic documentation on the property
• Master architect inconsistency
• The NR Nomination identifies an incorrect period of significance (inclusive of the cottage) • There is a lack of precedent to add properties to the Carmel Inventory prior to 50 years *with an assessment of exceptional importance
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 13

National Reg. Nom. vs DPR Form
Both the property owner-sponsored National Register Nomination form and the City-initiated DPR 523 form conclude the property is significant due to its architectural style and architect.
*Ms. Lamprecht also prepared a memo for Ms.

Reimers in June 2025 opining the Stonehouse
Terrace is eligible for the CA Register/Carmel
Inventory
NRHP Form DPR 523 Form
Evaluates the property against the criteria for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Evaluates the property against the criteria for
listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic
Resources, inclusive of the California Register
criteria.

Property is significant under National Register
Criterion 3: Property embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction or represents the work of a master, or
possesses high artistic values, or represents a
significant and distinguishable entity whose
components lack individual distinction.
• Specifically, as the work of a master,
possessing high artistic values
Property is significant under CA Register Criterion
3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, an important
creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. • Specifically, as a good example of Organicstyle architecture, representative of the work of Dahlstrand, an important creative
individual
Period of Significance: 1910 and 1977 Period of Significance: 1977 Meets Criteria Consideration G: Properties That
Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty
Years
Does not meet CMC Section 17.32.040.H : A
resource less than 50 years old may be eligible if it
is of exceptional importance to the City, State, or
nation based on its unusually strong contribution to
history, architecture, engineering or culture, or
because it is an integral part of an historic district.

Cottage construction date: 1910, based on earliest
Sanborn map
Cottage construction date: c.1904, based on
purchase date
Both buildings are “contributors” Only the 1977 building is a “contributor” Dahlstrand is a “master” architect Dahlstrand is a “significant” architect Uses the term “Usonian” architecture Uses the term “Organic” architecture A. Should be representative of at
least one theme included in the
Historic Context Statement;
B. Shall retain substantial integrity;
C. Should be a minimum of 50 years
of age; CMC 17.32.040.H, A resource less than
50 years old may be eligible if it is of exceptional
importance to the City, State, or nation based on
its unusually strong contribution to history, architecture, engineering or culture, or because it is an integral part of an historic district.

D. Shall meet at least one of the
following four criteria for listing
as a primary or local resource:
• Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; • Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; • Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values;
• Be a good example of an architectural style or type of construction recognized as significant in the Historic
Context Statement
• Criterion 4: Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 14

Determining Eligibility for Carmel Inventory (CMC 17.32.040) California Register Criterion Three (Architecture) has three eligibility factors as follows:
a) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or The building embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Organic style b) The property represents the work of a master or important creative individual; or Additionally, because the complex was designed by Olof Dahlstrand, who is included in the Carmel Historic Context Statement as a significant architect, the second part of Criterion Three is met: The property represents the work of a master or important creative individual.
c) The property possesses high artistic values.

National Park Service Bulletin 15 explains the third part of Criterion Three as follows: “A property is eligible for its high artistic values if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible, however, if it does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type.” In Carmel-by-the-Sea, the Organic style is fully articulated by the Mrs. Clinton Walker House on Scenic Avenue, which was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace complex does not meet the third part of Criterion Three because it does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than the Walker House.
15 Phase I Intensive Evaluation (DPR 523 Form)
• The c.1904 cottage does not meet any of the significance criteria. Apart from the knowledge gleaned from the 1910 Sanborn map, there is no record of what the c.1904 one-story, wood-frame, L-plan cottage looked like. Sanborn maps and permits provide sufficient evidence that the building no longer resembles the original Milwain cottage, nor does it resemble the Reimers’ home of the 1940s and 1950s. Due to numerous additions, a second story, enclosure of a porch, addition of stone veneer in phases, fenestration changes, and loss of a stone chimney, no character defining features can be identified for this
building. While Dahlstrand is credited with the front
addition (with rooftop patio), the building cannot be considered a good example of a certain style nor Dahlstrand’s work. For that reason, the c.1904 cottage is not considered a contributing resource and has been omitted from the property’s 1977 “period of significance.” (*Note:
the HRB disagreed and found the cottage significant).
• The 1977 Dahlstrand-designed building exhibits key Organic style features, as described in the Carmel HCS (p.137), including a low-pitched hipped roof system with wide, overhanging boxed eaves, the use of modernist construction methods using natural and local materials, wide expanses of glass, and the central courtyard that links the old and new buildings. The building embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, therefore, the first part of Criterion 3 is met. 16 Phase I Intensive Evaluation (DPR 523 Form)
• Significant under California Register Criterion 3
(Architecture) as a good example of the Organic Style by local significant architect Olof Dahlstrand
• Character Defining Features of the "Reimers' Stonehouse Terrace"
1977 Mixed-Use Commercial Building
• The low-pitched hipped roof system with wide overhanging boxed eaves. • The L-shaped plan, one and two-story massing, and stepped arrangement of the building on the site.
• The chalk rock, vertical redwood siding and cement stucco siding. • Original window and door openings including all original door and window variations. 1977 Site Features
• Primary pedestrian access to courtyard from San Carlos Street. • The central courtyard space.
• The brick along the mid-level retail walkway.
• Hardscape features such as the chalk rock planters and chalk rock walls. 17

