Appeals Hearing Board Meeting

APPEALS HEARING BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITY OF MONTEREY Thursday, September 18, 2025 10:00 AM MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Board members Present: Glenzer, Fritz, Hoffmeister, and Cheng (alternate) Absent: none Board Staff City Attorney Christine Davi and Clerk of the Board Alicia Salas Present: Other Staff Assistant City Attorney Karin Krattli, Code Compliance Coordinator, Rory Present: Lakind, and Division Chief/Fire Marshall Justin Cooper CALL TO ORDER Recording Secretary Alicia Salas called the meeting to order at 10:01 am PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Minutes of March 22, 2024 Board member Glenzer made a motion to approve the minutes. Board member Cheng seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Glenzer, Fritz, Hoffmeister, Cheng NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 2. Adopt Regular Dates for 2025-2026 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Board member Glenzer made a motion to approve the existing calendar in the packet to be approved. Board member Cheng seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Glenzer, Fritz, Hoffmeister and Cheng NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None  Appeals Hearing Board September 18, 2025 Minutes 3. Select Chair and Vice Chair for Term Ending June 30, 2026 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Board member Glenzer asked the other Board members if anyone wanted to be the chair. Board member Cheng asked Ms. Davi if an alternate can serve as chair or vice chair; Ms. Davi said they cannot. With no one expressing interest in being the chair, Board member Glenzer said he would be happy to serve as chair Board member Cheng made a motion to nominate Mr. Glenzer as Chair and Mr. Hoffmeister as Vice Chair. Board member Glenzer seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Glenzer, Fritz, Hoffmeister, and Cheng NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 4. Adopt Administrative Order for Failure to Comply with Compliance Order Issued June 6, 2025, for Violation of Monterey City Code, Section 9-0.1.10 / Adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code 308.01 and Monterey Cite Code Section 13-0.1 / California Fire Code Sections 3405, 3406, 3409, 315 by Peninsula Tire Services Inc. and Anthony Q. Virgil, Operating at 1299 Del Monte Avenue, Property Owner: Del Monte Invest LLC (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Board member Fritz stated that she is a long-time customer of Peninsula Tire and would be recusing herself from the meeting. She said Mr. Cheng will be hearing this item. Ms. Davi said it was not a legal disqualification for Ms. Fritz so she will step down from the dais and observe the hearing from the gallery. Ms. Davi gave the disclaimer that she is the City Attorney, and she is representing the Appeals Hearing Board in this matter. Karin Krattli is the Assistant City Attorney, and she representing staff. She went on to say that she and Ms. Krattli have maintained a due process wall, which means she has not discussed this with Ms. Krattli, nor have they shared each other’s files. Ms. Davi said that she received the same information that Board received at the same time, to ensure fair hearing and that due process is provided. Ms. Davi said the Rules of Evidence are not strictly applied here and hearsay is admissible as long as it is reasonable to be considered. She said the hearing is much more flexible than that of a court of law and the City carries the burden of proof by the preponderance of the evidence. 2 Appeals Hearing Board September 18, 2025 Minutes Karin Krattli, Assistant City Attorney, introduced Code Compliance Coordinator, Rory Lakind, and Division Chief/Fire Marshall Justin Cooper. They gave their presentations regarding 1299 Del Monte Avenue and took questions from the Board. Ms. Krattli asked Division Chief Cooper based on his inspections, would he agree that the tire pile, both in its locations, dimensions, height and volume all violated the California Fire Code to which Division Chief agreed. Ms. Krattli asked Code Compliance Coordinator Rory Lakind if attachment 14 from the packet is reflective of the 17 inspections he performed on the property; he replied yes, it is. She also confirmed that administrative citations were written to the property by Mr. Lakind. Ms. Krattli asked Mr. Lakind if compliance was achieved after any of the 17 inspections or after the three citations were written. Mr. Lakind said no, the property remains out of compliance. Mr. Lakind confirmed that he issued a Compliance Order on June 9, 2025, for violations of the Monterey City Code that adopt the International Property Maintenance Code and the California Fire Code. Ms. Krattli said Attachment 20 is a letter you sent to the property owner giving them an extension after some tires were removed. Mr. Lakind said there were two instances where approximately 500 tires were removed. Ms. Krattli said in an effort to work with the property owner you gave him additional time, until August 15, 2025, to remove the remaining tires. She asked Mr. Lakind if he had reinspected the property on August 18, 2025, he said he did. Ms. Krattli then asked if he had observed general trash and rubbish, in addition to the tires, in the pile as well. Mr. Lakind said there