Mission Viejo, CA ? So are they legal or not?

[U_Stormcrow]

I was cited by the city the city code 9.59.115-1 "nuisances designated". I found this code to be vague and badly written. It states as follows (item as public nuisances):

(a) Animals. Animals, livestock, poultry or bees kept, bred or maintained for any purpose or in violation of any provision of the City Municipal Code."

That's it. Very simple.

As stated, "animals, livestock, poultry..." inclusively, are all considered as components of public nuisances. Now, let's take a minute to analyze the term "animals". My understanding is dogs, cats, parrots... are animals. Human beings are also considered as animals since no special word for this particular species exists other than that. Since "animals" are included in the code as nuisances, shouldn't all dogs, cats, parrots and human beings banned from the city?

This code seems to me was written in a hurry. Normally, cities are zoned. Something that is allowed in one zone may not be allowed in another. It should not be blanket code.

My chickens are pets! I raised them since they were just little furry balls. They are smarter than you may think. I found them to learn things quickly. They follow me around like dogs and obey some simple commands. Now they faithfully lay eggs every day so I have fresh eggs all the time. My neighbors love the eggs too. The kids in the neighborhood come to pet them and play with them. I clean their coop daily and keep the premises nice and clean. I absolutely see no reason for this code existence. Several neighbors have said they liked to have chickens, too. They see the benefits in it. It simply is the trend today. This code is in violation of voter's right, not what most of the residents want, my opinion.

Anyone wants to start a petition, please count me in.

With respect, the Code is written quite well compared to most. Reading Ordinance code is a learned skill, which you have not previously had need to develop.

It is impossible to write a Code that excludes every possible human imagining specifically. Mission Viejo follows the more reasonable and rational practice of setting forth a long list of definitions, declaring everything prohibited, and then creating a short list or approved and conditional uses.

As to your pets argument, they addressed that too.

Sec. 9.59.115. - Exceptions.

Notwithstanding section 9.59.110, the following shall not constitute a public nuisance:

[...]


(l)

The keeping of household pets in a manner that constitutes operation of a kennel (as defined in subsection 9.01.050(a)(92)) without necessary permits and approvals, except animals kept on a parcel licensed by the city's animal services manager to contain additional animals pursuant to chapter 10.01 of this Code. Household pets shall mean animals or birds ordinarily permitted in residential zones and kept only for the company and pleasure provided to the occupants. Household pets shall not include horses, cows, goats, sheep, other equine, bovine, ovine or ruminant animals, pigs, predatory wild animals, chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, game birds or other fowl, or animals which normally constitute agricultural uses.


Code should not be read in isolation. As someone who has dealt with more legislation than most, my primary complaint with Mission Viejo's Code is one of inconsistency. Typically, in the definitions section, a Code will list a term, define it to include lots of examples, then use the term throughout. i.e. defining poultry or fowl with an inclusive list, then using those terms consistently thru the rest of the code. MV didn't do that, resulting in the need for multiple search terms to uncover the whole of the ordinances regarding the keeping of chickens - but even a casual search rapidly reveals that they are forbidden by Code, contra whatever someone remembers they may have heard from some anonymous source.

 

[nuthatched]

Hello, I am new to this forum. Also interested in having chickens.

We’re the rules ever changed and has anyone tried to register their chicken as an emotional support animal to bypass the ordinance?

Registering animals as emotional support animals to get around an ordinance will just make it harder for people who actually need allowances to be made.
It's unethical, fraudulent and hurts both esa communities and chicken keepers.
Chickens can be delightful but are prone to so many illnesses and issues and predators that I wouldn't recommend them to anyone struggling with mental stressors. They die at the drop of a hat.
California is actually cracking down on people who are trying to use esa as an excuse to keep animals in places animals should not be, which is hard to do and not cross any federal fair housing or anti-discrimination laws. But to keep an esa in California, you have to be under the care of a licensed psychiatrist for at least a month AND he/she must find a person qualified for an esa before they can apply for esa status and esa registery of the animal. Most will not approve of poultry and will suggest a pet-type animal. The type of animal must not cause ecessive noise or smells or a possible threat to people or to property. Chickens are great at noise, smells and destruction. No instant internet esa papers will be accepted.


https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...ruggle-to-curb-fake-emotional-support-animals

 

[Mvhome]

Registering animals as emotional support animals to get around an ordinance will just make it harder for people who actually need allowances to be made.
It's unethical, fraudulent and hurts both esa communities and chicken keepers.
Chickens can be delightful but are prone to so many illnesses and issues and predators that I wouldn't recommend them to anyone struggling with mental stressors. They die at the drop of a hat.
California is actually cracking down on people who are trying to use esa as an excuse to keep animals in places animals should not be, which is hard to do and not cross any federal fair housing or anti-discrimination laws. But to keep an esa in California, you have to be under the care of a licensed psychiatrist for at least a month AND he/she must find a person qualified for an esa before they can apply for esa status and esa registery of the animal. Most will not approve of poultry and will suggest a pet-type animal. The type of animal must not cause ecessive noise or smells or a possible threat to people or to property. Chickens are great at noise, smells and destruction. No instant internet esa papers will be accepted.


https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...ruggle-to-curb-fake-emotional-support-animals

Thank you for your honest and thoughtful answer. You are correct, just trying to think of options.

 

[Sundancefarms]

Hey, i know this is 10 years later but has anyone tried to change the ordinance yet? the pettionn looks like its unsignable at this point. I’d really love to get it going again and actually win this battle.

 

[jmendoza]

Try starting with the fact that the agriculture program allows chickens at the MV High School, so if they comply, why cant private citizens also raise them?

A good thing would be to write up some guidelines and regulations as to how many hens, the type of area they must be kept in and the amount of space, regular clean-up guidelines, and possibly having them get a health check and be immunized against any know avain disease( many hatcheries doe this with their chicks) . This would mitigate the objections the city has against them. Meaning if you propose that chickens can be raised domestically IF the objections to having them are taken care of by the owner/s, then that is a good starting point.

Don't get a rooster, Americaunas/easter eggers are pretty quite compared to Orpingtons and Australorps. and set up you pen away from your neighbors living area, and give them plenty of fresh eggs!

Good luck, we lost our chickens because a nosy Persian neighbor felt that it would devalue their home they bought to flip, and so they called animal control and we were cited and had to get rid of our 4 year old hens.