Cov lus txog Fresno Code Enforcement rooj sib pom tseeb lej E26-04602, hais txog 2220 N. Weber Ave. / 1827 W. Clinton Ave., thiab thawj Administrative Citation uas tau tshaj tawm nyob rau Lub Yim Hli 21, 2026: 1. HEARING rau Appeal ntawm thawj Administrative Citation. 2. Tau ib lub sij hawm ntawm cov lus hauv qab no: i. CONFIRM thawj Administrative Citation uas tau tshaj tawm Lub Yim Hli 21, 2026, thiab ORDER Appellant kom kho cov kev ua tsis ncaj ncees uas tau lees paub rau hauv peb caug hnub; LOS SIS ii. DISMISS thawj Administrative Citation Uas tau tshaj tawm Lub Yim Hli 21, 2026.

REPORT TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS APPEALS BOARD October 20, 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 First Administrative Citation issued on August 21, 2026: HEARING on the Appeal of the First Administrative Citation. Take one of the following actions: CONFIRM the First Administrative Citation issued August 21, 2026, and ORDER Appellant to repair the confirmed violation within thirty days; OR DISMISS the First Administrative Citation Issued August 21, 2026. ...Body RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that, after holding the appeal hearing, the Building Standards Appeals Board (BSAB) CONFIRM the First Administrative Citation (Citation) issued to property owners BDHOV LP, LEHOV LP, WRHOV LP, and JDHOV LP (Property Owners or Appellants) on August 21, 2026, and ORDER Appellants to repair the remaining violation 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, 2026, case E26-04602 was opened and assigned to Community Revitalization Specialist Julian Amparo (Inspector Amparo). He inspected the property at 2220 N. Weber Ave. / 1827 W. Clinton Ave. (the Property), confirmed the presence of seven violations, and on April 9, 2026, issued a corresponding Notice and Order based on his observations. (Appeal Packet, pg. 44.) This Notice and Order was upheld on appeal in front of the BSAB on June 2, 2026. (Appeal Packet, pg. 205.) At the progress hearing on August 4, 2026, the BSAB found that no substantial progress had been made on the single remaining violation, and ordered the fines and costs to be doubled. (Appeal Packet, pg. 207.) On August 18, 2026, Inspector Amparo searched city records and found no additional action had been taken by Appellants towards correcting the violation, and on August 21, 2026, issued a corresponding Citation based on his observations. (Appeal Packet, pg. 62.) On August 27, 2026, Property Owners filed an appeal of the Citation. (Appeal Packet, pg. 163.) 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 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, 9-11.) He found multiple violations, including the unfinished replacement of exterior walls on multiple buildings without permits. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 5, 10-11.) Inspector Amparo issued a Notice and Order (Notice) on April 9, 2026, based on those findings, listing seven identified violations as well as the code sections implicated, potential corrections, and supporting photographs, with a deadline to cure of April 27, 2026. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 44-59.) 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. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 6, 205-206.) On August 4, 2026, the BSAB held a progress hearing regarding the Notice and Order. The City presented evidence that City permit records showed Appellants had not taken any action in the two months since the first hearing, and the BSAB found that Appellants had not made substantial progress towards correcting the outstanding violation and ordered the fines to be doubled pursuant to the FMC. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 31, 207-208.) On August 18, 2026, Inspector Amparo again checked City permit records and found that no action had been taken. (Appeal Packet, pg. 34.) Inspector Amparo then issued a First Administrative Citation (Citation) on August 21, 2026, based on the initial Notice, citing the still uncorrected violation and providing supporting photographs. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 62-85.) 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 First Administrative Citation issued August 21, 2026, as that is what Appellant filed an appeal for. (Appeal Packet pg. 164.) The grounds for relief raised by Appellants are that they are “actively working on the permit” and “the City may request additional information before releasing the permit.” (Ibid.) Staff Analysis In order to confirm the Citation, the BSAB must be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) a violation of the FMC existed on the Property; (2) proper notice was served on the property owner; and (3) after the Notice deadline passed, the violation remained. 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. A Violation of the FMC Existed on the Property Inspector Amparo inspected the Property multiple times and conducted multiple searches of City permit records, and each time observed unfinished replacement of exterior siding on all buildings done without permits – a violation from the Notice that was then included in the Citation. (Appeal Packet pgs. 62-85.) This violation is supported by evidence in the Appeal Packet and violates the FMC. Additionally, it is important to note that in their appeal form, Appellants do not deny that the violations have existed through the time of this case as grounds for relief. (Appeal Packet pg. 164.) “The exterior siding on the walls of all buildings were replaced/added without the required plans, permits, and inspections” FMC section 11-101 adopts the California Building Code (CBC), and FMC sections 11-307, 11-308, and 11-310 state that it is unlawful to construct or repair buildings or structures without first obtaining any necessary permits and permit inspections. CBC section 105.1 states that permits are required prior to any construction, alteration, repair, etc. of buildings or structures, CBC section 110.1 states that any work for which a permit is required shall be inspected and approved by the local authority before being put into use, and CBC section 111.1 states that any building or structure cannot be used, in whole or in part, until a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Inspector Amparo’s observations and searches of City permit records show that the exterior siding on the buildings were replaced without any permits or inspections. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 10-12, 24, 30-31, 34-35, 38-42, 50-54, 65-69, 88-89, 186.) Appellants have made a negligible effort to acquire permits and only did so starting on September 9, 2026 – two weeks after the Citation was issued. (Appeal Packet, pg. 88.) Proper Notice was Served on the Property Owner On April 9, 2026, the Notice was posted at the Property and mailed by both first class and certified mail. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 58-59.) 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, a statement of the required actions to correct the violations, and information concerning appellants’ right to appeal. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 44-55.) On August 21, 2026, the Citation was mailed by both first class and certified mail. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 83-84.) 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 pg. 62.) Appellant’s Grounds for Relief As provided above, the grounds for relief as provided by Appellants on their request form was they are “actively working on the permit” and “the City may request additional information before releasing the permit.” (Appeal Packet, pg. 164.) As previously stated, any efforts to acquire permits only began on September 9, two weeks after the Citation was issued. (Appeal Packet, pg. 88.) This unfortunately disproves Appellants’ assertion of active work taking place. Additionally, no plans or additional information were needed for the permits to be issued – just payment of the permit fees. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 42, 94, 99, 104, 109, 114, 119, 124, 130, 136, 142.) Of note, as of October 6, six of the ten permits still have not been issued as payment has not been rendered. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 42, 94, 99, 104, 109, 114, 119.) CONCLUSION Staff has demonstrated that a violation 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 the violation therein, and ORDER Appellant to repair the remaining violation 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 - Appeal Packet Exhibit B - Findings Matrix Exhibit C - Presentation