REPORT TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS APPEALS BOARD February 17, 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 E25-01990, concerning 3316 E. Olive Ave., and the First Administrative Citation issued on November 26, 2025: 1. HEARING on the Appeal of the First Administrative Citation. 2. Take one of the following actions: i. CONFIRM the First Administrative Citation issued November 26, 2025, and ORDER Appellant to repair the confirmed violations within thirty days; OR ii. CONFIRM certain violations but DISMISS other violations in the First Administrative Citation issued November 26, 2025, and ORDER Appellant to repair the confirmed violations within thirty days; OR iii. DISMISS the First Administrative Citation issued November 26, 2025. ...Body RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that, after holding the appeal hearing, the Building Standards Appeals Board (BSAB) CONFIRM the First Administrative Citation issued to property owners Khela Properties, LLC (Property Owner or Appellant) on November 26, 2025, and ORDER Appellant to repair the remaining violations within thirty days, pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) sections 11-319 and 11-324, and California Health and Safety Code section 17920.3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On April 2, 2025, case E25-01990 was assigned to Community Revitalization Specialist Steve Del Rio (Inspector Del Rio). He inspected the property at 3316 East Olive Ave. (the Property), confirmed the presence of eleven violations, and on April 10, 2025, issued a corresponding Notice & Order based on his observations. (Appeal Packet, pg. 26) After multiple extensions and attempts to work with Appellant, on November 26, 2025, Inspector Del Rio issued a First Administrative Citation for $250 for three violations that were still uncorrected. (Appeal Packet, pg. 40) 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).) Summary of Facts On February 26, 2025, the Rental Housing Improvement Act unit of Code Enforcement (the Proactive Team) referred the property at 3316 East Olive Ave. (the Property) to the Reactive Rental Housing Unit of Code Enforcement (the Reactive Team), after they were unable to gain compliance from Appellant. Their referral noted "Property owner is not in compliance with the Rental Housing Improvement Program. The Proactive inspection process has been exhausted and violations remain at the property. Reactive to address all remaining violations." (Appeal Packet, pg. 7) On April 2, 2025, the case was reassigned to Community Revitalization Specialist Steve Del Rio (Inspector Del Rio), who conducted his initial inspection that same day. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 9-11) He found eleven violations during that inspection, including an inoperable wall heater on the south wall of the living room, a damaged electrical outlet on the north wall of a bedroom, and damaged tile on the kitchen floor, among others. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 9-11, 26-35) On April 10, 2025, Inspector Del Rio issued a Notice and Order (Notice), listing the eleven identified violations, as well as the code sections implicated, potential corrections, and supporting photographs for each violation. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 11, 26-35) The deadline to cure the violations listed on the Notice was May 10, 2025. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 26-27, 31) On May 19, 2025, Inspector Del Rio was granted access to reinspect the Property and observed that of the original eleven violations in the Notice, three were corrected and eight were not, and elected to grant Appellant a three-week extension based on progress made. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 12-13) On July 18, 2025, Inspector Del Rio was granted access to reinspect the Property and observed that of the remaining eight violations in the Notice, three were corrected and five were not, and elected to grant Appellant another extension of four weeks based on progress made. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 13-14) On November 13, 2025, Inspector Del Rio was granted access to reinspect the Property and observed that of the remaining five violations in the Notice, two were corrected and three were not. (Appeal Packet pgs. 19-20) As two extensions had already been granted, Appellant had made no effort to proactively communicate any hardships or request further extensions, and over six months had passed since the original Notice was issued, Inspector Del Rio issued a First Administrative Citation (Citation) for $250 for the three outstanding violations on November 26, 2025. (Appeal Packet pgs. 20, 40) Scope of Hearing FMC section 1-408(e) establishes two pertinent limitations to the scope of a hearing: (1) the order, citation, decision, or determination that was appealed; and (2) the grounds for relief raised by the Appellant. The scope of the BSAB hearing is limited to the Citation issued on November 26, 2025, as that is what Appellant filed an appeal for. (Appeal Packet pg. 73) The Notice that preceded the Citation was not appealed, and is therefore a "final order" not at issue for the hearing. (FMC � 11-333(a).) The grounds for relief raised by Appellant are that they had insufficient time to complete repairs due to issues with gaining access from tenants. (Appeal Packet pg. 73). Staff Analysis In order to confirm the Citation, the BSAB must be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) violations of the FMC existed on the Property; (2) proper notice was served on the property owner; and (3) after the Notice deadline passed, the violations remained. A. Standard of Proof - Preponderance of the Evidence FMC section 1-408(f) establishes that the burden of proof in administrative hearings is "preponderance of the evidence". The Supreme Court of the United States has established that preponderance of the evidence is met when the trier of fact believes "the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence." (Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California (1993) 508 U.S. 602, 622; citing In re Winship, (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 371-372, (Harlan, J., concurring) (brackets in original).) In quantifiable terms, if the BSAB is 51% sure that a fact is true, the City has met that burden and the BSAB should find in favor of the City for that fact. B. Violations of the FMC Existed