Phase I Intensive Evaluation (DPR 523 Form)
National Park Service Preservation Brief 17:

Character refers to all the visual aspects and physical features that comprise the appearance of a historic building. Characterdefining features include the overall shape of the building, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, and the various aspects of its site and environment.

A brief biography of Olof Dahlstrand is included in the Carmel Historic Context Statement (page 175):

Olof Dahlstrand (1916-2014) – Born in Wisconsin, Olof Dahlstrand graduated with a degree in architecture from Cornell University in 1939. After designing buildings for the defense industry during World War II, he relocated to the San Francisco Bay area where he designed seven buildings in the Wrightian Organic idiom for individual clients. He established his architectural practice in Carmel in 1960, designing residences, schools and commercial buildings, including the 1966 Carmel Valley Shopping Center and the Wells Fargo Savings Bank (1964), extant on Dolores Street in Carmel and an example of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Organic architectural style. Dahlstrand was an active participant in Carmel’s community, having served on both the planning commission and city council. He retired in 1984, but he continued to do renderings for other architects in the latter part of his career.”
Dahlstrand’s archival documents are located at the UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design. The associated biography published online states:

During a nine-year period between 1950 and 1958, seven clients who wanted site-specific, custom-designed, homes came to Dahlstrand. These “Usonian” residences are built on sites that range from flat parcels, to steep hillsides, to cliff sides on the San Francisco Bay. In the early 1960s, he established his own practice in the Monterey Bay area, and continued to work on residences, commercial centers, and educational facilities located throughout Northern California. His significant projects included the 1966 Carmel Valley Shopping Center and the UC Santa Cruz Faculty Housing begun in 1974. Dahlstrand retired in 1984, but has continued to do renderings for other architects. Olof Dahlstrand earned his degree in architecture from Cornell University in 1939. He worked briefly in Wisconsin, and then moved to the San Francisco Bay area in 1948. He worked as an associate for Fred and Lois Langhorst, and was included in a show at the San Francisco Museum of Art. The trio’s sketches, renderings, photographs, and drawings were a sensation. When the Langhorsts moved to Europe in 1950, Dahlstrand became responsible for the practice. Later, he worked in the San Francisco offices of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, and produced renderings for a number of other architects including John Carl Warnecke. Inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright, Dahlstrand’s work exhibits elements and ideals emphasized by the strong horizontal and vertical elements of the Prairie style.

