REPORT TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS APPEALS BOARD
FROM: ANDREW JANZ, City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
BY: CHRISTINA C. PINA, Deputy City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
SUBJECT
Title
Actions pertaining to Fresno Code Enforcement case number E25-16660, concerning 1347 E. Shields Ave., and the Notice and Order issued on January 2, 2026:
1. HEARING on the Appeal of the Notice and Order.
2. Take one of the following actions:
1) CONFIRM the Notice and Order issued January 2, 2026; and ORDER Appellant to repair/correct the confirmed violations within thirty days; OR
2) CONFIRM certain violations but DISMISS other violations in the Notice and Order issued January 2, 2026; and ORDER Appellant to repair/correct the confirmed violations within thirty days; OR
3) DISMISS the Notice and Order issued January 2, 2026.
Body
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends option (1): After holding the appeal hearing, the Building Standards Appeals Board (BSAB) CONFIRM the Notice and Order issued January 2, 2026, and ORDER Appellants to repair the remaining violations within thirty days, pursuant to FMC 1-409(f).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 2, 2025, case E25-16660 was opened due to a complaint that the single family home has been turned into a duplex. (Appeal Packet, pg. 5) The following week, Community Revitalization Specialist Oscar Maya (Inspector Maya) researched the Property by searching for permits and Sanborn maps. (Appeal Packet, pg. 6) On December 17, 2025, Inspector Maya inspected the Property with the Owner and observed an unpermitted enclosed structure and patio were present which required permits. (Appeal Packet, pg. 6) On January 2, 2026, a corresponding Notice and Order was issued based on his observations. (Appeal Packet, pg. 13)
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 December 2, 2025, this case was opened due to a complaint that the single family home has been turned into a duplex. (Appeal Packet, pg. 5)
On December 9, 2025, Inspector Maya researched the Property by searching for permits and maps. (Appeal Packet, pg. 6) A Building Permit was issued in 1949 for a 15’ x 30’ addition for bedroom. (Appeal Packet, pg. 39) The 1960 Sanborn Map shows the 15’ x 30’ bedroom addition with open patio. (Appeal Packet, pg. 40) An aerial Google Map from 2025 shows the additional patios. (Appeal Packet, pg. 41)
On December 17, 2025, Inspector Maya inspected the Property with the Owner and observed an unpermitted enclosed structure and patio were present which required permits. (Appeal Packet, pg. 6)
On December 30, 2025, Appellant was notified new plans are required for the permit application. (Appeal Packet, pg. 46)
On January 2, 2026, a Notice and Order was issued to correct the following violations by January 20, 2026: (1) The covered patio was added without the required plans, permits, and inspections, (2) The enclosed patio was added without the required plans, permits, and inspections. (Appeal Packet, pg. 13)
On January 28, 2026, Appellant Mariechele Porter filed an Appeal to the Notice and Order issued January 2, 2026. (Appeal Packet, pg. 63)
On April 7, 2026, at the Building Standards Appeal Board hearing, the Board determined to accept the late Appeal filing.
Apartments.com has a listing for 1347 E. Shields Ave., with photographs, for 3 bedroom/ 2 bath single family home for rent “with attached mother in law unit that is rented out separately.” (Appeal Packet, pgs. 42-43)
Zillow.com has a listing for 1347 E. Shields Ave., with photographs, for a 1 bedroom/ 1 bath property. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 44-45)
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 Notice and Order issued on January 2, 2026, as that is what Appellant filed an appeal for. The grounds for relief raised by Appellants are that “Permits were not required at the time it was built and should be legal non-conforming or grand-fathered in.” (Appeal Packet pg. 63)
Staff Analysis
In order to confirm the Notice and Order, the BSAB must be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) violations of the FMC existed on the Property; and (2) proper notice was served on the property owner.
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.
(1) Violations of the FMC Existed on the Property
On December 17, 2025, Inspector Maya inspected the Property and observed an unpermitted patio was added to the residence and a second patio had been enclosed without the appropriate permits. (Appeal Packet, pg. 6)
The unpermitted patio is not depicted on the 1960 Sanborn Map of the Property (Appeal Packet, pg. 40) but can clearly be seen from an aerial 2025 Google Map (Appeal Packet, pg. 41) and was personally observed by Inspector Maya when he conducted his inspection. (Appeal Packet, pg. 6)
The enclosed structure is not depicted on the 1960 Sanborn Map of the Property (Appeal Packet, pg. 40) but can clearly be seen from an aerial 2025 Google Map (Appeal Packet, pg. 41) and was personally observed by Inspector Maya when he conducted his inspection. (Appeal Packet, pg. 6)
The violation that the patio and enclosed patio were added without the required plans, permits and inspections is supported by evidence in the Appeal Packet and violates the FMC. Additionally, it is important to note that in the appeal form, Appellant does not deny the patio and enclosed patio exist but asserts they were built when permits were not required.
1. “The covered patio was added without the required plans, permits, and inspections.” FMC §§ 11-103, 11-307, 11-308, 11-310; Cal. Residential Code § R105.1, R106.1, R109.1)
FMC section 11-101 adopts the California Building Code, and FMC sections 11-307 and 11-308 state that it is unlawful to erect or construct buildings or structures without first obtaining the required permits. FMC section 11-103 adopts the California Residential Code and the California Residential Code sections R105.1, R106.1 and R109.1 outlines the requirements for the permits, plans, and inspections that must be completed before a building or structure is intended to be constructed.
Inspector Maya’s observations and searches of City permit records show the covered patio was constructed without the required plans, permits and inspections.
2. “The enclosed patio was added without the required plans, permits, and inspections.” FMC § 11-103, 11-307, 11-308, 11-310; Cal. Residential Code § R105.1, R106.1, R109.1)
FMC section 11-101 adopts the California Building Code, and FMC sections 11-307 and 11-308 state that it is unlawful to erect or construct buildings or structures without first obtaining the required permits. FMC section 11-103 adopts the California Residential Code and the California Residential Code sections R105.1, R106.1 and R109.1 outlines the requirements for the permits, plans, and inspections that must be completed before a building or structure is intended to be constructed.
Inspector Maya’s observations and searches of City permit records show the enclosed patio was constructed without the required plans, permits and inspections.
(2) Proper Notice was Served on the Property Owner
On January 2, 2026, the Notice and Order was posted at the Property and mailed by both first class and certified mail. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 20-30) The Notice and Order 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. 13-30)
CONCLUSION
Staff has demonstrated that violations existed on the Property at the time of the properly issued Notice and Order and proper notice was served. The BSAB should CONFIRM the Notice and Order as the violations existed on the property at the time the Notice was issued and proper notice was served to the property owner, and ORDER Appellants 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.
Attachment:
Exhibit A- Appeal Packet 1347 E Shields
Exhibit B- BSAB - 1347 E Shields Ave (05.19.2026) Presentation