Agenda Item Wording:
title
Conduct a Leadership Visalia public hearing regarding the Municipal Code Amendment No. 2015-06, a request by the City of Visalia to Amend Titles 6 (Animals) and 17 (Zoning) to allow chicken keeping in the R-1 Single family Residential Zone Districts.
body
Agenda Date: 10/09/2026
Prepared by:
Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk, Reyna.Rivera@Visalia.Gov; 559-713-4512
Department Recommendation:
Open the public hearing and introduce for first reading of the Municipal Code Amendment No. 2025-105, amending the Municipal Code to allow chicken keeping in single-family residential zone districts.
Summary:
The proposed amendment to the City of Visalia’s Zoning Ordinance to expand the zoning districts in which residents may keep chickens. Currently, chickens are permitted in the Agricultural and Rural Residential zones, subject to applicable requirements. The proposed amendment would allow residents in additional residential zoning districts to keep up to four hens, prohibit roosters, and establish standards for keeping chickens on residential properties. The proposal was initiated at the direction of the City Council following a Work Session on April 6, 2015. On May 11, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 3-1 to recommend denial of the amendment, citing concerns regarding animal classification, enforcement, confinement, and potential public health impacts. The City Council may consider the Planning Commission’s comments and direct revisions to the proposed ordinance before deciding whether to proceed with the amendment.
Background Discussion:
Currently, the keeping of chickens is allowed in two of the City’s zoning districts, the Agricultural Zone, and the Rural Residential zone. There are no restrictions to the keeping of chickens in the Agricultural Zone, whereas the Rural Residential zone (Zoning Ordinance Section 17.10.020(D)) allows the keeping of chickens subject to the following standards:
“provided that there shall not be less than one thousand (1,000) square feet
of site area for each fowl or animal and provided that no structure housing poultry or small animals shall be closer than fifty (50) feet to any property line, closer
than twenty-five (25) feet to any dwelling on the site, or closer than fifty (50) feet
to any other dwelling;”
Chickens are not allowed to be kept in any other of the City’s Zoning Districts. The City Council wishes to consider expanding the number of Zoning Districts that allow the keeping of chickens, thus, this Amendment was directed for initiation at a Work Session on April 6, 2015. The Work Session review followed the Council’s earlier direction on March 2, 2015, to investigate and report back on similar ordinances, key considerations and experiences of other cities.
The City Council’s direction for the Ordinance included the following key components:
• Four chicken hens only per residential parcel
• No roosters to be allowed by the Ordinance
• Chickens to be confined to the rear yard of residences
• No permit or licensing required for chickens or for coops/enclosures
• No restrictions on dressing of chickens for consumption.
Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed Ordinance Amendment on May 11, 2015.
Thirteen citizens spoke on the proposal, (11 in favor, two opposed). Several persons speaking in favor of the proposal also encouraged the City to allow miniature goats to be kept in residential neighborhoods. It was noted that consideration of adding goats to the proposal is beyond the scope of this Ordinance Amendment. It was explained that proponents of keeping goats can pursue a separate Municipal Code Amendment similar to the Ordinance Amendment process for this item. Those in favor of the Ordinance generally expressed the benefits of chickens as pets and as a family food source. Proponents also noted that chickens are beneficial for gardening and for insect control. Opponents cited noise, odors, rodent and insect attraction, potential disease, and the challenge of keeping chickens confined to the property, as reasons to deny the proposal. In addition, two items of correspondence in opposition to the proposal were received and submitted into the hearing record.
With specific regard to chickens being potential disease carriers, County of Tulare
Environmental Health staff noted that chickens can be potential carriers and or spreaders of salmonella. There is also the potential for blue tick lice and/or other parasites as well as other diseases whose infestation could be accelerated by introducing chickens into a residential zone. Environmental Health staff further noted that some cases of salmonella have occurred in Tulare County in recent years; however, they opined that the majority of these cases occurred through handling raw chicken, which isn’t necessarily directly associated with the keeping of chickens in residential areas. Based on this feedback, staff is unable to quantify the increase in risk to the public health that would result with allowing chicken keeping in residential areas, other than to note that the increase would probably be low.