His work also reflects Wright’s “organic architecture” and its ideas that a building (and its appearance) should follow forms that are in harmony with its natural environment; that the materials used on the exterior should be sympathetic to the building’s locale, thereby relating the building to its setting; and that use should be made of low-pitched overhanging roofs to provide protection from the sun in the summer and to provide some weather protection in the winter. In addition, maximum use should be made of natural day lighting. 18
Olof Dahlstrand
Dahlstrand’s 1966 Carmel Valley
Shopping Center was recently evaluated
by the County of Monterey as a potential
historic resource. The Monterey County
Board of Supervisors ultimately
rejected its historic designation in June
2022.
19 Olof Dahlstrand
Within Carmel-by-the-Sea City
limits, Dahlstrand is credited with the design
of the Carmel Plaza (c.1960, extensively
altered), the Wells Fargo Bank (1965), the
Crocker Bank (1971) converted to the Harrison
Memorial Library Park Branch in 1989, and the
Nielsen Brothers Market (1980). No
Dahlstrand-designed buildings are listed on
the Carmel Inventory of Historic
Resources. The former Crocker Bank was
evaluated by the City in 2025; because the
building does not retain integrity,
it was deemed ineligible for listing on the
Inventory.
20 Olof Dahlstrand
Architects/Designers working in the Organic style: Jon
Konigshofer, Mark Mills (a Taliesin fellow), Albert Henry Hill, Rowan Maiden and Olof Dahlstrand. A notable characteristic of Organic architecture found in Carmel is dramatic roof forms sheltering buildings constructed of natural materials, carefully set within the surrounding landscape.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Carmel Historic Context Statement – Organic Style
Irregular plans and
asymmetrical composition •
Geometric, low-pitched roof
expressions with wide
overhangs and exposed
structural elements • Use of
modernist construction
methods but with natural and
local materials • Wide masonry
chimneys • Wide expanses of
glass in wood or metal frames •
Clerestory windows •
Integrated landscape features of
local materials • Landscape may
be designed by significant
landscape architect
Integrity Defined:
“The authenticity of an historic resource’s
physical identity evidenced by the survival of
characteristics that existed during the resource’s
period of significance.”
• Seven aspects define integrity
• In order to convey its historical significance, a
property that has sufficient integrity for listing
will generally retain a majority of its
character-defining features.
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The original location of the property, complimented by its setting, is required to express the property’s integrity of location.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, structure, and style of the property. Features which must be in place to express a property’s integrity of design are its form, massing, construction method, architectural style, and architectural details.
• Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s). Features which must be in place to express a property’s integrity of setting are its location, relationship to the street, and intact surroundings (e.g., neighborhood or rural). • Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form the historic property. Features that must be in place to express a property’s integrity of materials are its construction method and architectural details. • Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Features that must be in place to express a property’s integrity of workmanship are its construction method and architectural details.
• Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Features that must be in place to express a property’s integrity of feeling are its overall design quality, which may include form, massing, architectural style, architectural details, and surroundings. • Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. Features that must be in place to express a property’s integrity of association are its use and its overall design quality.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 22

Phase I Intensive Evaluation (DPR 523 Form) – Integrity • Location: The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace is still in its original location. The building retains integrity of Location. • Design: The Dahlstrand designed commercial building has retained important design features such as the hipped roof system with wide, overhanging boxed eaves and the wide variety of fenestration types and patterns.
• Setting: The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace complex is in a commercial setting which has not changed since its construction in 1977. • Materials: The Dahlstrand designed commercial building within the complex retains integrity of materials, such as the redwood and chalk rock siding. • Workmanship: The Dahlstrand designed commercial building within the complex has retained integrity of workmanship which is visible in the chalk rock siding and construction details.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 23

Integrity
The 1977 Dahlstrand-designed building has undergone few exterior changes over the years. The permit record indicates that an original wood shake roof was replaced with composition shingle. The Dahlstrand-designed pedestrian entry site stairs from San Carlos Street were remodeled in 2012 and stone planters added.

In 2012, an ADA lift was added in a sensitive manner.
• Feeling: Integrity of Feeling requires a property to contain enough physical features to convey its historic character. The Dahlstrand designed building within the complex retains enough physical features to illustrate an Organic style building, and therefore it retains integrity of Feeling.
• Association: Association is only applicable to properties that are significant under Criteria One and Two.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 24

Stonehouse Terrace Construction Date
Archival drawings and renderings of the “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” signed by Olof Dahlstrand are dated 1976, and the Carmel Planning Commission approved the project on March 13, 1976. The digitized property file includes a reference (page 853) specifying October 21, 1977, as the project completion date. A conflicting reference (page 151) cites 1978 (no month or day specified). The Monterey County Assessor lists 1978 as the construction date. Based on the information available, it can safely be said the project was not completed in 1976 and thus has not yet reached 50 years of age.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 25

