Fresno Building Standards Appeals Board Meeting – October 22, 2026

The Fresno Building Standards Appeals Board met on October 22, 2026, to consider code enforcement continuances, a contested first administrative citation, and an appeal of a building official’s denial of an alternate means and methods request. No public comment speakers came forward, and the board voted on all agenda items before adjourning. No agenda or minutes were available in the source materials; this summary is based on the meeting transcript.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No speakers came forward under public comments, and no unscheduled oral communications were offered under item 11.

Continued Matters

• The board was advised that there were no continued matters on the agenda.

Discussion Items

Item 8A – Code Enforcement Case E25-16660

• Deputy City Attorney Christina Pinya requested a six-month continuance, reporting that the property owner had hired a draftsman and was preparing plans for the entire house.
• The board approved the continuance on a motion by Mr. Vincent, seconded by Mr. Ransom.

Item 8B – Code Enforcement Case E25-13A3 / 3436 North Virginia Lane

• Deputy City Attorney Calvin Massey requested a continuance to December 15, 2026, stating that the appellant and homeowner were present, had consulted with development and planning, and needed to obtain a permit but were making progress.
• The board approved the request on a motion by Mr. Ransom, seconded by Mr. Mir. The transcript also refers to this matter as “item 26-1361”; the agenda and minutes were not available to resolve the discrepancy.

Item 8C – First Administrative Citation, 220 North Weber Avenue / 1827 West Clinton Avenue (Case E26-04602)

• Deputy City Attorney Sarah Papasian presented the city’s case. She said the notice and order had been confirmed by the board in June, a progress hearing in early August found no progress, and fines were doubled. Inspector Amparo then issued a first administrative citation on August 21 for exterior siding replaced without permits. The city argued the violation existed, notice was properly served, and the violation remained after the deadline.
• The city reported that 10 permits were later obtained: permit applications were started September 30, four permits issued once balances were paid, and the remaining six issued October 12 after fees were paid. No inspections were scheduled as of the hearing.
• Ryan Port, representing appellant BDHOV et al., did not dispute the timeline but disagreed with its characterization. He argued all items in the original notice and order had been corrected by October 12, 2026; five of seven items were corrected within the original compliance period, the hazardous tree took longer because a specialist was needed, and permits were the remaining item. He also cited emails with the city, including an October 15 email from Inspector Jennifer Brown stating no further enforcement would be taken before December 14, 2026, and asked the board to dismiss the citation.
• In rebuttal, the city said the notice-and-order arguments were not relevant to the citation hearing, noted a gap in communication from mid-May to late August and no action from mid-May to mid-September, and said the October 15 email anticipated the requested continuation rather than conflicting with it.
• A board member observed that both sides were discussing a December 14/15 completion date and that a 60-day continuance would push the matter past the board’s December meeting. The board voted to confirm the first administrative citation and set a progress hearing for December 15, 2026. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.

Item 8D – Water’s Edge Apartments Alternate Means and Methods Appeal

• One board member recused from this item.
• Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director of Planning and Development, presented the staff recommendation. The project is a 72-unit multifamily development at 330 South Clovis Avenue. The applicant had requested permission to install two separate six-inch sanitary sewer lines at a one percent slope instead of the code-compliant eight-inch pipe, with 557 and 612 drainage fixture units on the two lines respectively. The building official denied the request under California Plumbing Code provisions regarding obstruction of flow and maximum loading. Staff recommended upholding the denial.
• Ken Vang of Van Consulting Engineers, for the applicant, explained that the existing sewer line in Clovis Avenue is shallow, existing electric and gas utilities prevented installation of a proposed eight-inch line and manhole configuration, and the connection had to be made with a wye, requiring a six-inch line. He said the split system would still have adequate capacity: a six-inch pipe has capacity of about 126,000 gallons per day while the project would generate about 26,000 gallons per day. He argued the city standard manhole design would prevent blockages and that the proposal provided an equal or better solution consistent with alternate means and methods provisions.
• The building official, Bill, responded that the City of Fresno sewer master plan does not apply to private property and that the proposal does not meet the California Building Code.
• Board members discussed whether the alternate means and methods section of the code allowed approval, whether the proposal was constructible, and whether a requested slope reduction was below code minimums. The appellant’s engineer responded that the code allows alternate means and methods and that the flow calculations were adequate. General contractor Corbin Raven, also a primary owner, stated his support and said the proposed pipes would use only about 20 percent of their capacity.
• A motion was made to approve the alternate means and methods request and allow the project to continue. After a request to clarify the record, the board confirmed it was approving the appeal and declining to uphold the building official’s denial. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.

Reports and Adjournment

• The secretary reported no report.
• There were no unscheduled oral communications.
• The meeting adjourned at approximately 1:48 p.m.

Key Outcomes

• Item 8A: Continued for six months.
• Item 8B: Continued to December 15, 2026.
• Item 8C: First administrative citation confirmed; progress hearing set for December 15, 2026.
• Item 8D: Appeal granted; building official’s denial overturned; alternate means and methods request approved.
• Public comment period closed with no speakers; meeting adjourned.