REPORT TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS APPEALS BOARD
June 2, 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 Notice and Order issued on April 9, 2026:
1. HEARING on the Appeal of the Notice and Order.
2. Take one of the following actions:
i. CONFIRM the Notice and Order issued April 9, 2026, and ORDER Appellant to repair the confirmed violations within thirty days; OR
ii. CONFIRM certain violations but DISMISS other violations in the Notice and Order issued April 9, 2026, and ORDER Appellant to repair the confirmed violations within thirty days; OR
iii. DISMISS the Notice and Order issued April 9, 2026.
.Body
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that, after holding the appeal hearing, the Building Standards Appeals Board (BSAB) CONFIRM the Notice and Order issued to property owners BDHOV LP, LEHOV LP, WRHOV LP, and JDHOV LP (Property Owners or Appellants) on April 9, 2026, and ORDER Appellants to repair the remaining violations 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. 31) On April 10, 2026, Property Owners filed an appeal of the Notice and Order. (Appeal Packet, pg. 87)
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, 8-10.) The violations he found included a hazardous tree growing into the structure, unfinished replacement of exterior walls without permits, and installation of a fence: (1) contrary to the approved site plan; (2) made of unapproved materials; (3) over the legal height; and (4) in such a manner that emergency egress was obstructed from one of the units. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 5, 9-10.)
Based on those findings, Inspector Amparo issued a Notice and Order (Notice) on April 9, 2026, listing seven identified violations as well as the code sections implicated, potential corrections, and supporting photographs. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 28-39.) The deadline to cure the violations listed on the Notice was September 16, 2025. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 28, 32.)
On April 20, 2026, Inspector Amparo emailed a representative with Appellants’ property management company, based on the information in Appellants’ appeal request form. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 5, 16.) Appellants had stated on the form that the relief they sought was more time, which could be given through an extension agreement rather than a BSAB appeal. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 5, 16, 88.) Inspector Amparo offered to grant an extension if Appellants shared their timeline and scope of work and resolved the highest priority violation (lack of emergency egress) immediately. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 5, 16.)
On April 21 and 23, 2026, Appellants’ representative replied via emails giving limited information on the timeline and stating the emergency egress issue would not be addressed until all work at the Property was completed. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 6, 16-18.) Inspector Amparo replied back, reiterating that he could grant a 30-day extension with contingencies: (1) the emergency egress issue would need to be resolved immediately; (2) Appellants would need to proactively update him if they needed further extensions; and (3) the appeal would need to be withdrawn, since more time was the only concern prompting the appeal. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 6, 19.)
On April 24, 2026, Appellants’ representative replied back that they wished to proceed with the appeal and wanted more time to resolve the emergency egress issue. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 6, 20.)
On April 28, 2026, Inspector Amparo returned to the Property and saw that the emergency egress issue had been resolved, as had the wood siding issue. He was able to clear violations 2-5 and 7 of the Notice and Order, though violations 1 and 6 remained. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 6, 22.)
On April 30, 2026, Inspector Amparo checked City permit records and found 2 pre-stucco permits had been applied for. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 6, 22, 50-53.)
On May 13, 2026, after several emails, Inspector Amparo explained to Appellants’ representative that extensions could not be given as Appellants had elected to proceed with seeking more time through the BSAB hearing rather than agree to proactively keep Inspector Amparo updated on progress for additional extensions. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 7, 26.)
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 April 9, 2026, as that is what Appellant filed an appeal for. (Appeal Packet pg. 88.) The grounds for relief raised by Appellants are “needing more time”. (Ibid.)
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.
A. 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.
B. Violations 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 the seven violations from the Notice. (Appeal Packet pgs. 8-22.) Each of these violations 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. 88.)
1. “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. 10-11, 22, 34-38, 48-53, 115.)
2. “The Unit #125 (2220 N. Weber Ave) bedrooms lack emergency egress (exterior siding is blocking emergency egress exit).”
FMC section 10-50100 adopts the California Fire Code (CFC), FMC section 11-101 adopts the CBC, FMC section 11-321 requires that all sleeping rooms have at least one operable window that can be used as an emergency escape, and FMC 11-324 adopts the Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 17920.3 definition of a "substandard building". CBC section 1003.6 specifies that a path of egress shall not be interrupted by any building element, and CBC section 1031.2.1 specifies that emergency escapes shall be maintained free of any obstructions. CFC section 1032 outlines the standards of maintenance for means of egress of buildings. HSC section 17920.3(l) defines any building or portion thereof without adequate exit facilities as substandard.
Of note, the BSAB is charged with determining the presence of violations at the time the Notice was issued, and Inspector Amparo’s observations and searches of City permit records show that at the time the Notice was issued, Unit #125’s sleeping rooms lacked emergency egress as the unapproved and oversized siding used as a fence blocked both windows. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 8, 10-11, 34.)
The City can confirm this violation was observed as corrected as of April 28, 2026, and the City therefore has no intention of taking further action on this. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 22, 115.)
