REPORT TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS APPEALS BOARD September 1, 2026 FROM: ANDREW JANZ, City Attorney Office of the City Attorney BY: CHRISTINA C. PIÑA, Deputy City Attorney Office of the City Attorney SUBJECT ..Title Actions pertaining to Fresno Fire Department Citation Number 7557-1, concerning Nova Surgical- 4928 E. Clinton Way #101, and the First Administrative Citation issued on September 9, 2025. PROGRESS HEARING on the Appeal of the First Administrative Citation. Take one of the following actions: DETERMINE Appellants HAVE NOT made substantial progress towards correcting the outstanding violations from the First Administrative Citation issued on September 9, 2025, and ORDER payment of double the fines, as well as all allowable costs and fees; OR DETERMINE Appellants HAVE made substantial progress towards correcting the outstanding violations from the First Administrative Citation issued on September 9, 2025, and CONTINUE the hearing to a later date; OR DETERMINE Appellants have FULLY corrected outstanding violations from the First Administrative Citation issued on September 9, 2025. ...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 July 7, 2026, the Building Standards Appeal Board (BSAB) held a hearing regarding a First Administrative Citation issued on September 9, 2025, for a change of use violation at 4928 E. Clinton Way #101 (the Property). The BSAB determined that the violation was present at the time the First Administrative Citation was issued. The BSAB also determined the violation 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 October 22, 2021, zone clearance for the proposed use of “Outpatient ambulatory surgical center” was rejected as it is classified as “Hospitals and Clinics” per FMC 15-1302 and require a Conditional use Permit (CUP). (Appeal Packet, pg. 64) Shortly thereafter, a zone clearance was provided for use of “Offices Medical and Dental” at the location. (Appeal Packet, pg. 65) On July 23, 2025, Inspector Deegan conducted a Fire Prevention Inspection and discovered violations, including the use of occupancy changed from the original design use which requires a change of use to be initiated within 45 days. (Appeal Packet, pg. 47) On September 9, 2025, a First Administrative Citation was issued due to non-compliance. (Appeal Packet, pg. 52) On September 11, 2025, Inspector Deegan conducted a Fire Prevention Inspection, while some violations were corrected, the change of use violations remained. (Appeal Packet, pg. 53) On September 23, 2025, Appellant Nova Surgical filed a Notice of Appeal of First Administrative Citation alleging there has been no change of use or occupancy or, in the alternative, requested a change of occupancy be permitted because the proposed use or occupancy is less hazardous than the existing use or occupancy. (Appeal Packet, pg. 3) On October 30, 2025, Inspector Deegan conducted a Fire Prevention Inspection, while some violations were corrected, the change of use violations remained. (Appeal Packet, pg. 58) 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