Fresno County unanimously adopts ordinance to limit overconcentration of registered offenders in single‑family homes

The Fresno County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 6, 2026, unanimously adopted a new ordinance amending county code Chapter 10.8 to prevent the overconcentration of registered offenders in single‑family dwellings used as transitional living facilities.

The ordinance, advanced by Supervisors Bridal and Pacheco, applies to single‑family dwellings where at least one registered offender resides and more than six unrelated persons occupy the home, giving the county local regulatory authority in circumstances beyond the state’s six‑person single‑family rule. County Counsel clarified that state law requires local jurisdictions to treat dwellings with up to six unrelated persons as single‑family uses; local regulation applies once the total exceeds six and the ordinance’s offender condition is met.

The measure prompted extensive public comment. Dawn Coyle, who identified herself as a Centers for Living representative and nonprofit operator, asked the board to defer the ordinance’s second component, warning a 30‑day compliance window would “buckle us” and displace roughly 30 of the program’s 120 clients if enforced immediately. Candy Baron, a house manager, described a single woman in recovery who she said had made “exemplary” progress while living in their program and asked the county to collaborate on transition planning.

Neighbors and other residents pressed the opposite case. Elizabeth Spencer of Old Fig Garden urged “clear, enforceable standards” to prevent single‑family homes from operating as unlicensed high‑occupancy facilities and cited impacts on traffic, parking and neighborhood character. Frances Morrison, a Fig Garden Police Protection District commissioner, told the board she believed the homes had generated a substantial number of calls for service and described nuisance conditions and safety concerns near the properties.

Speakers on both sides offered data and personal testimony. Centers for Living supporters said their program has residential managers and accountability systems and quoted a low internal recidivism rate; neighbors and some supervisors said call volumes and complaints justified local regulation. County staff and counsel repeatedly noted the limits of local authority under state law while explaining how the ordinance is structured to comply with those limits.

Supervisor Magsig and other supervisors signaled sympathy for operators’ rehabilitative goals but emphasized concern about concentration and public safety; Supervisor Magsig said he supported the ordinance as a balance point. After discussion and exchange with County Counsel, Chair Bridal moved to adopt the ordinance; the motion carried unanimously.

The ordinance does not a specify effective date in the hearing record; County Counsel and staff said implementation and enforcement details and any required filings will follow in administrative steps. The board also invited operators and law enforcement to meet with staff post‑adoption to discuss compliance pathways and monitoring.

What happens next: county code enforcement and the sheriff’s office will coordinate implementation; the record does not specify a timeline for enforcement or any immediate displacement plan. Operators requested follow‑up meetings to address housing transitions for residents whose placements might be affected.

(At the hearing, dozens of citizens and program representatives spoke; the ordinance passed after board discussion and a formal roll call vote. The board did not record a different vote tally — the clerk announced the measure passed unanimously.)