After the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated on the Ordinance Amendment, and voted 3-1 (Taylor - No, Segrue- Absent) to recommend denial of the Ordinance Amendment. Each Commissioner expressed their individual concerns about the proposed Ordinance Amendment. However, the Commission elected to not seek a consensus position on any of the specific concerns expressed about the Ordinance Amendment. Consequently, the Planning Commission’s vote was intended to be a general recommendation of denial of the entire ordinance as proposed, as opposed to recommendations on any of proposal’s details or potential modifications. The individual Planning Commissioner comments are summarized without attribution or consensus, as follows:
1. Chickens should not be re-defined in the Municipal Code as “household pets”. They should still be classified as farm animals even if they are allowed in residential zones.
2. The limiting of four chickens appears arbitrary because it fails to take into account lot size or the size of the residing family.
3. The Ordinance should be enforced by permits or licensing, even if on a no-fee basis.
4. Chickens should not be allowed to roam free in back yards since they will eventually get loose and present safety dangers to roadway traffic and to themselves.
5. Confining the chickens to coops or enclosures should be mandatory and part of the Ordinance.
6. More research should be done to disclose potential health risks of allowing chickens in close proximity to human habitation. Staff has reviewed the individual Commissioner comments noted above. In staff and the City Attorney’s opinion, none of the comments identify a serious flaw to the Municipal Code Amendment if it were adopted in its present draft form.
Rather, the comments represent policy choices, which the Council may consider and potentially incorporate into the ordinance. The Ordinance for the Municipal Code Amendment is in the same form as that prepared pursuant to the City Council’s original direction. The City Council may desire to further revise some of the components of the draft Ordinance in consideration of some or all of the comments noted above. In this case, the key points contained in the Ordinance could be revised by motion of the City Council when the Council makes a motion to introduce the Ordinance for first reading. Possible amendments to the draft Ordinance are listed below:
1. Classification of chickens as “household pets”: Move to classify chickens as a separate classification of animal instead of either “household pet” or “farm animal”.
2. Require a City permit to be obtained prior to keeping chickens on a residential lot. Move to direct further analysis by staff as to the regulating City agency (Animal Control as with current dog and cat licensing, or Community Development, as for standard construction or use permits). Further, a cost recovery analysis would be required in order to amend the current City Fee Resolution.
3. Chickens should not be allowed to roam free. Move to direct that chickens allowed by the Ordinance have at least one clipped wing in order to be able to roam free (uncaged) in the rear yard area of a residence.
4. Confine chickens to coops. Move to direct that chickens be confined to a coop or enclosure at all times.
5. Conduct more research on potential health risks associated with keeping chickens. Move to continue the item and direct staff to conduct further risk analysis and potential mitigating Ordinance conditions (such as further limiting the number of chickens allowed per lot or increasing setback requirements for coops/enclosures).
Fiscal impact including annual maintenance and operating costs:
None noted at this time.
The City’s Neighborhood Preservation Division would incur some costs associated with investigating potential violations of this proposed Ordinance. However, violations would be subject to the provisions of Sections 1.08.010, 1.08.020 and 1.08.030 of the Visalia Municipal Code, which provides for cost recovery in the form of fines - $100 for the first violation, $200 for the second violation, and $500 for subsequent violations (fines are not imposed until after the violator has received a courtesy notice of violation).
Prior Council Action:
On February 21, 2023, a request by Councilmember Liz Wynn for Council to approve placing an item on a future City Council agenda for consideration of allowing backyard hens in the City of Visalia was approved.
On April 6, 2015, the City Council directed staff to initiate a Zoning Text Amendment to Allow Keeping Chickens in Residential Zones.
On June 1, 2015, the introduction of Ordinance No. 2015-06, amending the Municipal Code to allow chicken keeping in single-family residential zone districts was presented. The City Council voted to deny the ordinance.
Other:
On May 11, 2015, the Planning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend denial of the Municipal Code Amendment.
On June 1, 2015, the City Council voted 3-2 to deny chickens in residential zone (R-1).
Alternatives:
The City Council, in lieu of the recommendations provided, may direct staff to consider the following:
1. Receive the staff report and take no further action at this time.
2. Provide staff with further direction and return the item back at a future Work Session.
Recommended Motion (and alternative motions if expected):
recommendation
I move to direct staff to initiate a Zoning Text Amendment to amend portions of the Visalia Municipal Code that will permit the keeping of chickens in the R-1-5 and R-1-12.5 residential zones.
Strategic Goal: Indicates which City Strategic Goal(s) this item supports. Select all that apply.
|
□  Economic Vitality |
□  Organizational Excellence |
□  Fiscal Strength |
□  Infrastructure & Growth |
■  Quality of Life |