on the Property Inspector Del Rio has inspected the Property multiple times, including on April 2, 2025, May 19, 2025, July 18, 2025, and November 13, 2025, and each time observed an inoperable wall heater on the south wall of the living room, a damaged electrical outlet on the north wall of a bedroom, and damaged tile on the kitchen floor - the three violations from the Notice that were then included in the Citation. (Appeal Packet pgs. 9-14, 20, 30-31, 40) Each of these violations is supported by evidence in the Appeal Packet and violates the FMC. Additionally, it is important to note that in their appeal form, Appellant does not deny that the violations have existed through the time of this case as grounds for relief. (Appeal Packet pg. 73) 1. "The living room wall heater on the south wall is inoperable." FMC section 11-319(a) sets the standards for heating facilities in dwelling units, and FMC section 11-324 adopts the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 17920.3 definition of a "substandard building". HSC section 17920.3 holds that a building is deemed substandard if there exists "lack of adequate heating", "general dilapidation or improper maintenance", or mechanical equipment that did not conform "with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation" or is not "currently in good and safe condition and working properly." Inspector Del Rio's observations and supporting photographs show that the wall heater in the living room was not operable at the time either the Notice or Citation were issued. (Appeal Packet pgs. 9, 11, 20, 30, 33, 40, 46) 2. "The bedroom #2 electrical outlet on the north wall is damaged." FMC section 11-319(b) sets the standards for electrical facilities, and FMC section 11-324 adopts the HSC section 17920.3 definition of a "substandard building". HSC section 17920.3 holds that a building is deemed substandard if there exists "general dilapidation or improper maintenance", or electrical wiring that is not "currently in good and safe condition and working properly." Inspector Del Rio's observations and supporting photographs show that the electrical outlet in the bedroom was damaged and not working properly at the time either the Notice or Citation were issued. (Appeal Packet pgs. 10-11, 20, 30, 34, 40, 46) 3. "The kitchen tile floor covering in front of the sink is damaged." FMC section 11-324 adopts the HSC section 17920.3 definition of a "substandard building". HSC section 17920.3 holds that a building is deemed substandard if there exists "general dilapidation or improper maintenance." Inspector Del Rio's observations and supporting photographs show that the kitchen floor tiles were broken and improperly maintained at the time both the Notice and Citation were issued. (Appeal Packet pgs. 10-11, 20, 31, 35, 40, 46) C. Proper Notice was Served on the Property Owner On April 10, 2025, the Notice was posted at the Property and mailed by both first class and certified mail. (Appeal Packet pgs. 11, 36-39) The Notice contained all information required by FMC section 11-327, including identification of the Property, clear descriptions of the violations and reference to all code sections violated, photographs of the violations, a statement of the required actions to correct the violations, and information concerning appellants' right to appeal. (Appeal Packet pgs. 26-35) On November 26, 2025, the Citation was mailed by both first class and certified mail. (Appeal Packet pg. 42-44.). The Citation contained all information required by FMC section 1-308(b), including the date and location of the violations, clear descriptions of the violations and reference to all code sections violated, a statement of the required actions to correct the violations, a statement explaining the consequences of continued failure to correct the violations, the amount of the penalty owed, and information concerning appellants' right to appeal. (Appeal Packet pgs. 40, 46-51) D. After the Notice Deadline Passed, the Violations Remained The Notice's deadline was May 10, 2025. Inspector Del Rio confirmed the three violations remained at multiple reinspections, including May 19, 2025, July 18, 2025, and November 13, 2025, immediately prior to issuing the Citation. (Appeal Packet pgs. 12-14, 20) As a courtesy, and in light of the progress Appellant had made on some of the violations, Inspector Del Rio granted not one, but two separate extensions, and attempted multiple times to communicate with Appellant seeking updates on progress. (Appeal Packet pgs. 12, 14-16, 19) However, after six months passed since the Notice was issued, Inspector Del Rio issued the Citation. Of note, Appellant still has not corrected the violations at this time, over ten months after receiving the Notice. (Appeal Packet pg. 25) Appellant's Grounds for Relief As provided above, Appellant cited insufficient time to complete repairs due to issues with gaining access from tenants as their grounds for relief. (Appeal Packet pg. 73). Unfortunately, those grounds are both unpersuasive and not provided for in the FMC. Inspector Del Rio attempted to work with Appellant to see the repairs made, granting two extensions over six months. (Appeal Packet pgs. 12, 14) During that period, Appellant had other legal remedies available to them to gain access to the residence and finally complete the repair of three relatively simple-to-correct violations. By all appearances, Appellant made no effort to use those remedies. Appellant has provided no evidence at any point regarding their efforts to lawfully gain access to the residence to make the repairs, though those means were available to them. In fact, prior to the Citation issuing, Appellant made no effort to proactively contact Inspector Del Rio at all, much less to inform him of any issues with gaining access to the residence. Any attempts at contact were initiated by Inspector Del Rio as a courtesy, and went unanswered by Appellant. (Appeal Packet pgs. 14-16, 19) CONCLUSION Staff have demonstrated that violations existed on the Property at the time of the properly issued Notice and Order, and remained after the Notice's deadline to correct had passed. The Citation was properly issued, and the BSAB should CONFIRM the Citation and all violations thereon, and ORDER Appellant to repair the remaining violations within thirty days. 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 - Finding Matrix Exhibit C - BSAB - 3316 E Olive Ave (02.17.26) Presentation 626132v1