General Plan: Land Use and Community Character Element
Although the Coastal Act does not specifically discuss historic preservation, this topic is related to the preservation of character required by sections 30251 and 30253 of the Act. The purpose of this component of the Land Use Plan is to provide a framework for policies that address the preservation of the diverse and valuable historic resources in Carmel. Its primary goals are to educate residents and visitors about the unique architectural, cultural and historic identity of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and to promote the identification and preservation of structures and sites that best represent this history. The addition of this component to the Coastal Plan reflects Carmel’s commitment to the preservation of its important historic resources and the City’s recognition of the role that historic resources play in defining community character. (LUP) Page 1-21 When evaluating resources for potential historic value, the threshold of 50 years old is often used by historic resource professionals as a trigger that such a review is needed. The passing of fifty years provides sufficient time for evaluators to determine whether a particular resource may have become significant in a particular context. Of course, it is also important that decision makers have the discretion and ability based on the recommendation of a qualified professional to determine that resources less than 50 years old are historic, as sometimes a younger resource does rise to a level of historic significance.

The Carmel LCP provides the appropriate policies and procedures to allow evaluation of potential historic resources, whether older than 50 years or not. (LUP) Page 1-22
Properties not yet surveyed shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as the need arises. Page 1-24 CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 26

“Exceptional Importance”
Per CMC 17.32.040.C, Eligible resources should be a minimum of 50 years of age.

Per CMC 17.32.040.H, A resource less than 50 years old may be eligible if it is of exceptional importance to the City, State, or nation based on its unusually strong contribution to history, architecture, engineering or culture, or because it is an integral part of an historic district.

Ms. Clovis and Staff find that the subject property does not rise to the necessary level of exceptional importance to merit listing prior to 50 years of age. However, when the 1977 “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” does reach 50 years of age, on October 21, 2027, it appears eligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory under California Register Criterion 3 as a good local example of the Organic style designed by significant local architect Olof Dahlstrand.

The National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, states that properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register; however, such properties would qualify if they meet National Register Criteria Consideration G: A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.

Ms. Lamprecht finds that the subject property does possess exceptional importance.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 27

“Exceptional Importance”
Recent Council Action: When the Northern California Savings and Loan Building (the present-day Seventh & Dolores restaurant) was evaluated prior to 50 years, the Historic Resources Board voted to add the property to the Inventory. However, the Board’s decision was appealed to the Council, and in 2020, the City Council made the determination that the property – constructed in 1972 – did not yet qualify for the Carmel Inventory and issued a "Determination of Ineligibility" with a custom expiration date of October 26, 2022 to align with the 50-year threshold.

Every property is evaluated individually. Because the Stonehouse Terrace is not yet 50 years old and does not appear exceptional nor reflect any unusually strong contributions to history/architecture etc., Staff recommends the Council issue a Determination of Ineligibility with a custom expiration date of October 21, 2027.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 28

“Exceptional Importance”
*Correction from HRB presentation: The Carmel Inventory does contain properties listed prior to 50 years of age.

Some properties were in fact surveyed through the City’s 2001 Cultural Resources Survey and recommended for listing before the 2004 ordinance was adopted.

However, the Survey predated the ordinance’s requirement for a finding of exceptional importance for properties less than 50 years old.

A cursory review of the DPR forms for the “young” properties indicates they were not evaluated for exceptional importance, as the Historic Preservation Ordinance now requires.

Examples of properties less than 50 years old that were surveyed in 2001/2002 (and later listed, after the adoption of the ordinance) include the Esther M. Hill House (1964), the Howard Nieman House (1970), and the Mr. and Mrs.

William Junk House (1965).

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 29

National Register-listed local properties
A potential future listing on the Carmel Inventory (upon reaching 50 years of age) appears appropriate, however, a National Register Nomination is pending review by the SHRC. For context, nearly 400 properties are listed on the Carmel Inventory and only four properties within Carmel-by-the-Sea City limits are listed on the National Register of Historic Resources:

Carmel Mission / Mission San Carlos de Borromeo del Rio Carmelo – listed in 1983 Outlands in the 80 Acres / Paul Flanders Mansion – listed in 1989 Sunset Center / Sunset School – listed in 1998
Mrs. Clinton Walker House / Cabin-on-the-Rocks / Walker House – listed in 2016 CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 30

National Register-listed local properties
The Robinson Jeffers House / Tor
House, listed on the National Register
in 1975, is located just outside City
limits.

