Council pauses November advisory vote, directs working group to explore AMS-compatible addresses

The Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council on April 1 declined to move ahead with the previously planned advisory vote on street addressing for November 2025, instead directing staff and a newly convened citizen working group to develop address options, examine implementation tasks and report back to council.

Council heard a nearly three-hour public discussion and a staff briefing that summarized research into how a standardized address system would interact with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), emergency response, GPS findability and local practice. Emily Garay, the city’s administrative analyst, reviewed the staff findings: the USPS said a citywide addressing change would not, in itself, trigger conversion from centralized PO-box delivery to home delivery, and the USPS would remain the authoritative source for address verification. Garay also noted the California fire code requires street identification that is visible from the street and that municipal code language currently in the city code is inconsistent with state building and fire codes.

Council members emphasized they wanted more time and public engagement before a binding schedule for a public vote. Mayor Pro Tem Bob Delves told the meeting that the council should take “a step back” and begin “from where the prior council left off,” then “ask questions that are unanswered” before committing to a November vote date.

Delves and other council members asked staff to convene a citizen-led group — including volunteers who have already come forward and technical volunteers who offered mapping and delivery expertise — to identify a small set of AMS‑compatible address schemes, produce sample assignments (what an address would look like for each affected parcel), and estimate costs and tasks for integration with county and national address databases. The council asked for an interim update to be provided at the May meeting and a fuller report by July. Council members signaled they prefer to hold any citywide advisory ballot in the regular municipal election in November 2026 — which would be substantially less expensive than a special mailing — rather than rushing a special question for November 2025.

Council and staff framed the decision as balancing multiple objectives: public safety (dispatch and mutual-aid responders rely on standardized numbering), residents’ convenience for parcel delivery and business/financial verification, local traditions of descriptive addresses in the village, and protection of the downtown post office’s existing centralized service. Emily Garay and the city attorney briefed council on several technical points: (1) the district USPS address manager and local postmaster told staff they do not plan to close the downtown post office if the city adopts a standardized address system; (2) an AMS-compatible address usually follows specific rules (odd/even sides, limited street-name length) to permit ingestion by the USPS Address Management System and third-party routing products; and (3) California’s building and fire codes require legible address identification visible from the street.

Members of the public gave extensive testimony. Several residents described delivery, medical and insurance problems tied to the current descriptive/directional addressing system; others said the village character and community tradition counsel caution. Several residents asked the council to either adopt addresses quickly for safety reasons or to partner with a citizen group to craft a solution that preserves Carmel’s visual character. Business and delivery representatives offered technical assistance for mapping and GPS integration.

Council direction: staff will convene a working group, include technical volunteers, produce a set of address scheme options that are AMS compatible, prepare sample parcel assignments for each scheme, estimate costs and tasks for USPS and utility database integration, identify policy tools to avoid unwanted street infrastructure (for example encroachment rules about mailboxes), and return with an update in May and a fuller recommendation in July. The council said it would revisit whether to hold an advisory ballot later — with several members preferring the regular 2026 municipal election if a ballot is appropriate.