was a bunch of garbage thrown on top of the tire pile. Mr. Lakind confirmed that on the day of his inspection the pile was over 10 feet high and touching the buildings as shown in Attachment 19. He said he estimated, based on his inspection, there were about 1,000 tires in the pile on that date. Ms. Krattli then asked Mr. Lakind if he had visited the property during the week; he said he had, and the pile is still similar to the photo in Attachment 19. Ms. Krattli said, based on the City Code, staff is requesting, in addition to finding that the violations were not remediated, that the Appeals Hearing Board assess administrative costs. She explained that these costs are for the inspections done by Code Compliance and the Fire Department. She said the itemized costs are on attachment 14. Ms. Krattli said staff are also requesting penalties of $10.00 a day for noncompliance from August 15, 2025, until today. As well as, $50.00 per day if the deadlines in the Boards Administrative Order are not met. She said the City Code authorizes those penalties to accrue up to $100,000.00. Ms. Krattli stated that she has an updated Administrative Order that is different from the one in the packet. She said the fire extinguisher violation has been resolved and that issue has been removed from the updated draft Administrative Order. In conclusion Ms. Krattli said the tire pile still exists with 1,000 – 1,500 tires in total and it presents a highly hazardous threat to the community given the flammable nature of used tires. She said staff requests that the Administrative Order, as revised today, be adopted. Chair Glenzer asked what the difference between a citation and a Compliance Order is. Ms. Krattli said the City Code allows staff different enforcement options. She stated that an Administrative Citation is akin to a parking ticket, where you pay a set fine and essentially it is done. The Compliance Order says that remediation must occur and if it does not, you can face fines and penalties and the City can abate the nuisance. She said after another hearing, the City 3 Appeals Hearing Board September 18, 2025 Minutes could lean the property for those costs. Ms. Krattli said, generally a Compliance Order is more serious than an Administrative Citation. Chair Glenzer asked if two Compliance Orders were issued on June 9 and again on August 15? Ms. Krattli said only one was issued on June 9 and the original deadline was sometime in July. However, staff had seen some steps towards compliance and wanted to work with the property owner, so they extended the deadline to August 15. Chair Glenzer asked staff if there was anything unusual about the process or anything different from a normal procedure. Ms. Krattli said in her tenure at the City she has not dealt with a “tire pile” but has dealt with other forms of nuisances like rubbish, garbage, trash accumulating on properties and a similar process has been followed for those properties. Board member Cheng asked Ms. Krattli to go over the fees the City is asking for and to break down the charges. Ms. Krattli said the administrative costs, which are the cost of the various inspections, are mostly staff time. She said the administrative costs that staff is requesting are $7,339.92 and the penalties are $10.00 a day for 34 days, which is the time of the final compliance date of August 15 until today, equaling $340.00. She said if the Board imposes an Administrative Order a new deadline would be adopted in the future for compliance. She said staff is proposing three weeks to remove the tire pile and if that is not met, staff is proposing a $50.00 per day penalty. Board member Cheng asked if any of the citations that were issued have been paid, Ms. Krattli said no. Board member Cheng asked when Mr. Virgil became aware that administrative costs could be an issue. Mr. Lakind said he personally hand delivered multiple citations and has spoken to Mr. Virgil at least 17 times. He said Mr. Virgil was informed on multiple occasions that if something was not done, citations would be issued. Board member Cheng asked Mr. Lakind the date the administrative costs were sent to Mr. Virgil Mr. Lakind said October 10, 2024. Ms. Krattli added the Warning Letter is Attachment 8 and no penalties were imposed at that time, but it does state that failure to correct may subject you to administrative citations, fines, liens and other legal remedies. She said it also states that a Compliance Order may be issued. Board member Cheng asked when the clock starts on the Administrative Costs. Ms. Krattli said Attachment 14 shows costs which go back to October 10, however the Board has the discretion to decide the date and adjust the costs and penalties as you see fit. Board member Cheng asked what happened with the unpaid citations. Ms. Krattli said the citations are separate proceedings and generally the Finance Department can decide if they want to attempt collections through a collection agency or small claims court, but that issue is housed with the Finance Department. Board member Hoffmeister asked how staff knows how many tires are on the property. Division Chief Cooper said, looking at the volume and size of the pile, looking from a distance and measurements of the pile, as well as, by looking at the pile after about 500 tires were removed, it was easy to see that there were over 1,000 tires in the pile. 4 