It should be noted that (perhaps nonintuitively) listing a property on the National Register is primarily
honorary in nature and does not secure
any "extra" protections against
alteration or even demolition that are
not already secured by the City’s strong
historic preservation ordinance.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APPEAL 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace)
Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC filed APP 26148 on April 30, 2026, prior to the close of the ten working day appeal period which concluded on May 4, 2026. • Claim A: The HRB lacks authority under CMC Chapter 2.74 to send a support letter, especially one that gives the reader the impression that a building will, in the future, be listed as a historic resource. • Claim B: A letter supporting the eligibility of a property as a Carmel Historical Resource that is currently ineligible for consideration, is both speculative and presumptive declaring the outcome of a future HRB action.
• Claim C: HRB advisory authority runs internally and its activities are limited to serving in an advisory capacity for the Planning Commission and City Council, and does not extend to external state bodies. • Claim D: The HRB support letter potentially could direct harm to Appellant's pending discretionary applications and CEQA Categorical Exemption status by the HRB action that exceeds their authority. • Claim E: The HRB issuance of a support letter directly violates proper public notice requirements.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APPEAL 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace) – Claim A
Claim A: The HRB lacks authority under CMC Chapter 2.74 to send a support letter, especially one that gives the reader the impression that a building will, in the future, be listed as a historic resource.

Staff response: This appeal contention has no merit. CMC Section 2.74.020, Duties and Powers of the Historic Resources Board, defines the duties, powers and responsibilities of the Historic Resources Board. The subsections of CMC Section 2.74.020 do not specify the Board’s role in the review and comment of pending State or National Register nominations, however, CMC Section

2.74.020A identifies the Board’s power “to administer the historic preservation program pursuant to this chapter.” The referenced chapter is CMC Chapter 17.32, Historic Preservation. CMC Section 17.32.010.E states that “Participating in Federal and State preservation processes and programs” is one of the purposes of the historic preservation ordinance. Therefore, the Board’s participation in the State/Federal preservation process by considering and providing comment on a pending nomination is appropriate. The State OHP prompted the Board’s participation by sending the City the review and comment notification letter (refer to Attachment 3), which states, “Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, we have also provided a copy of the nomination to your local preservation commission. Your local preservation commission may comment on whether the nominated property, in its opinion, meets the criteria for the National Register and forward their comments to [staff]. Please transmit your local preservation commission’s comments with your comments to California State Parks…”

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APPEAL 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace) – Claim B
Claim B: A letter supporting the eligibility of a property as a Carmel Historical Resource that is currently ineligible for consideration, is both speculative and presumptive declaring the outcome of a future HRB action.

Staff response: This appeal contention has no merit. The property is eligible for consideration as a historic resource. The Land Use and Community Character Element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan describe that, “When evaluating resources for potential historic value, the threshold of 50 years old is often used by historic resource professionals as a trigger that such a review is needed. The passing of fifty years provides sufficient time for evaluators to determine whether a particular resource may have become significant in a particular context. Of course, it is also important that decision makers have the discretion and ability based on the recommendation of a qualified professional to determine that resources less than 50 years old are historic, as sometimes a younger resource does rise to a level of historic significance. The Carmel LCP provides the appropriate policies and procedures to allow evaluation of potential historic resources, whether older than 50 years or not. (LUP)” Per CMC Section 17.32.060B.1, historic evaluations “as initiated by the Department” shall be conducted to determine whether properties may have historic resource potential. CMC Section 17.32.040.C specifies that eligible resources should be a minimum of 50 years of age, however, they are not required to be. CMC Section 17.32.040.H offers further clarification, specifying (emphasis added), A resource less than 50 years old may be eligible if it is of exceptional importance to the City, State, or nation based on its unusually strong contribution to history, architecture, engineering or culture, or because it is an integral part of an historic district.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APPEAL 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace) – Claim C
Claim C: HRB advisory authority runs internally and its activities are limited to serving in an advisory capacity for the Planning Commission and City Council, and does not extend to external state bodies.

