ਫ੍ਰੈਸਨੋ ਕੋਡ ਐਨਫੋਰਸਮੈਂਟ ਕੇਸ ਨੰਬਰ E25-16504 ਨਾਲ ਸੰਬੰਧਿਤ ਕਾਰਵਾਈਆਂ, 246 N. Effie St. ਦੀ ਚਿੰਤਾ ਕਰਦਿਆਂ, ਅਤੇ 14 ਅਗਸਤ, 2026 ਨੂੰ ਜਾਰੀ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਪਹਿਲਾ ਪ੍ਰਬੰਧਕੀ ਹਵਾਲਾ: 1. ਪਹਿਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਬੰਧਕੀ ਹਵਾਲਾ ਦੀ ਅਪੀਲ ਉੱਤੇ ਸੁਣਵਾਈ। 2. ਹੇਠ ਲਿਖਿਆਂ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਇੱਕ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਲਓ: i. 14 ਅਗਸਤ, 2026 ਨੂੰ ਜਾਰੀ ਕੀਤੇ ਗਏ ਪਹਿਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਬੰਧਕੀ ਹਵਾਲਾ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵਿਤ ਕਰੋ, ਅਤੇ ਅਪੀਲਾਂ ਕਨੰਦਵਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵਿਤ ਉਲੰਘਣਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਤੀਹ ਦਿਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਠੀਕ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਆਦੇਸ਼ ਦਿਓ; ਜਾ ii. ਕੁਝ ਉਲੰਘਣਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵਿਤ ਕਰੋ ਪਰ 14 ਅਗਸਤ, 2026 ਨੂੰ ਜਾਰੀ ਕੀਤੇ ਗਏ ਪਹਿਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਬੰਧਕੀ ਹਵਾਲਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੋਰ ਉਲੰਘਣਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਖਾਰਜ ਕਰੋ, ਅਤੇ ਅਪੀਲਾਂ ਕਨੰਦਵਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵਿਤ ਉਲੰਘਣਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਤੀਹ ਦਿਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਠੀਕ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਆਦੇਸ਼ ਦਿਓ; ਜਾ iii. 14 ਅਗਸਤ, 2026 ਨੂੰ ਜਾਰੀ ਕੀਤੇ ਗਏ ਪਹਿਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਬੰਧਕੀ ਹਵਾਲਾ ਨੂੰ ਖਾਰਜ ਕਰੋ।

REPORT TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS APPEALS BOARD November 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 E25-16504, concerning 246 N. Effie St., and the First Administrative Citation issued on August 14, 2026: HEARING on the Appeal of the First Administrative Citation. Take one of the following actions: CONFIRM the First Administrative Citation issued August 14, 2026, and ORDER Appellants to repair the confirmed violations within thirty days; OR CONFIRM certain violations but DISMISS other violations in the First Administrative Citation issued August 14, 2026, and ORDER Appellants to repair the confirmed violations within thirty days; OR DISMISS the First Administrative Citation issued August 14, 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 Jordan Sarabian and Jacob Sarabian (Property Owners or Appellants) on August 14, 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 November 25, 2025, case E25-16504 was opened within the Anti-Slum Enforcement Team (ASET) and assigned to Community Revitalization Specialist Rene Hernandez (Inspector Hernandez). He inspected two of the three units at 246 N. Effie Street (the Property) on December 24, 2025, and inspected the last unit on January 6, 2026. Based on his observations from those initial inspections, a Notice and Order with 95 violations was issued on January 12, 2026. (Appeal Packet (AP), pg. 60.) After various extensions and attempts to work with Appellants towards resolution, the lack of substantial progress led to Inspector Hernandez issuing a First Administrative Citation on August 14, 2026. (AP, pg. 114.) On August 28, 2026, Appellants filed an appeal of the Citation. (AP, pg. 187.) 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 November 25, 2025, this case was opened within the Anti-Slum Enforcement Team (ASET) of Code Enforcement. (AP, pg. 7.) Inspector Hernandez conducted initial inspections of the three units on December 24, 2025, and January 6, 2026. (AP, pgs. 5, 9-12, 14-15.) Inspector Hernandez issued a Notice and Order on January 12, 2026, based on those findings, listing ninety-five identified violations as well as the code sections implicated, potential corrections, and supporting photographs, with an initial deadline to cure of February 11, 2026. (AP, pgs. 60-111.) On January 29, 2026, Inspector Hernandez emailed Appellants asking if they would need additional time to correct the violations, and informing them that in order to give an extension, he’d need Appellants to send a timeline showing how much time they would need and how they planned to utilize that time. (AP, pgs. 23, 114.) Three examples were provided, and Appellants were encouraged to reach out if they had any questions. (Ibid.) This information was reiterated on February 3, 2026. (AP, pgs. 26-28, 212-213.) On February 20, 2026, Inspector Hernandez informed Appellants via email that they had been granted a six-month extension, with the final deadline being August 11, 2026, and a progress inspection after June 16, 2026. (AP, pgs. 5, 34, 207-209.) On June 16, 2026, Inspector Hernandez reinspected the Property and found that of the seventy noticed violations they were able to gain access to, thirty-three had been corrected and thirty-seven had not. (AP, pgs. 6, 38-39.) Inspector Hernandez emailed Appellants the list of remaining violations, including the twenty-five he had been unable to gain access to view, on July 2, 2026. (AP, pgs. 6, 44.) On August 4, Inspector Hernandez reminded Appellants via email that the six-month deadline was approaching, and he would reinspect on August 12, 2026. (AP, pgs. 6, 44-46, 223.) He also explained that further extensions could be granted if significant progress had been made, but a citation would need to be issued if significant progress had not been made. (Ibid.) On August 12, 2026, Inspector Hernandez reinspected the Property and found that of the sixty-two remaining noticed violations, one had been corrected, thirty-five had not, and twenty-six were unknown as he was unable to gain access. (AP, pgs. 6, 48.) As only one of the thirty-six violations he was able to inspect had been corrected, Inspector Hernandez issued a First Administrative Citation (Citation) on August 14, 2026, based on the initial Notice, citing only the still uncorrected violations he was able to reinspect, and providing supporting photographs. (AP, pgs. 6, 49, 114-152.) Scope of Hearing / Appellant’s Grounds for Relief 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 14, 2026, as that is what Appellant filed an appeal for. (AP, pgs. 187-193.) The grounds for relief raised by Appellants are that (1) a thirty-day correction period was not reasonable; (2) the citation does not account for partial compliance and several charged items should not be counted separately; and (3) the penalty is excessive. (Ibid.) Appellants Had a More Than Reasonable Correction Period of Six Months In their Appeal enclosure, Appellants point to the February 11, 2026, deadline originally listed on the Notice and Order and claim that was the City’s final deadline. This disingenuously ignores facts that Appellants were well aware of – both that in the interim the City proactively made multiple attempts to get information from Appellants needed to grant an extension, and that an extension until August 12, 2026, was granted as soon as Appellants finally submitted a rough timeline on how they would complete the work in six months. The City’s conduct has been more than reasonable. The City issued the Citation only after the granted six-month extension lapsed, with virtually no work done in the interim to correct the noticed violations. Inspector Hernandez went above and beyond by repeatedly reaching out to Appellants throughout the case, including prior to the August 12 reinspection where Appellants were warned again of the approaching deadline and potential next steps. The Citation Does Account for What Partial Compliance There Was, and Was Calculated Based on State Codes and Local Ordinances Appellants assert that some items require plans to be submitted to the Planning Department for review, which is true. Appellants do not, however, assert that they are waiting for the Planning Department to review any submitted plans, which is logical as City records indicate no plans have been submitted whatsoever, as of November 11, 2026. Appellants assert that two violations share an underlying condition with two other violations. However, each of the violations in those sets speak to a different non-compliant manifestation that may or may not be caused by a single issue. Appellants assert that some items are within tenant control, but don’t include any reference to attempts to gain access to the units, much less unsuccessful attempts. Landlords have well established authority and requirements under the Civil Code to enter into units to make necessary repairs, but by all accounts, Appellants failed to exercise their authority in the intervening six months. Appellants assert that some items have been corrected since the August 12 reinspection. While the City is gratified to hear that, it does not change that at the time of the reinspection, they were not. Subsequent correction only shows that the Citation has served its function in motivating compliance. FMC Sections 10-1610 and 11-329 cite to Section 1-308 regarding the issuance of administrative citations, and FMC Section 11-324 adopts Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3’s list outlining components of a substandard building. FMC Section 1-308(a) specifically provides that “A separate civil penalty for each violation of the Code may be assessed by means of one administrative citation…” Inspector Hernandez observed thirty-five outstanding violations when he reinspected on August 12, 2026, and issued the Citation as such. The Penalty is Not Excessive – It Is Proportional to the Gravity of the Offense Appellants assert that the final amount of $8,500 on the Citation is excessive. If that $8,500 stemmed from a single violation the City would absolutely agree. However, it isn’t – it stems from thirty-five separate violations aggregated into one citation for the sake of administrative economy, as FMC Section 1-308(a) directs. As the case law Appellants reference demonstrate, the penalties must be proportional, and they are – an entity who fails to correct thirty-five different issues should not face the same penalty as the entity who failed to correct two or three different issues. All violations carry the same penalty in a First Administrative Citation, which is listed in the Master Fee Schedule - $250. (AP, pg. 183.) The greater the offense (number of uncorrected violations) the greater the penalty. Of note, Appellants claim that the City has confirmed through two inspections that the number of open items has “fallen substantially” – the City did not confirm such and does not agree with that. The City agrees that Appellants made a better showing at the June 16 progress inspection than at the August 18 reinspection, but that “better showing” was still less than half of the violations the City was able to access, and at the August 12 reinspection only one violation was able to be cleared. As Inspector Hernandez wrote in his June 16 email, “while there was some work done a lot more still needs to be addressed”. (AP, pg. 219.) 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 Hernandez inspected the Property multiple times and each time observed uncorrected violations. Each of the thirty-five violations included in the Citation were listed by their corresponding number from the original Notice and Order – 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 17, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 66, 67, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, and 91. (AP, pgs.114-155) Another copy of the Notice and Order and corresponding photographs was enclosed with the Citation, along with a packet of new photographs from the August 12 reinspection. (AP, pgs. 134-152.) Each violation is supported by evidence in the Appeal Packet and violates the FMC. Additionally, it is worth noting that in their appeal form, Appellants do not deny that the violations have existed through the time of this case in their grounds for relief. The Legal Authorities included in the Appeal Packet outline the state codes adopted by the City, as well as what conditions are unlawful and constitute a violation. (AP, pgs. 157-182.) Inspector Hernandez’s observations, case notes, and photographs show that the violations listed in the August 14, 2026, Citation were present when both the Notice and Order and Citation were issued. Proper Notice was Served on the Property Owner On January 12, 2026, the Notice was posted at the Property and mailed by both first class and certified mail. (AP, pgs. 77-85.) 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. (AP, pgs. 60-75.) On August 14, 2026, the Citation was mailed by both first class and certified mail. (AP, pgs. 153-156.) 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. (AP, pg. 114.) 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