Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transitional Living Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fresno County supervisors advance first reading of ordinance limiting concentration of registered offenders in single‑family homes
Summary
After hours of testimony, the board advanced a first reading of a county ordinance that would cap the number of certain registered offenders in a single‑family dwelling at six, set escalating administrative fines and allow misdemeanor enforcement; supporters said it gives sheriff enforcement tools, critics warned it risks displacing supervised housing without fuller study.
Fresno County supervisors on Dec. 9 advanced, on first reading, a proposed county ordinance that would prohibit property owners from knowingly allowing more than six people who must register under Penal Code section 290 (as described in staff presentation) to reside in a single‑family dwelling unless they are legally related.
The ordinance, presented by Deputy County Administrative Officer Samantha Buck, would classify violations as misdemeanors with penalties up to six months in county jail and establish administrative citations of $10,000 for a first violation, $20,000 for a second within one year and $50,000 for a third or subsequent occurrence within another year. The board designated county counsel to prepare a fair and adequate summary and set a second hearing for Jan. 6, 2026.
Supporters, including Supervisor Dorel Pacheco and the county sheriff, argued the measure gives local law enforcement tools to reduce neighborhood impacts from what they described as concentrated transitional living facilities. “We are not messing around,” Supervisor Bredefield said during the discussion, urging enforcement authority and accountability for operators.
Providers and advocates urged caution. Dawn Coyle, co‑founder of nonprofit Centers for Living, described a structured, supervised residential model and said the organization had housed more than 1,200 people in seven years with extensive oversight and relatively few reoffenses. “Stable, supervised housing reduces risk; this ordinance would displace 120 people and push them into homelessness in a county already struggling to house people,” she said.
Other public commenters including neighborhood residents described incidents they said they had witnessed near transitional homes and urged restrictions. Peter Capitan, who said he lives near affected homes, cited observed narcotics sales and supervision gaps.
Board members repeatedly noted constraints imposed by state law, including the statutory cap the ordinance codifies (described in staff remarks as the six‑person limit), and discussed enforcement mechanics and coordination with state agencies that oversee conditional release programs. County staff identified the Department of State Hospitals’ conditional release program and a contractor (Liberty Healthcare) as entities involved in oversight of some residents.
The board did not adopt a final ordinance text at the meeting; it advanced the item for a second hearing and directed county counsel to prepare required public summaries and notices in accordance with the Government Code.