Staff response: This appeal contention has no merit (see “A”).

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APPEAL 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace) – Claim D
Claim D: The HRB support letter potentially could direct harm to Appellant's pending discretionary applications and CEQA Categorical Exemption status by the HRB action that exceeds their authority.

Staff response: This appeal contention has no merit. As demonstrated in Section “A”, the HRB has the authority provide comments to State OHP. Further, the CEQA action on the pending discretionary application referenced by the appellant is not final nor does the comment letter from the HRB involve the pending project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, environmental review shall commence once a discretionary project is deemed complete and prior to approving the project, the decision making body shall either find the project categorically or statutorily exempt, adopt a negative declaration or mitigated declaration or certify a final environmental impact report.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APPEAL 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace) – Claim E
Claim E: The HRB issuance of a support letter directly violates proper public notice requirements.

Staff response: This appeal contention has no merit. The item before the HRB provided the required public notice (published in the Pine Cone on April 10, 2026) which read:
“Consideration of a property owner-sponsored National Register of Historic Places Nomination and a City-initiated Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources for the "Reimers' Stonehouse Terrace" located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District. APN: 010-145-018-000.” The notice appropriately identified the Board’s consideration of the National Register Nomination. A notice containing the same contents was also hand-delivered to all occupants within 100-feet and mailed to all property owners within 300-feet of the subject site as described in CMC Section 17.52.110.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Public Correspondence
• HRB public correspondence & public comment: Kristi Reimers (coowner), Cindy Lloyd, Ian Martin, Steve Hillyard, Doug Schmitz, Kent Seavey, Polly Osborne, Charles Najarian, Victoria Beach, Jason Retterer and Niels Reimers
• Council correspondence (as of 5/29): Julie Wendt, Ian Martin, Clarissa Bell, Micarl Hill, Thomas Lippe (with exhibits from Barbara Lampretch and Amy Crain), Esperanza/Historic Resource Associates
Fiscal Impact: At the request of the Planning Division, Ms. Clovis prepared a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form for consideration by staff and by the Historic Resources Board at a cost of $2,400. Ms. Clovis prepared an addendum memorandum to respond to the concerns raised by the Historic Resources Board during the April 20, 2026 meeting at a cost of $960. The invoices were paid from the FY 25-26 Community Planning and Building Department budget.

Environmental Review: The denial or granting of APP 26148, provision of comments on a National Register Nomination, and determination of ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources is “not a project” as defined in Public Resources Code section 21065 and section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. The actions do not grant any permits or entitlements approving a project that would result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 38

Fiscal Impact and Environmental Review
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 39

Council Options on de novo hearing
APPEAL
APP 26134
DS 25206 (Diamond)
City Council
June 1, 2026

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 1
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

2. Denying Appeal by John and Patricia Dilks (APP 26134, Diamond) thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s decision (as found in Resolution 2025-04-PC, adopted by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2026) to:
a) Deny a Design Study Referral for the construction of a new roof deck above a proposed 800-square-foot accessory dwelling unit (under a separate ministerial permit); b) Approve a Coastal Development Permit to allow 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) located west of Carmelo Street. The property is 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; and c) Approve a Design Study Referral for the installation landscaping consistent with the proposed landscaping plan as authorized by the Coastal Development Permit.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 2
Recommendation
• Design Study and Coastal Development Permit
(CDP) for:
• 800-square-foot Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU);
• New roof deck above the ADU;
• Landscaping, drainage, and associated site work.
• 16,000 sf site
• R-1 zone
• Park Overlay
• Beach/Riparian Overlay
• Archaeological Significance Overlay
• Adjacent to ESHA (ESHA Buffer)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 3
Project Description
• April 8, 2026
• Planning Commission Approval
• Resolution 2026-12-PC
• w/ Conditions
• Refer to staff report Attachment 2.5
• See Page 492 in Agenda Packet
• April 22, 2026
• Timely Appeal
• John and Patricia Dilks
• Refer to staff report Attachment 3
• See Page 505 in Agenda Packet
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 4
Project Description
• Appellant’s Grounds:
• “Any excavation in the beach dune vicinity for concern of beach erosion which would be caused by ADU construction on beach side of lot 8.

