REPORT TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS APPEALS BOARD August 4, 2026 FROM: ANDREW JANZ, City Attorney Office of the City Attorney BY: SARAH A. PAPAZIAN, Senior Deputy City Attorney Office of the City Attorney SUBJECT ..Title Actions pertaining to Fresno Code Enforcement case number E26-04602, concerning 2220 N. Weber Ave. / 1827 W. Clinton Ave., and the Notice and Order issued on April 9, 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 April 9, 2026, and ORDER payment of double the fines, as well as all allowable costs and fee; OR ii. DETERMINE Appellants HAVE made substantial progress towards correcting the outstanding violations from the Notice and Order issued April 9, 2026, and CONTINUE the hearing to a later date; OR iii. DETERMINE Appellants have FULLY corrected outstanding violations from the Notice and Order issued April 9, 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 June 2, 2026, the Building Standards Appeal Board (BSAB) held a hearing regarding a Notice and Order issued April 9, 2026, containing 7 violations in case E26-04602 pertaining to 2220 N. Weber Ave. / 1827 W. Clinton Ave. (the Property). The BSAB determined that the violations were present at the time the Notice and Order was issued. The BSAB also determined that Violation #1 (The exterior siding on all buildings was replaced without permits) 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 April 2, 2026, this case was opened after City inspectors observed violations while at the Property for a separate reactive complaint-based case. Inspector Amparo observed the exterior of the Property and conducted a search of City permit records. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 5, 8-10.) The violations he found included a hazardous tree growing into the structure, unfinished replacement of exterior walls without permits, and installation of a fence: (1) contrary to the approved site plan; (2) made of unapproved materials; (3) over the legal height; and (4) in such a manner that emergency egress was obstructed from one of the units. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 5, 9-10.) Based on those findings, Inspector Amparo issued a Notice and Order (Notice) on April 9, 2026, listing seven identified violations as well as the code sections implicated, potential corrections, and supporting photographs. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 28-39.) The deadline to cure the violations listed on the Notice was April 27, 2026. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 28, 32.) On June 2, 2026, the BSAB held a hearing regarding the Notice and Order. The BSAB determined that all seven violations were present at the time the Notice and Order was issued, and that Violation #1 (the exterior siding on all buildings was replaced without permits) remained uncorrected at the time of the hearing. As of the June 2 hearing, Appellants' latest progress on correcting Violation #1 was two pre-stucco applications (B26-04624 and B26-04627) that were applied for on April 27, 2026. In anticipation of the progress hearing, Inspector Amparo checked City permit records on July 28, 2026, and found both pre-siding applications failed their inspections on May 13, 2026. No subsequent actions were taken on either application, and no new applications or permits were found in City records. Inspector Amparo will check City permit records again prior to the August 4 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 - Appeal Packet Exhibit B - Findings Matrix Exhibit C - Presentation 726170v1