REPORT TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS APPEALS BOARD
January 20, 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 E25-06722, concerning 7462 E. Fedora, and the administrative citation issued on November 3, 2025:
1. HEARING on the Appeal of administrative citation E25-06722.1.
2. Take one of the following actions:
i. DENY the appeal and CONFIRM administrative citation number E25-06722.1 issued on November 3, 2025; OR
ii. GRANT the appeal and DISMISS administrative citation number E25-06722.1 issued on November 3, 2025.
.Body
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that, after holding the appeal hearing, the Building Standards Appeals Board (BSAB) deny the appeal of tenant Carmen Sanchez and confirm administrative citation number E25-06722.1, issued on November 3, 2025, pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) sections 11-103, 11-307, 11-308, and 11-310, and California Residential Code sections R105.1, R106.1, and R109.1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 21, 2025, Code Enforcement received a complaint that there was construction without permits at 7462 E. Fedora (Property), specifically a large garage in the backyard. This complaint was confirmed by Community Revitalization Specialist (CRS) Gilbert Ruelas, and he issued a Notice and Order (N&O) on June 10, 2025. After multiple communications with tenant Carmen Sanchez (Appellant) regarding the violations, CRS Ruelas issued a citation in the amount of $250 on November 3, 2025. To date, the violations remain, and CRS Ruelas issued a second citation in the amount of $500 on December 12, 2025, but this one has not been appealed.
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 May 21, 2025, Code Enforcement opened a case based on a complaint that stated: “Construction w/o permits Large garage in backyard.” (Appeal Packet, pg. 7.) On May 22, 2025, CRS Ruelas conducted an initial inspection at the Property and found 3 violations: unapproved approach used to gain access to park on property, junk/rubbish throughout the Property, and large accessory structure built in the backyard without plans or permits. CRS Ruelas left a door hanger requesting a call from the occupant. On May 30, 2025, CRS Ruelas conducted a second inspection, and the initial 3 violations remained. (Appeal Packet, pg. 8.)
On May 30, 2025, CRS Ruelas issued a Notice and Order (N&O) listing the three identified violations, the code sections violated, and potential corrections for each violation. (Appeal Packet, pg. 20.) The deadline for this N&O was June 28, 2025. (Appeal Packet, pg. 20.) On June 30, 2025, CRS Ruelas reinspected and found violations 1 and 2 removed: unapproved approach and junk/rubbish. However, violation 3 relating to the large accessory structure in the backyard remained. (Appeal Packet, pg. 11.)
On June 16, 2025, Carmen Sanchez applied for a permit for the structure. (Appeal Packet, pgs. 10, 46.) On June 19, 2025, the Building and Safety division of the Planning Department sent an email notification to the applicant stating: “Your application requires additional information. Please provide plans for your proposed shed. A site plan is required. If you would like, please email our office at Building@fresno.gov. If you are going to provide your own design plans a site plan, foundation plan, roof framing plan, and structural details. If electrical is to be installed an electrical plan would be required as well.” (Appeal Packet, pg. 48.) A similar email was sent on July 30, 2025, to the applicant. (Appeal Packet, pg. 50. As of December 31, 2025, no response from the applicant has been recorded in the permit case.
On the basis that the appellant was attempting to obtain a permit for the structure, CRS Ruelas granted extensions between June and October 2025. On October 22, 2025, CRS Ruelas emailed Carmen Sanchez and provided her with a final extension to October 29, 2025. (Appeal Packet, pg. 73.) On October 30, 2025, CRS Ruelas conducted a follow up inspection and observed the large accessory structure remained, so the first citation in the amount of $250 was issued. (Appeal Packet, pg. 17, 30, 72.)
Staff Analysis
In order to deny the appeal and confirm the citation, the BSAB must be satisfied beyond the preponderance of the evidence that: 1. A violation of the FMC existed on the Property; 2. Proper notice was served on the property owner; 3. After the deadline passed, the violation remained.
1. A Violation of the FMC Existed on the Property
CRS Ruelas has inspected the Property multiple times, including on May 22, 2025, May 30, 2025, June 30, 2025, and October 30, 2025, and each time a large accessory structure was present in the backyard, visible from the sidewalk. 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. . . a building. . . shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.”
In her appeal form, Ms. Sanchez is not denying the structure is in violation but rather requesting additional time to comply. Additionally, in an email from Ms. Sanchez to CRS Ruelas on September 4, 2025, Ms. Sanchez stated: “I realize that I should have applied for the permit ahead of time. . . .” (Appeal Packet, pg. 73.) The evidence shows that the large accessory structure was a violation.
2. Proper Notice was Served on the Property Owner
On June 10, 2025, the N&O was posted on the property and mailed by both First Class and certified mail. (Appeal Packet, pg. 27-29.) This N&O contained all necessary information required by FMC section 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. The appellant did not appeal the N&O.
On November 3, 2025, the first citation was mailed by both First Class and certified mail. (Appeal Packet, pg. 44-45.). This citation contained all necessary information required by FMC section 1-308(b), including clear descriptions of the violation, photographs of the violation, the code sections violated, a description of the correction for the violation, and information concerning appellants right to appeal.
3. After the Deadline Passed, the Violation Remained
The N&O deadline was June 28, 2025. CRS Ruelas confirmed the violation remained at multiple re-inspections, including June 30, 2025, and October 30, 2025, immediately prior to issuing the citation. (Appeal Packet, pg. 42, 72.) CRS Ruelas attempted multiple times to communicate with Appellant, and he provided extensions when she showed progress to allow her to obtain the permit. However, after four months of extensions, CRS Ruelas issued the citation.
CONCLUSION
Staff have demonstrated that a violation existed on the property, and it remained after proper notice was provided to remove it or obtain the permit. The citation was properly issued, and the BSAB should deny the appeal and affirm the citation.
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