Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2009 • Check your chickens! Council elects to keep current livestock ordinance 

Publisher’s note: This story originally appeared in the Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2009 edition of the Lassen County Times.

Anyone with chickens in the city limits might want to break out a tape measure to see if they’re within their legal limits.

That’s because the city council upheld its ordinance to keep chickens at least 75 feet away from the windows or doorways of any dwelling within the city limits at its Oct. 21 meeting.

The decision came as a response to the request of city resident David Haslet, who came before the council at its Aug. 5 meeting to ask the council to amend its 75-foot clearance rule so that residents could keep a limited number of chickens in their backyards.

Haslet said at the Aug. 3 meeting the main reason he wanted to raise chickens was to supplement the family budget by providing a low cost, healthy alternative to commercial eggs.

Animal requirements in the city limits fall under chapter 6.04 of the Municipal Code. For starters, animals as defined by the city code do not include dogs or other household pets but do include a variety of other domesticated animals, including horses, cows, sheep, goats, pigs, rabbits and poultry, etc. Animals of this nature are required by city code to be kept in an enclosure so that they stay on the owner’s property.

Haslet spoke briefly before the council to make his case for allowing chickens on his property. He cited the example of how military veterans living in a compact community in Southern California were allowed to grow gardens and keep chickens, a tradition that dates back to a wartime economy that encouraged many citizens to grow what were referred to as Victory Gardens.

“My wife and I decided that as soon as we got land, we wanted to put gardens on it and we wanted to have some chickens, as a way to both save money and as a way to contribute to a better society,” Haslet said.

City Administrator Rob Hill, who read the report to the council and the community, said the city would have to impose a limit of no more than six chickens on the property if the original ordinance were amended.

Local realtor Jim McCarthy explained how letting livestock congregate in the city limits could be off-putting to some residents.

“What you need to think about is what were the reasons that livestock was eliminated from within city limits in the first place,” McCarthy said. “You’re going to undermine the credits, codes and restrictions of almost every subdivision, even in the old parts of town like the Mill District. Those are hard enough to enforce without the city encouraging this.”

McCarthy added bringing in livestock could attract other animals. He mentioned how the city currently has a problem with feral cats in the community. He said due to the rural nature of the area, chickens in a small communal area could attract more predatory animals, from cats to coyotes.

Councilmember Lino Callegari said he concurred with McCarthy’s opinion on keeping livestock in the county limits. He suggested the people should be the ones who ultimately decide on the issue though, and that a public hearing should be held to ascertain public input.

Callegari added his personal opinion was that chickens should stay out of the city based on health reasons alone. Councilmember Doug Sayers said he agreed with Callegari, adding he said thought there were more pressing matters for the city to discuss than issues with chicken coops. Vern Templeton agreed, expressing that the current ordinance was fine as it is.

Bill Nebeker summarized in his report a few of the other advantages to having chickens in the city limits, partially based on information obtained from urbanchickens.org.

“Urban chickens provide a healthy source of protein rich eggs that are not treated with antibiotics or hormones,” Nebeker’s report said. “Chicken manure is high in nitrogen and is beneficial for composting. Chickens are natural pest controllers — they eat cockroaches, tomato horn worms, aphids, grubs and other pests.”