Dune has displayed signs of destabilization and erosion in winter months threating public use.”
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 5
Grounds for Appeal
• CMC section 17.20.160, Permit Standards
• Establishes regulations for all properties in
the Beach and Riparian Overlay district
• Subsection A: Regulations Applicable to All
Properties in the Overlay District.

1. View Protection.

2. Location.

3. Design Compatibility.

4. Review of City Needs.

5. Utilities.

6. Sewer Services.

7. Drainage.

8. Projects on Irregularly Shaped Lots or Lots
Larger Than 8,000 Square Feet (setbacks).

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 6
Review Criteria
• CMC section 17.20.160, Permit Standards
• Establishes regulations for all properties in the
Beach and Riparian Overlay district
• Subsection B: Regulations Applicable to Properties
in the Overlay District Located West of Carmelo
Street or North San Antonio Avenue.

1. Access.

2. Subdivision Limitation.

3. Height.

4. Open Space.

5. Tree Removal.

6. Prohibition on Private Development Needing
Protection.

7. Public Structures.

8. Parking

9. Setbacks
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 7
Review Criteria

9. Setbacks • Private development proposed on ocean
-fronting parcels shall comply with the setback requirements of the applicable primary zoning district, except where a lot line is adjacent to a coastal bluff or sand dunes, or where public access and/or recreational areas are required in compliance with these regulations. Proposed private developments shall be set back from the top of the bluff or adjacent sand dunes as provided by this subsection.
a) Bluff Retreat Setback Requirements. New structures shall be set back a sufficient distance from any bluff top to be safe from bluff erosion for a minimum of 100 years as determined by a site-specific geology report, prepared in compliance with CMC § 17.20.170(B), Geology Report; provided, that in no case shall the minimum setback be less than 25 feet. b) Use of Bluff Retreat Setbacks. No development except public access pathways, public restrooms, stairways and associated public recreational or infrastructure facilities shall be permitted within the bluff retreat setbacks identified in site- specific geologic reports. c) Dune, Access and Recreational Area Setbacks. Additional bluff top and/or dune setbacks may be required in compliance with Local Coastal Plan policies to establish a buffer from natural sand dune areas, to reduce visual intrusion on adjacent recreational areas or to accommodate public access and
enjoyment of adjacent recreational areas. (See also CMC §

17.20.180, Public Access).

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA8
Review Criteria
9 Bluff Retreat Setback
Dune Setback:
“Bluff Retreat Setback Requirements. New structures shall be set back a sufficient distance from any bluff top to be safe from bluff erosion for a minimum of 100 years as
determined by a site-specific geology report, prepared
incompliance with CMC § 17.20.170.B., Geology Report;
provided, that in no case shall the minimum setback be less than 25 feet.” (CMC section 17.20.160.B.4.a)
10 Bluff Retreat Setback
SEE PAGE 560 in agenda packet
11 Bluff Retreat Setback
SEE PAGE 560 in agenda packet
12 Bluff Retreat Setback
SEE PAGE 560 in agenda packet
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 13
Use of Bluff Retreat Setback
Bluff Setback:

Use of Bluff Retreat Setbacks. No development
except public accesspathways, public restrooms,
stairways and associated public recreational or
infrastructure facilities shall be permitted within the bluff retreat setbacks identified in site-specific
geologic reports
(CMC section 17.20.160.B.4.b)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 14
Dune, Access, and Recreational Setback
Dune Setback:

Dune, Access and Recreational Area Setbacks. Additional bluff top and/or dune setbacks may be required in
compliance with Local Coastal Plan policies to establish a buffer from natural sand dune areas, to reduce visual
intrusion on adjacent recreational areas or to
accommodate public access and enjoyment of adjacent
recreational areas. (See also CMC § 17.20.180, Public
Access).
(CMC section 17.20.160.B.4.c)
• Archaeology:
• ARMR was negative
• Condition #13, standard
• ESHA (Del Mar Dunes):
• Adjacent to an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area • Biological assessment concluded no impacts to
protected resources are anticipated.
• Refer to Attachment 7
• SEE PAGE 564 in Agenda Packet
• CoAs #32a-e implement CMC sections 17.20.220.E and

