REPORT TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS APPEALS BOARD
February 3, 2026
FROM: ANDREW JANZ, City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
BY: CHRISTINA ROBERSON, Assistant City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
SUBJECT
Title
Actions pertaining to Fresno Code Enforcement case number E25-16428, concerning 7443 N Van Ness, and the Notice and Order issued on December 4, 2025:
1. HEARING on the Appeal of Notice and Order.
2. Take one of the following actions:
i. DENY the appeal and CONFIRM the Notice and Order issued December 4, 2025; OR
ii. DENY the appeal in part and GRANT the appeal in part, and CONFIRM certain violations but DISMISS other violations in the Notice and Order issued December 4, 2025; OR
iii. GRANT the appeal and DISMISS the Notice and Order issued December 4, 2025.
.Body
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that, after holding the appeal hearing, the Building Standards Appeals Board (BSAB) deny the appeal of property owners Bryce and Jennifer Hovannisian and confirm the Notice and Order issued on December 4, 2025, pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) sections 11-103, 11-307, 11-308, 11-310, 10-605, 15-2013, and California Residential Code sections R105.1, R106.1, and R109.1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 24, 2025, Code Enforcement received a complaint that there was rubbish, junk, miscellaneous items, and vehicle repair at 7443 N Van Ness (Property). Upon inspection, Senior Community Revitalization Specialist (CRS) Carlos Nunez confirmed the junk, rubbish, and miscellaneous items violation, but he did not confirm the vehicle repair violation. Additionally, he observed evidence of construction activities without permits, including plumbing repairs and stucco. On December 4, 2025, he issued a Notice and Order (N&O).
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.
Summary of Facts
On November 24, 2025, Code Enforcement opened a case based on a complaint that stated: “Rubbish/Junk/Misc Items/ Vehicle Repair This activity has been ongoing for years with no end in sight.” (Appeal Packet, pg. 3.) Initially, the case was assigned to Community Revitalization Technician (CRT) Josie Aguilar. On November 25, 2025, she conducted an initial inspection at the Property and found multiple violations: inoperable vehicle, junk, rubbish, and illegal storage of household materials. (Appeal Packet, pg. 6)
On December 3, 2025, the case was reassigned to Senior CRS Nunez, and he conducted an exterior inspection on December 3, 2025. During the inspection, he observed 5 violations: 1. The house is being remodeled without the required plans, permits, and inspections; 2. Rubbish and/or junk; 3. Outdoor storage of household materials; 3. Vehicle on an unimproved surface; and 5. Exterior stucco added without the required plans, permits, and inspections. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 7-8, 23-30)
On December 4, 2025, Senior CRS Nunez issued a Notice and Order (N&O) listing the five identified violations, the code sections violated, and potential corrections for each violation. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 10-20.) The deadline for the N&O was December 22, 2025. (Appeal Packet, pg. 10.) The N&O was posted to the exterior gate of the property and mailed. (Appeal Packet, pg. 19-20.) On December 23, 2025, Senior CRS Nunez re-inspected from the exterior of the Property, and he observed violation 4 related to parking on an unimproved surface to be corrected. The remaining violations remained. (Appeal Packet, pg. 9.)
On December 24, 2025, Senior CRS Nunez contacted property owner Bryce Hovannisian who stated he appealed the N&O because of violation 5, the stucco violation. He stated he was laying stucco over old stucco, and none of the interior work required a permit. Senior CRS Nunez let him know that an inspection was necessary to verify none of the work required permits. Mr. Hovannisian refused access, and Senior CRS Nunez has not spoken to him since. (Appeal Packet, pg. 9)
Staff Analysis
In order to deny the appeal and confirm the Notice and Order, the BSAB must be satisfied beyond the preponderance of the evidence that: 1. Violations of the FMC existed on the Property; and 2. Proper notice was served on the property owner.
A. Violations of the FMC Existed on the Property
Senior CRS Nunez inspected the property on December 3, 2025, and observed 5 violations of the FMC: 1) The house is being remodeled without the required plans, permits, and inspections; 2) Rubbish and/or junk; 3) Outdoor storage of household materials; 4) Vehicle on an unimproved surface; and 5) Exterior stucco added without the required plans, permits, and inspections. Each of these violations is supported by evidence in the Appeal Packet and violates the FMC.
1. The house is being remodeled without the required plans, permits, and inspections.
FMC section 11-103 states that the FMC adopts the California Residential Code (CRC). CRC section 105.1 requires that any person who “intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be performed, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit” (Appeal Packet, pg. 42, 50) Senior CRS Nunez’s observations and photographic evidence show evidence of plumbing removal, including a sink, toilets, and some type of large plumbing fixture. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 22-23) The removal of each of these items would require a plumbing permit, and there is no reasonable conclusion to draw from the presence of those fixtures in front of the house, in that state, other than they were removed from the Property.
2. This property has rubbish and/or junk (including but not limited to refuse, garbage, scrap metal or lumber, concrete, asphalt, tin cans, tires, piles of earth, appliances, fixtures, and other miscellaneous items) located throughout the property.
FMC section 10-605(a) makes it a public nuisance to keep, maintain, or deposit a variety of rubbish on a property, including: “refuse, garbage, scrap metal or lumber, concrete, asphalt, tin cans, tires and piles of earth.” (Appeal Packet, pg. 38) During his inspection, Senior CRS Nunez found discarded plumbing fixtures, pieces of lumber, and other items that constitute a public nuisance as rubbish and junk visible from the exterior of the Property. (Appeal Packet, pg. 23-27)
3. There is illegal outdoor storage of household materials on this residential property: (tools, building materials, appliances, fixtures, and other miscellaneous items).
FMC section 10-605(j) makes the violation of a zoning ordinance a public nuisance. FMC section 15-2013(B) prohibits the “outdoor storage of materials generally found in households.” (Appeal Packet, pg. 48) During his inspection, Senior CRS Nunez found building materials, plastic tote containers, and other materials generally found in households visible from the exterior of the Property. (Appeal Packet, pg. 23-27)
4. Vehicle on an unimproved surface.
FMC section 10-605(h) makes it a public nuisance to “park or store any vehicle upon an unpaved surface.” (Appeal Packet, pg. 39) During his inspection, Senior CRS Nunez observed a vehicle parked on grass, which is an unimproved surface. (Appeal Packet, pg. 30)
5. The exterior stucco was added without the required plans, permits, and inspections.
FMC section 11-103 states that the FMC adopts the California Residential Code (CRC). CRC section 105.1 requires that any person who “intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be performed, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit” (Appeal Packet, pg. 42, 50) During his inspection, Senior CRS Nunez observed the exterior of the building to be unfinished, and it appeared it was being prepared for stucco. (Appeal Packet, pg. 24-25, 30)
B. Proper Notice was Served on the Property Owner
On December 4, 2025, the N&O was posted on the exterior gate of the Property and mailed by both First Class and certified mail. (Appeal Packet, pg. 19-20, 26-27.) This N&O contained all necessary information required by FMC sections 10-608 and 11-327, including clear descriptions of the violations, photographs of the violations, the code sections violated, a description of the correction for the violations, and information concerning appellants right to appeal.
CONCLUSION
Staff have demonstrated that violations existed on the Property, and a Notice and Order was properly issued. The BSAB should deny the appeal and confirm the Notice and Order and all violations thereon.
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: Code Enforcement Appeal Packet
CAR:th