Appeals Hearing Board September 18, 2025 Minutes Board member Hoffmeister asked if there had been any other complaints the city received besides the original one. Division Chief Cooper said he has received at least two separate complaints to Monterey Fire Station #13 regarding the tire pile; those complaints were received by Fire Captain Danny Givvin. Division Chief Cooper said Captain Givvin went to the site, without knowing that the process had already been started regarding the tire pile. He said Captain Givvin sent him an email raising concerns about the fire threat and hazardous conditions occurring on the property as well. Board member Hoffmeister asked why staff visited the site 17 times. He said that it seemed excessive. He also asked if Mr. Virgil will get billed, as part of the Administrative Costs, for staff’s time to visit the site 17 times. Ms. Krattli said staff are requesting that it be imposed as itemized in Attachment 14. She added that the City, generally, has a history of trying to work with property owners to achieve voluntary compliance and she believes that was the case in this instance. Chair Glenzer asked if the original Compliance Order, of June 9, had been met, would there have been Administrative Cost then. Ms. Krattli said if the original Compliance Order has been complied with, then we don’t have the hearing, and no administrative costs would be imposed at all. Ms. Krattli informed Mr. Virgil that it was now time to cross-examine the City’s witnesses, or he could present his own case. Anthony Virgil with Peninsula Tire Service said the Code Compliance Officer and Fire Department have been out to the property several times to try to get me into compliance. He said he had some banking issues, and he did not have the funds to take care of the issues. Mr. Virgil said he is working on getting the tires out within the next three weeks. He said that he sold the property because he was about to be foreclosed on. He went on to say that when the money comes in from the sale, he’ll be able to clean things out. Mr. Virgil said he had a tire company pick up a lot of the tires, but because he has been at that property for a long time, he can dispose of some, but then they come right back. He closed by saying he will make sure the property is cleaned out before someone else takes possession of it. Board member Cheng asked Mr. Virgil if he was planning on selling the property, to which Mr. Virgil said it had been sold. He asked if the title had been transferred yet, Mr. Virgil said yes. Board member Hoffmeister asked if Mr. Virgil was moving his business, and Mr. Virgil said no he is not. Board member Hoffmeister asked Mr. Virgil how long he anticipates being at the property; he said about three weeks to a month. Board member Hoffmeister asked Mr. Virgil how long his business was on that property, he responded 31 years. Board member Cheng asked if the current property owner is charging him rent. Mr. Virgil said, no, he just gave me some time to fix the situation. Assistant City Attorney Krattli said the City obtains property ownership information from the County Assessors database, and it does not update quickly. She said she does not 5 Appeals Hearing Board September 18, 2025 Minutes have confirmation of the sale, or any documentation, and she does not have any further information regarding current ownership. Board Member Discussion Board member Cheng asked if the Administrative Order was attached to the property or the business itself. Ms. Krattli said with the Administrative Order you can determine which party is responsible; it can be business owner, a property owner, or both. She said in this case, based on the evidence that staff had, we put before the Board the party responsible is the property owner, the business owner, and Mr. Virgil as the manager of both of those. She went on to say that staff do not have the authority to lien a property, and neither do this board. Ms. Krattli said that issue would need to go before the City Council and that process would not necessarily happen, regardless of what happens here today. Board member Cheng said the violations seem clear and is satisfied that the procedure and due process have been followed with lots of notification and sufficient notice. He said much of his discussion would be on how to craft a proper remedy. He said how do we balance compliance, justice and not being punitive, unless that’s what the Board wants. Board member Hoffmeister said he agrees with Board member Cheng. He said he has a little bit of issue with Administrative Costs; he said it seems a little high to him. Mr. Hoffmeister said he understands working with the property owner but if the situation does not change, do you keep going out there and bill them. He said he has some flexibility in the administrative cost, but what is the end goal? Is it to make things whole, to make sure this doesn’t happen again, or to protect the general public. Board member Cheng asked City Attorney Davi how common it is for a Compliance Order to add administrative costs; Ms. Davi said it is typical. Board member Cheng said the administrative costs seem high and the fine seems low, so maybe a better balancing of that would be that way to go. Chair Glenzer asked the Board if they had any ideas about how to rationally modify the administrative costs. Board member Cheng said he is not necessarily