Carmel City Council extends beach fire pilot program to 2022.

There is a third-rail topic in Carmel-by-the-Sea, meaning a topic so contentious it's as dangerous as touching the electrified third rail of a subway system. 

That topic is beach fires, and it's left the city completely divided for over a decade between those who love the lure and nostalgia of wood-burning fires and those who see them as toxic, dangerous and messy.

Compromise has eluded the community, although it's been tried in numerous public meetings and behind the scenes. The closest thing to a compromise the city ever got was allowing unlimited propane fires but limiting wood-burning fires to five cauldrons only, between May 15-Sept. 15, from 4pm-7pm. It was part of a pilot program approved by the California Coastal Commission back in 2016.

In a special Carmel City Council meeting on Monday, Nov. 23, Mayor Dave Potter said his efforts to bring together the two sides for another compromise last year completely fizzled.

Potter told the council that the attempt "deteriorated into some name-calling. I thought calmer more sophisticated minds could prevail but unfortunately, it deteriorated into another free-for-all that we’ve seen enough of in the council chambers."

The issue was back before the City Council on Monday because the Coastal Commission permit for the pilot program permit was set to expire on Nov. 30. If the council did nothing, unlimited wood-burning fires would be allowed under the city's original coastal development plan.

The pilot was never really able to get off the ground and serve as a good test, between winter storms that created problems for placing cauldrons and later Covid-19, which led to a moratorium on any fires to discourage gatherings.

On Monday, Councilmember Carrie Theis suggested extending the pilot by a year and a half or even two years. The council settled on an extension to May 31, 2022. The motion passed 4-1.

The lone "no" vote was from Councilmember Jan Reimers, who from the beginning has advocated for propane fires only. She was not in favor of even the five wood-burning cauldrons allowed under the pilot. She also argued that the estimated annual cost of $50,000 to pay for city crews placing the cauldrons and keeping them cleaned out was too much to pay during a difficult budget year due to Covid.

Unlike past contentious public meetings on the subject, only a couple of residents spoke, one against wood-burning fires and one in favor. 

The one in favor, longtime wood-burning fire advocate Jeanne McCulloch, asked the council to let the issue rest once and for all. She asked that the council keep the five wood-burning fires allowed under the permit. 

"I really hope you don’t push the individual agenda for a few people that are going to ruin it for everybody else," she said. "Let it rest. Let it go. Let it be. Let's move on so we can bring the community together and not divide [it]," said McCullough. "We don’t need divisiveness in the town or in the country."