ITEM:		DISCUSSION ITEM
14.	UPDATE ON RESOLUTION 2024-13 SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF OPEN WATER PERMITS BY IMPLEMENTING A ONE-TIME AMNESTY PERIOD
Meeting Date:			October 20, 2025	Budgeted:	N/A
From:			David J. Stoldt, General Manager	Program/	N/A
				Line Item No.:	N/A
Prepared By:			Stephanie Locke	Cost Estimate:	N/A
General Counsel Review: N/A
Committee Recommendation: N/A
CEQA Compliance: This action does not constitute a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.

SUMMARY:   The Resolution 2024-13 “Amnesty Program” wrapped up on September 30, 2025. Over the course of the past year, staff contacted property owners of 1,470 “open” (unfinalized) Water Permits and helped to resolve and close 84 percent (1,242). A total of 5.11 acre-feet of the District Reserve Allocation was used during the project. Staff will continue to follow up on the remaining open permits, although property owners will not have the benefit of the District Reserve and may require water and permits from the jurisdictions.

The project to close “open” water permits enacted by Resolution 2024-13 was generally well-received by the community. The Carmel Pine Cone ran two articles (May 9, 2025, and a follow-up on August 8, 2025) about a Hidden Hill’s customer’s experience that ended with compliance and a friendly inspection. Once the program was understood, most people saw the advantage of getting their permit(s) finalized while the District made water available, worked to resolve any issues, and waived fees during the limited-time program. The local jurisdictions also assisted with clearing permits when their authorizations were needed.

Of the properties with remaining “open” non-compliant permits, staff reports that commonly a property owner told the District they were “out of town” or not at the house and were not able to have a representative meet an inspector at the house, or that they would “call back” to schedule an inspection. There were also a few people who did not want to “deal with it” and planned to live in their house for the rest of their lives making it their children’s or future owner’s issue. Finally, there were several projects that were delayed too long to get through the process with the jurisdiction or that preferred to remove unpermitted water fixtures rather than get proper permits with the jurisdiction.

Next steps will be to follow up on deed restricted properties that have unpermitted water fixtures that can be closed by a debit to the jurisdiction’s allocation and collection of fees or by enforcement by the jurisdiction. Staff will also continue efforts to obtain a final inspection for open permits. Non-compliant properties may also be pursued through the District’s Regulation XI enforcement processes. Note that it is a condition of the Water Permit and the responsibility of the property owner to arrange for a final inspection upon completion of the permit.

BACKGROUND:

On October 21, 2024, the Board adopted Resolution 2024-13 which authorized the use of the District Reserve Allocation to help close certain “open” Water Permits (those without a final inspection and those with noticed violations) issued prior to October 1, 2022, as well as documented unpermitted water fixtures found during a pre-2017 inspection. The action also suspended several rules and waived fees for these projects through September 30, 2025. There were approximately 1,600 open permits from 1993-2022 identified when the Board adopted the resolution, not including a number of noticed violations.

Outreach

Following adoption of the resolution, staff set up three orientation meetings for the planning and building staff to learn about the amnesty process. Invitations were sent to key people at each jurisdiction. A video link to a recorded version of the meeting was also provided.

District staff contacted the current property owners by mail, requesting they schedule a final inspection. They were given 30 days to respond, and if there was no reply, a second letter was sent with an additional 30 days to respond. When no response was received following a second letter, a Notice of Non-Compliance was filed on the property title with a copy sent to the owner. Almost two-thirds of the properties receiving the first letter resulted in an inspection and closure of the permit. There was also a significant response with the recordation of notice.

The key personnel in each jurisdiction were helpful and cooperative. In most cases, the District only requested a signature from the jurisdiction when fixtures were added to ensure that the jurisdiction had an opportunity to correct any violations on their end. There were also a few projects unrelated to the property’s “open” permit that were referred to the jurisdiction for permitting, such as when accessory dwelling units were added without permits.

Phase 1: Open Permits that Required a Final Inspection

First and second letters and Notices of Non-Compliance were sent in batches by jurisdiction to the current property owner(s) beginning in Pacific Grove, followed by Sand City and Seaside, then Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, unincorporated County and the City of Carmel. This allowed the inspection team to focus on one geographic area at a time to improve efficiency.

Phase 2: Open Permits with Current Violations

The second phase of the amnesty program was to clear properties that had noticed violations that had not been corrected. Permit violations on properties that had previously received notice of requirements for a Water Permit were also considered to be “open” permits. Starting in June, letters were sent to those property owners giving them the opportunity to amend permits without penalties and to clear violations.

Conclusion

The following table summarizes the completion of the project. While there were initially close to 1,600 “open” Water Permits identified, efforts reduced that down to 1,470 properties that received first letters. Some properties had multiple open permits, such as Del Monte Center, Carmel Valley Manor, and the Presidio of Monterey for example, and they received one letter for all open permits. Other permits were administratively amended and closed by staff resulting in a lower total number of properties needing final inspections.

Resolution 2024-13 Amnesty Program Results
Jurisdiction	No. Permits	2nd Letter	Unresolved Notice of Non-Compliance	Permits Successfully Closed	Percentage Closed
Carmel	111	51	30	78	70%
Del Rey Oaks	23	13	0	23	100%
Monterey	300	101	40	258	86%
Pacific Grove	199	71	21	177	89%
Sand City	21	11	4	11	52%
Seaside	187	67	41	149	80%
Unincorporated County	629	208	68	546	87%
TOTAL	1470			1242	84%

Impacts on Staffing

This project added over 100 inspections per month to the schedule and increased telephone calls, emails and other correspondence, which was challenging for staff. Of the inspections conducted, approximately 23% of them failed the first inspection, usually due to different water fixtures than originally permitted. When an inspection failed, the inspector provided the property owner with information about the process to amend the Water Permit.

The staff time required to track the status of each inspection, send follow up letters, update information in the database, and coordinate with the Jurisdictions was immense. The two Conservation Analysts (permit processors) took over after the inspection with the goal of amending and closing the permit. Failed inspections required anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours of additional staff time to research and re-permit and many required a revised deed restriction and/or approval from the Jurisdiction. Inspection statistics are reported to the Board in the monthly Water Efficiency Program Report.

As mentioned previously, staff encountered a range of reactions to this enforcement effort, although the majority were positive. Most property owners were cooperative and scheduled their required final inspections when they understood that the requirement to schedule a final with the District was the property owner’s responsibility. A smaller number expressed frustration regarding the time lapse between the permit issuance and the District's follow-up. In some cases, there were new owners since the permit was issued, and in other cases the permitted project was never done.

Impacts on District Reserve Allocation

Surprisingly, most permit amendments did not require additional water to close the permit. The Board authorized the use of the District Reserve Allocation for those projects that qualify for amnesty. Between October and September 30, 2025, 5.11 Acre-Feet of the District Reserve Allocation was utilized for this project. Use of the District Reserve is reported in the Monthly Allocation Report.

RECOMMENDATION: No action is required for this matter. It is provided for information/discussion only.

EXHIBIT

None

U:\staff\Boardpacket\2025\102025\Discussion Item\14\Item-14.docx