3. “The fence at Unit #125 and Unit #126 (2220 N. Weber Ave) of the property is over the legal height”
FMC section 10-605 defines public nuisances, FMC section 15-104(A)(2) specifies that no land or structure should be altered or used outside of what is provided in the municipal code, FMC section 15-2006 regulates fencing, and FMC section 15-6304 provides that any structure maintained contrary to the municipal code is unlawful and a public nuisance.
Of note, the BSAB is charged with determining the presence of violations at the time the Notice was issued, and Inspector Amparo’s observations and searches of City permit records show that at the time the Notice was issued, the unapproved and oversized siding used as a fence at Units #125 and #126 was over the legal height. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 10-11, 34.)
The City can confirm this violation was observed as corrected as of April 28, 2026, and the City therefore has no intention of taking further action on this. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 22, 115.)
4. “The fence at Unit #125 and Unit #126 (2220 N. Weber Ave) is constructed of unapproved fencing material: (exterior siding).”
FMC section 10-605 defines public nuisances, FMC section 15-104(A)(2) specifies that no land or structure should be altered or used outside of what is provided in the municipal code, FMC section 15-2006(M)(4)-(5) regulates what materials may and may not be used as fencing, and FMC section 15-6304 provides that any structure maintained contrary to the municipal code is unlawful and a public nuisance.
Of note, the BSAB is charged with determining the presence of violations at the time the Notice was issued, and Inspector Amparo’s observations and searches of City permit records show that at the time the Notice was issued, the unapproved and oversized siding used as a fence at Units #125 and #126 was not made of a permitted material. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 10-11, 34.)
The City can confirm this violation was observed as corrected as of April 28, 2026, and the City therefore has no intention of taking further action on this. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 22, 115.)
5. “The fence at Unit #125 and Unit #126 (2220 N. Weber Ave) has been installed contrary to the approved development permit (formerly site plan) for this property.”
FMC section 10-605 defines public nuisances, FMC section 15-104(A)(2) specifies that no land or structure should be altered or used outside of what is provided in the municipal code, and FMC section 15-5015 states that structures cannot be changed from what is on the approves site plan without City approval.
Of note, the BSAB is charged with determining the presence of violations at the time the Notice was issued, and Inspector Amparo’s observations and searches of City permit records show that at the time the Notice was issued, the unapproved and oversized siding used as a fence at Units #125 and #126 was an addition altering the structure of the units from what was approved on the site plan. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 10-11, 34.)
The City can confirm this violation was observed as corrected as of April 28, 2026, and the City therefore has no intention of taking further action on this. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 22, 115.)
6. “This property has a hazardous tree located near Unit #207 (2220 N. Weber Ave).”
FMC section 10-605 defines public nuisances, and subsection (e) specifies “[d]ead, decayed or hazardous trees” to be included in that definition.
Inspector Amparo’s observations show that there is a hazardous tree on the Property, specifically growing into the structure. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 10, 22, 38, 115.)
7. “The weather protection (paint) on the exterior wood surfaces of the siding at the northside of complex is missing.”
FMC section 11-317 specified that buildings must be weather protected and wood components must be protected against termites and decay, and FMC 11-324 adopts the Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 17920.3 definition of a "substandard building". HSC section 17920.3 defines any building or portion thereof with improper maintenance, or lack of weather protection on exterior wall coverings (including lack of paint), as substandard.
Of note, the BSAB is charged with determining the presence of violations at the time the Notice was issued, and Inspector Amparo’s observations and searches of City permit records show that at the time the Notice was issued, the exterior siding on the north building was missing weather protection (paint). (Appeal Packet, pgs. 10, 38.)
The City can confirm this violation was observed as corrected as of April 28, 2026, and the City therefore has no intention of taking further action on this. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 22, 115.)
C. 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. 42-43) 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. 28-39)
Appellant’s Grounds for Relief
As provided above, the grounds for relief as provided by Appellants on their request form was “needing more time”. (Appeal Packet, pg. 88.) Unfortunately, this is not a remedy available through the BSAB hearing process. The BSAB sits as a trier of fact as to whether the conditions asserted by the City in the appealed Notice were present at the time the Notice was issued. (FMC § 1-409(f).) If the BSAB finds that any of the violations in the Notice remain at the time of the hearing, the BSAB must order the Appellants to correct them within thirty days. (Ibid.) And the BSAB cannot avoid ordering Appellants to correct the violations within thirty days, as they do not have the authority to waive requirements of the FMC. (FMC § 1-409(g).)
Code Enforcement understands that oftentimes violations cannot be corrected within the original timeframe provided in the Notice, and has a procedure set in place to give property owners more time, while still ensuring that the additional time is not wasted. Inspector Amparo attempted multiple times to work with Appellants towards giving them a time extension, but Appellants rejected that process, instead electing to pursue the BSAB appeal process that cannot give them the relief they seek.
CONCLUSION
Staff have demonstrated that violations existed on the Property at the time of the Notice and Order. The Notice and Order was properly issued, and the BSAB should CONFIRM the Notice and Order and all violations thereon, and ORDER Appellant 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.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Code Enforcement Appeal Packet
Exhibit B - Findings Matrix
Exhibit C - Presentation