Fresno Building Standards Appeals Board Meeting: Pickleball Club Occupant Load Appeal (Sept 24, 2026)

Note: The meeting minutes provided list the meeting date as Tuesday, September 15, 2026, at 1:00 PM. The metadata supplied with this summary indicates the meeting occurred on September 24, 2026. This discrepancy is noted for accuracy.

The Building Standards Appeals Board convened to consider one major agenda item: an appeal of the certified building official's determination regarding occupant load for a proposed private pickleball club at 3070 West Shaw Avenue in Fresno. The meeting included a roll call, agenda approval with a recusal, consent calendar approval, and a public hearing on the appeal. The board ultimately voted to uphold the building official's determination.

Consent Calendar

• ID 26-1210 – Approval of the August 18, 2026 Building Standards Appeals Board Regular Meeting Minutes
• ID 26-1218 – Approval of the September 1, 2026 Building Standards Appeals Board Regular Meeting Minutes
• Both items were approved unanimously (5-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• No members of the public provided oral comment.

Discussion Items

• Appeal of Certified Building Official's Determination – Occupant Load for Tian Pickleball Club (ID 26-1242)
  • Background: The project is a tenant improvement of a 32,742 sq. ft. space within a 36,138 sq. ft. building, proposing a private pickleball club with a pro shop and one employee on site during operating hours (5 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week). The occupancy classification is Assembly Group A-3 under the 2025 California Building Code.
  • Appellant's Position (Adam Stevenson, GMA Engineers and Architects): The appellant argued that the occupant load should be capped at 45 persons based on an operational statement limiting club membership to 45 members. They contended that pickleball courts by nature only support a limited number of occupants (two to four per court) and that even under a calculated occupant load of 587 using code factors, the building meets life safety and egress requirements. The primary concern was relief from providing unnecessary plumbing fixtures.
  • Staff & Building Official's Position (Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director for Planning and Development): Staff and the building official determined that the operational statement did not satisfy CBC Section 1004.5 exception, which requires occupant load to be based on the design of the space, not on voluntary operational restrictions. Staff recommended upholding the determination and requiring the applicant to provide occupant load calculations based on the space design.
  • Board Discussion: Board members raised several concerns: the enforceability of a 45-member cap, the adequacy of existing restroom facilities (two toilets and a urinal for men; two toilets and two lavs for women) for potential higher occupancy, the possibility of guest attendance, and the financial viability of a club limited to 45 members in a 36,000 sq. ft. space (estimated monthly dues over $800 per person). Board Member Ransom noted the lack of evidence that courts were designed for only two players; all floor plan courts appeared identical. Board Member Vincent questioned whether the board could direct a revised calculation using four persons per court, but staff clarified the board's options were limited to either upholding the building official or approving the 45-person cap based on the operational statement.
  • Decision: Board Member Ransom moved to uphold the building official's determination that the operational statement does not adequately address the occupant load. Vice Chair Vincent seconded. The motion carried 5-0 (with Board Member Field recused).

Key Outcomes

• Vote: The board voted 5-0 to uphold the certified building official's determination denying the appellant's request to cap the occupant load at 45 persons based on the operational statement.
• Effect: The appellant must provide occupant load calculations per CBC Section 1004.5 based on the design of the space, not the operational cap. The building official's correction notice remains in effect.
• Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m.