REPORT TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS APPEALS BOARD
June 16, 2026
FROM: ANDREW JANZ, City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
BY: CALVIN MASSEY, Deputy City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
SUBJECT
Title
Actions pertaining to Fresno Code Enforcement case number E25-13830, concerning 3436 N Virginia Lane, the Notice and Order issued on November 5, 2025, and the Citation issued March 24, 2026:
1. HEARING on the Appeal of the Notice and Order and Citation.
2. Take one of the following actions:
1) CONFIRM Violation #1 and Violation #2 in both the Notice and Order, and CONFIRM the Citation; OR
2) CONFIRM certain violations but DISMISS other violations in the Notice and Order, and CONFIRM the Citation issued; OR
3) DISMISS the Notice and Order and Citation.
.Body
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends option (1): After holding the appeal hearing, the Building Standards Appeals Board (BSAB) CONFIRM Violation #1 and Violation #2 in both the Notice and Order dated November 5, 2025, and in the Citation dated March 24, 2026.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On October 1, 2025, case E25-13830 was opened after a complaint was received regarding unpermitted construction during the night. An inspection occurred on October 16, 2025, and a Notice and Order was issued for two violations on November 5, 2025: 1. Addition of a wall without plans, permits, and inspections; and 2. The house is being remodeled with the required plans, permits, and inspections. The Property Owner appealed the Notice and Order, and the City attempted to work with him on coming into compliance. After two attempted inspections by Building and Safety, the inspector issued a citation on March 24, 2026. This appeal is related to both the Notice and Order and the Citation.
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 October 1, 2025, a complaint was received regarding unpermitted construction and night-time construction work at the property located at 3246 Virginia Lane (Property). On October 2, 2025, Community Revitalization Specialist (CRS) Henderson went to the property and left his card with a woman at the house. On October 9, 2025, CRS Henderson spoke with the property owner James Molina on the phone regarding the complaint. At this time Mr. Molina denied any construction and requested a call back to schedule an inspection. (Appeal Packet pg. 3)
An inspection occurred on October 16, 2025. Photos were taken and the results found two violations involving unpermitted construction. A wall was added that closed off entryway to the third bedroom with no plans, permits, or inspections, and the inspection revealed the house is being remodeled without plans, permits, and inspections. (FMC 11-103.11-307, 11-310; Cal. Residential Code R105.1, R106.1, R 109.1) (Appeal Packet pg.3)
On November 5, 2025, a Notice and Order was issued to Mr. Molina, and he was given until November 24, 2025, to correct the violations. On November 25, 2025, CRS Henderson checked public records, and no permits were issued to the property. On December 5, 2025, CRS Henderson called James Molina asking for an update, but he was unable to reach Mr. Molina on this day. (Appeal Packet pg.3)
On January 8, 2026, a meeting was held in response to Mr. Molina’s appeal with Mr. Molina, his cousin Catarino Prado, Planning Assistant Director Ashley Atkinson, Licensed Engineer Manager Eric Frampton, Assistant City Attorney Christina Roberson, Housing Program Supervisor John Giannetta, and CRS Henderson. During the meeting, Eric Frampton suggested that a Miscellaneous Consultation be conducted by the Building Department. The consultation was offered as a collaborative solution to determine what permits would be required and provide the owner with a list of the permits needed. The inspection was set for January 26, 2026. (Appeal Packet pg.3)
On January 26, 2026, the Miscellaneous Inspection did not occur. CRS Henderson called Mr. Molina, and Mr. Molina said it would be rescheduled by Mr. Prado, his cousin living at the property. CRS Henderson reviewed Building and Planning notes on February 9, 2026, and found the inspection had been canceled. (Appeal Packet pg. 4).