17.48.110
• Beach & Riparian Overlay/Park Overlay:
• The development does not physically obstruct ocean
views or alter natural landforms.
• Soils report investigated Geologic and Geoloical Hazards. • “…the parcel is not subject to Geologic Hazards other than seismic events.” • Refer to Attachment 6
• SEE PAGE 516 in Agenda Packet
• CoAs #17-21,30, 31 implement requirements of BR and P overlays.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 15
Dune, Access, and Recreational Setback
• Archaeology:
• ARMR was negative
• Condition #13, standard
• ESHA (Del Mar Dunes):
• Adjacent to an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area • Biological assessment concluded no impacts to
protected resources are anticipated.
• Refer to Attachment 7
• SEE PAGE 564 in Agenda Packet
• CoAs #32a-e implement CMC sections 17.20.220.E and

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 16
Dune, Access, and Recreational Setback
• Archaeology:
• ARMR was negative
• Condition #13, standard
• ESHA (Del Mar Dunes):
• Adjacent to an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area • Biological assessment concluded no impacts to
protected resources are anticipated.
• Refer to Attachment 7
• SEE PAGE 564 in Agenda Packet
• CoAs #32a-e implement CMC sections 17.20.220.E and

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 17
Dune, Access, and Recreational Setback
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 18
Dune, Access, and Recreational Setback
• Archaeology:
• ARMR was negative
• Condition #13, standard
• ESHA (Del Mar Dunes):
• Adjacent to an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area • Biological assessment concluded no impacts to
protected resources are anticipated.
• Refer to Attachment 7
• SEE PAGE 564 in Agenda Packet
• CoAs #32a-e implement CMC sections 17.20.220.E and

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 19
Dune, Access, and Recreational Setback
Dune Setback:

The Council could evaluate whether additional setbacks are necessary, warranted, or needed.

Summary/Recommendation:
• Based on the information in the record, staff
recommends the City Council find the setbacks for the
proposed development adequate and appropriate, and
the proposed development be constructed consistent
with the proposed plans (Attachment 8).
• Future development, or future applications, shall require a determination for setbacks based on factors including but not limited to changes in the context of the site, and/or changing environmental conditions.

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment 1):

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 20
Recommendation
Assembly Bill (AB) 2561 Presentation:

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Efforts
City Council Meeting
June 2, 2025

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
1 • Effective January 1, 2025
• Requires all public employers to disclose the status of vacancies, recruitment, and retention efforts before budget adoption. • AB 2561 intent to address:
• Widespread vacancies in local government
• The impact of vacancies in staff workloads, burnout and turnover • To ensure public agencies are appropriately staffed and labor relations is not undermined
• Additional obligation may apply if the vacancy rate in a bargaining unit exceeds 20%
2 Background – AB 2561
Total Budgeted Full-Time Positions FY 25/26: 85
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 3
General Workforce Information
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 4
Vacancy Information by Bargaining Units
Bargaining Unit Budgeted FTE's Vacancies % Vacant
At-Will 20 1 5.0%
General Unit (LiUNA) 32 3 9.4%
Management Unit (LiUNA) 11 0 0.0%
Police Officers Association 22 1 4.5%
Average Vacancy Rate: 4.7%
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 5
Recruitment & Retention Data (past 12 months)
Recruitments
• 11 New Hires
• 2 CSO/Parking- pending
• Average hire time 4 months
Retention
• 5 Retirements
• 4 Resignations (50% At-Will)
• Average Service Years: 7.1
• HR Policy & Process Enhancements:
• Working closely with department directors
• Refine recruitment postings
• Faster application reviews
• Quicker interview scheduling
• Quicker conditional offer timelines
• The City’s salary and benefits alignment with surrounding agencies have enhanced our competitiveness and reduced turnover. 6 City’s Recruitment & Retention efforts
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 7
Conclusion
• The City reduced its overall vacancy rate from 9.1% in the prior year to 4.7%.
• We will continue to evaluate recruitment and retention efforts with the goal of maintaining a high-quality workforce.

Thank you

Carmel-by-the-Sea City CouncilJune 1, 2026

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