Carmel council pauses plan for November advisory vote, forms working group to study street addresses

Carmel city staff gave a multi‑hour briefing on April 1 reviewing research, legal analysis and public comments about whether the town should move from its long‑standing directional address system (e.g., “Casanova 3 NE of Twelfth”) to conventional numbered street addresses.

Administrative analyst Emily Goree summarized staff work dating to 2022: the topic was added to city priorities, staff explored alternative location systems (plus codes, what3words), worked with USPS Address Management, and investigated operational effects including mail delivery, consolidation at the downtown post office, compatibility with GPS and official databases, and California Fire Code requirements. City attorney analysis reviewed state codes (building, residential and fire codes) and advised the council that California standards require address identification visible from the street and described minimal size/contrast/placement rules. The attorney also said local code language that describes addressing by cross‑street description is inconsistent with state building/firing code and would need an ordinance change.

Staff’s research findings, presented to council, included: - USPS said the downtown post office currently plans to maintain centralized P.O. Box delivery and would not automatically switch to home delivery solely because the city adopts numbered street addresses. - A “hybrid” system (centralized PO boxes coupled with address data in official databases) is possible and already exists in many communities. - Fire code officials said visible address numbers are required for emergency response; address‑based emergency alerts and dispatch depend on consistent, verifiable address data. - Adding addresses alone will not guarantee immediate GPS updates by all private mapping providers; USPS AMS (Address Management System) is the source that others draw from.

Council members, staff and fire officials discussed tradeoffs: improving findability for emergency responders and for delivery services versus preserving Carmel’s traditional directional naming conventions and concerns about private mailboxes, encroachment into the right of way, and whether adoption would trigger a shift to home mail delivery. Some residents said they’d lost packages, cannot sign up for bank services or have seen insurance decisions affected by the lack of conventional addresses. Other residents said they do not want numbered house addresses and prefer the town’s tradition.

The city attorney advised that a binding initiative or referendum that would try to keep the current directional system would likely be preempted by state law; the council could still hold a non‑binding advisory vote, but staff recommended a careful public process before spending the city’s resources. Staff outlined a multi‑phase community engagement and implementation plan that would produce an AMS‑compatible addressing scheme to be submitted to USPS for inclusion in official address databases.

Council direction and next steps: Mayor Pro Tem Bob Delves offered to convene and lead a citizens‑staff working group made up of volunteers, staff and elected representatives to develop AMS‑compatible options that retain Carmel character where possible. The council asked the group to report back with options and recommendations; staff and council agreed to provide an update at the council’s May meeting and a fuller status report by July, rather than immediately moving forward with a November 2025 advisory election. The group will examine alternatives, timing, costs, utilities and coordination with USPS, PG&E, CalAm and mapping providers.

Why it matters: Emergency dispatch, delivery services, utilities, and many commercial processes rely on verifiable physical addresses. Carmel’s historical directional system has created practical friction for residents and for some service providers; any change will affect residents, businesses, the post office and public safety protocols.

Ending: The council paused a rushed November vote and directed the formation of a working group that will attempt to produce options that balance public safety, technical requirements and community preferences. Council members said they expect a staff update in May and continued work on a community process ahead of any formal ordinance or ballot question.