On February 20, 2026, Mr. Prado called to say that the inspector did not show up and that Prado had taken the day off for the inspection. Prado stated that a new inspection would be set (Appeal Packet pg.3; see also Building and Planning Notes pg. 65). On February 24, 2026, CRS Henderson received a voicemail stating:
“Hello, this message is for Derek. Derek, this is Catarino regarding the Virginia property, case number E25-13830. We just got a new date of March 23 with Robert Fisher, he was the one who scheduled the appointment and that’s for 8:00 a.m., rescheduling. If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call. [REDACTED PHONE NUMBER]. Thank you, bye bye.” (See Transcript of Catarino Prado pg. 60)
On March 3, 2026, a new inspection was scheduled for March 23, 2026. On March 24, 2026, CRS Henderson checked the building system to see the status of progress, and saw that the inspection did not occur and Building & Planning notes stated the Building department reached out to Catarino at 8:44am and he left for work due to “no prior forewarning” confirmation to the 8:00am scheduled appointment with the building inspector. Furthermore, no building permits had been pulled. The building inspector called at 8:54 but was informed the resident of the house Mr. Catarino Prado had left due to “no prior forewarning confirmation (Appeal Packet pg.3; see also Building and Planning Notes pg. 65)
On March 24, 2026, CRS Henderson issued a citation with two violations for unpermitted construction, and Mr. Molina subsequently appealed.
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 November 5, 2025, and Citation issued March 24, 2026, as that is what Appellant filed an appeal for.
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.
Violations of the FMC Existed on the Property
On October 13, 2025, CRS Henderson went to the property and determined construction and alterations had occurred. There was no permit, and a Notice and Order was issued to Property Owner James Molina. Additionally, it is important to note that in their appeal form, Appellants do not deny the violations exist as they request additional time to correct the violations or for an exception to the rules. (Appeal Packet pg. 52). Appellants even state they made “minor alterations” and “shifted” the spaces on their Notice and Order Appeal form, admitting construction occurred. Mr. Molina was given ample time, a City Hall meeting, and attempted administrative inspections by Building and Safety to help him correct the violations before the citation was issued. No permit was ever issued for the property, and Inspector Henderson issued the Citation. The City was more than generous in time as 139 days passed from the Notice and Order to issuance of the Citation.
1. “The wall that closes off the entry door to the third bedroom was added without the required plan, permits, and inspections.” (FMC 11-103.11-307, 11-308, 11-310; Cal. Residential Code R105.1, R106.1, R 109.1)
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, alter, enlarge, repair, 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 or altered.
Inspector Henderson’s observations and searches of City permit records show the alteration to the hallway by construction of a wall was constructed without the required plans, permits and inspections. Furthermore, Appellant admits to minor alteration and “shifting” in his appeal form for the Notice and Order (See Appeal Packet, pg. 52)
2. “The house is being remodeled without the required plans, permits, and inspections.” FMC § 11-103, 11-307, 11-308, 11-310; Cal. Residential Code § R105.1, R105.5, R105.6, R109.1)
FMC section 11-103 states that the FMC adopts the California Residential Code (CRC). FMC sections 11-307 and 11-308 state that it is unlawful to erect or construct, alter, enlarge, repair, buildings or structures without first obtaining the required permits.
Inspector observations and searches of City permit records show no permit was issued. Furthermore, Appellant admits to making alterations in their Appeal form and did not deny construction work and even asked for time to permit. Appellants then had meetings and ample time of almost five months from the issuance of the Notice and Order to obtain a permit and did not do so. The City was more than generous in time as 139 days passed from the Notice and Order to issuance of the Citation.
Proper Notice was Served on the Property Owner
On November 5, 2025, the Notice and Order was posted at the Property and mailed by both first class and certified mail. (Appeal Packet, pgs.17-27) 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.17-27)
Citation Issued Appropriately
On March 24, 2026, the Citation was issued appropriately and mailed by both first class and certified mail. (Appeal Packet, pgs.38-42) The Citation 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.28-42)
When the citation was issued, known violations existed and were acknowledged in Appellant’s appeal of the Notice and Order (Appeal Packet, pg. 52). On March 24, 2026, when the citation was issued, 139 days had passed since the Notice and Order. Furthermore, a review of City records showed no permits had been obtained for the Property when the Citation issued. Therefore, the Citation is properly issued.
CONCLUSION
Staff have demonstrated that violations existed on the Property at the time of the properly issued Notice and Order and Citation; and that proper notice was served. The BSAB should CONFIRM the Notice and Order and Citation as the violations existed on the property at the time the Notice was issued and proper notice was served to the property owner.
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.
ATTACHEMENTS
Exhibit A - Code Enforcement Appeal Packet
Exhibit B - Findings Matrix
Exhibit C - Presentation