REPORT TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS APPEALS BOARD August 18, 2026 FROM: ANDREW JANZ, City Attorney Office of the City Attorney BY: CHRISTINA C. PI�A, Deputy City Attorney Office of the City Attorney SUBJECT ..Title Actions pertaining to Fresno Code Enforcement case number E25-16660, concerning 1347 E. Shields Ave., and the Notice and Order issued on January 2, 2026: 1. PROGRESS HEARING on the Appeal of the Notice and Order. 2. Take one of the following actions: i. DETERMINE Appellants HAVE NOT made substantial progress towards correcting the outstanding violations from the Notice and Order issued January 2, 2026, and ORDER payment of double the fines, as well as all allowable costs and fees; OR ii. DETERMINE Appellants HAVE made substantial progress towards correcting the outstanding violations from the Notice and Order issued January 2, 2026, and CONTINUE the hearing to a later date; OR iii. DETERMINE Appellants have FULLY corrected outstanding violations from the Notice and Order issued January 2, 2026. ...Body RECOMMENDATION Staff will make a recommendation at the Progress Hearing based on the latest available information on correction status of the outstanding violation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 19, 2026, the Building Standards Appeal Board (BSAB) held a hearing regarding a Notice and Order issued January 2, 2026, containing 2 violations in case E25-16660 pertaining to 1347 E. Shields Ave. (the Property). The BSAB determined that the violations were present at the time the Notice and Order was issued. The BSAB also determined the violations remained uncorrected at the time of the hearing, necessitating a progress hearing to be set. BACKGROUND The BSAB was established by Resolution number 2025-149 passed May 22, 2025, in order to hear various appeals, including Code Enforcement appeals related to building standards under FMC Chapter 11, Articles 3 and 4. To perform this duty, the BSAB must review the Appeal Form received by the appellant, any other information provided by the appellant, the staff report, and all attachments. Pursuant to FMC section 1-408, the scope of the hearing "shall be limited to the order, citation, decision, or determination being appealed, the grounds for relief raised in the notice of appeal, and any specific requirements of this Code." (FMC � 1-408(e).) The BSAB may admit any relevant evidence, "if it is the type of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to relay on in the conduct of serious affairs," and "hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any direct evidence but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions." (FMC � 1-408(d)(3).) The City has the burden of proof and production of evidence, and the burden of proof shall be preponderance of the evidence. (FMC � 1-408(f).) Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence shows a fact is more likely true than not true, or over a 50% probability. If the BSAB finds that any of the violations set forth in the appealed notice or citation is continuing and remains as of the time of the hearing, the determination must include an order for the Appellant to correct the violations within thirty days, and a progress hearing must be set to occur thirty to sixty days later. (FMC � 1-409(f).) Progress hearing procedures and requirements are found in FMC section 1-409(f). At the progress hearing, if the BSAB finds all violations are fully corrected, then matter is closed. If the BSAB finds Appellants have made substantial progress, but have not been able to complete corrections for reasons beyond their control, the hearing is continued to a later date. If the BSAB finds Appellants have not made substantial progress, they must order payment of double the maximum fines permitted in the FMC, as well as all allowable costs and fees. Summary of Facts On December 2, 2025, this case was opened due to a complaint that the single-family home has been turned into a duplex. (Appeal Packet, pg. 5) Inspector Maya inspected the Property with the Owner and observed a covered patio and an enclosed patio, both which required permits. (Appeal Packet, pg. 6) Based on those findings, a Notice and Order was issued on January 2, 2026, listing the violations: (1) The covered patio was added without the required plans, permits, and inspections, (2) The enclosed patio was added without the required plans, permits, and inspections. The deadline to correct the violations on the Notice was January 20, 2026. (Appeal Packet, pg. 13). On May 19, 2026, the BSAB held a hearing regarding the Notice and Order. The BSAB determined both violations were present at the time the Notice and Order was issued and remained uncorrected at the time of the hearing. (Appeal Packet, pg. 48). On July 2, 2026, a Residential ADU Assessment Checklist was completed by the Planning and Development Department. The Checklist described the unit as a, "Duplex, 15x30 addition for bedroom, permitted 9/12/49 was converted to a second unit that included kitchen/restroom also an unpermitted patio was added and converted to a bedroom." It was determined that a separate address will be needed and planning process will be required. (Appeal Packet, pg. 50). Inspector Maya will check City permit records again prior to the August 18, 2026, hearing and provide the BSAB with further updates at that time. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378, the Commission's consideration of the Application is not a CEQA "project". LOCAL PREFERENCE Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT Not applicable. Attachments: Exhibit A - Code Enforcement Appeal Packet Exhibit B - Findings Matrix Exhibit C - Presentation