averse to the number on the administrative cost, but he is aware that it is high and wanted to discuss that with the Board. Board member Hoffmeister said he is having a problem coming up with a reasonable way to modify and what would support that modification. He said when was the time for the city to say let’s move on the next step in the process. He said he understands working with the property owner but every time the city goes out to inspect the site, it’s another charge for the owner. Chair Glenzer said he agrees with both the other board members and believes the proper procedure was followed and clearly Mr. Virgil knew about this all along the way. Mr. Glenzer said he also wants to commend the city for all they have done to work with the owner; it’s admirable. He added, this is the kind of city I want to live in. Chair Glenzer suggested starting the clock on the Administrative Costs on June 9 and not October 8. He said June 9th is when the Compliance Order was issued. Mr. Glenzer said as a board we might want to think about it that way and he believes that Administrative Cost in this case is proper. Board member Hoffmeister said he would be ok with starting the clock on June 9th. Board member Glenzer said he would also be happy with June 9th. 6 Appeals Hearing Board September 18, 2025 Minutes Board member Cheng asked Assistant City Attorney Krattli if staff was ok with starting the clock on the fees on June 9th. Ms. Krattli said staffs main concern is compliance. She said as far as they are aware, the property may have been sold, but the business is still operational, so tires are still being taken in daily, and the waste tires continue to accrue. She added that staff’s primary goal is to achieve compliance and to have the property cleaned out. Board member Hoffmeister said he would make his decision based on the sale of the property. He said he was wondering if the Board could write a decision based on that fact. Board member Cheng asked Ms. Davi what would happen if they decided to continue the hearing until the sale of the property could be verified. City Attorney Davi said the board could continue the hearing for proof of sale. She stated that Ms. Krattli said in the City Code, the Compliance Order, can be issued to any person responsible for the violation and/or the property owner. Ms. Davi said it would depend on how much the ownership falls into the equation, but it could be against the business operator despite the ownership issues. She added that if the sale of the property is playing a role in their decision, the Board could continue until verification of the closure of escrow and the transfer. Board member Glenzer stated according to the Compliance Order there is a three-week window to come into compliance, no matter who the owner is. He said he would be ok with starting the clock on the administrative fees on June 9th because of the ambiguity of ownership. He added that the party responsible is Mr. Virgil and not whoever might be the new owner. Board member Cheng said he would be ok with what Chair Glenzer suggested. Board member Cheng said he was concerned that if Mr. Virgil decides to go to Superior Court, it would be based on whatever order we give. He said Mr. Virgil would have a properly crafted order, if that’s what he decided to do. Chair Glenzer made a motion to start the administrative cost on June 9th, and as of the date of this hearing, if there is no action taken on the property, the city will implement a fine of $50.00 per day after the lapse of the three-week period. City Attorney Davi restated the motion. She said the administrative penalties will start on June 9th and the costs are being reduced accordingly from $7,399.92 to $3,368.68, and you are confirming the $340.00 penalties and if these costs are paid in full by October 31, 2025, then the $340.00 will be waived. If full compliance is not achieved by the October 9, 2025, deadline, then these penalties will be immediately due and owed. If full compliance is not achieved by October 9th the penalties will increase to $50.00 per day. Ms. Davi added that as part of the motion, the board could add confirmation on the factual findings, the penalties and costs, and the deadlines as described. Additionally, the board would authorize the Board Chair to sign Administrative Order as set forth in the motion and with the modifications she just described. Chair Glenzer restated his motion saying, the administrative costs will start on June 9th in the amount of $3,368.68, the $10 per day times 34 days ($340.00) will be waived if full compliance is achieved and the administrative fees are paid but if compliance has not been achieved by October 31, 2025, then he will start accruing to $50.00 a day penalty. And the Board agrees that as the chair he can sign the order once it is formally written. 7  Appeals Hearing Board September 18, 2025 Minutes Ms. Davi said there is a draft that was updated and distributed this morning by the city and that she will make the additional edits as described. Board member Cheng seconded the motion. The motion was carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Glenzer, Cheng, Hoffmeister NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Glenzer adjourned the hearing at 11:05 am Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Alicia Salas Kent Glenzer Recording Secretary Chair of the Board 8