8.1. Continued Public Hearing to consider introduction and First Reading of an ordinance amending provisions in Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to the number of chickens allowed on residential properties and setback requirements; and finding of CEQA exemption. Ordinance No. 08-25. (Continued from June 10, 2025)
Great update to the ordinance. The change to the setback requirements is a common-sense approach to noise abatement with neighboring lots. Also, the update to an even 6 is in line with flocks preferring even pairs as opposed to "henpecking" which occurs when you have an odd number of fowl.
Support intent and language added by the Planning Commission. The goal is to allow keeping chickens in smaller properties while keeping the impacts (smell and noise) not impact surround property owners. Don't neighbors have rights too? I suggest the placement of coops should be as far away as possible from the living and sleeping areas of the neighbors. Side yard placement of the coop could be most impactful to that side neighbor with a rear location best. Why should the neighbor that doesn't keep chickens accept the negative impacts of this use. It's about being fair and equitable. Staff dismissing the efforts of the Commission to consider neighbors is puzzling.
We live in the Presidential Tract just east of the 55 freeway. It has come to our attention that at their regular meeting on 6/24/2025, the City Council will vote to update Title 17 of the municipal code to make it easier to locate chicken enclosures on small residential properties, increase the number of chickens allowed on such properties, and, most important to us, prohibit roosters. We would like to express our whole-hearted support for these revisions to the municipal code.
We have no serious issue with backyard chicken farming. We do, however, take issue with neighbors having roosters. Roosters by nature are extremely vocal. We are daily reminded of this, as we currently share a backyard wall with neighbors who since last fall have kept not one but two roosters. These birds crow incessantly, often starting at dawn and continuing intermittently all day, sometimes even after dark. We filed a complaint with Orange Code Enforcement, only to learn that keeping roosters in residential Orange is perfectly legal, and there was nothing they could do.
For residents who work from home, work night shifts, have sleeping babies or just seek peace in their own space, crowing roosters can, and in our case do, negatively impact concentration, mental health and overall quality of life. Their constant crowing leads to distraction, lost sleep, unnecessary stress, and ill will toward neighbors who are showing open disregard for us and others living nearby. We also worry that this situation might affect any future plans we have to sell this property; we certainly wouldn’t purchase a home knowing a potential neighbor cared so little for the sensibilities of others.
Having had some debate of this issue on Orange Buzz, we surmise that most residents would support banning roosters in residential areas; many Orange residents seem to believe, wrongly, that roosters were already prohibited. We did discover through the Buzz thread that there are “rooster boosters” who will likely oppose this code revision (at least the part that bans roosters). The argument goes that a rooster is required to protect hens from predators like raccoons, hawks and coyotes. This is nonsense. Code (current and revised) requires that chickens be kept in an enclosure and no rocket scientist is required to build one that can safeguard hens from predators common to our city. Furthermore, the reason most people keep backyard chickens is to obtain eggs and roosters do nothing to enhance egg production. Some studies even show that the presence of a rooster can decrease egg production. The only other obvious reasons to have a rooster are to propagate chicks (arguable illegal in our area), engage in cock fighting (blatantly illegal nationally) or “just because I want one.” None of these arguments justifies the crowing or the resulting negative impact on neighborhood peace and goodwill.
We recognize that this code revision, by itself, would provide no immediate relief to our family, since the neighbors acquired these animals before the code revision was passed. But it would at least give us hope that our current plight has an end date. Please approve this measure; it is a common-sense compromise between residents who want to engage in backyard chicken farming and their neighbors who wish to enjoy the many other amenities of suburban life.
Great update to the ordinance. The change to the setback requirements is a common-sense approach to noise abatement with neighboring lots. Also, the update to an even 6 is in line with flocks preferring even pairs as opposed to "henpecking" which occurs when you have an odd number of fowl.
Support intent and language added by the Planning Commission. The goal is to allow keeping chickens in smaller properties while keeping the impacts (smell and noise) not impact surround property owners. Don't neighbors have rights too? I suggest the placement of coops should be as far away as possible from the living and sleeping areas of the neighbors. Side yard placement of the coop could be most impactful to that side neighbor with a rear location best. Why should the neighbor that doesn't keep chickens accept the negative impacts of this use. It's about being fair and equitable. Staff dismissing the efforts of the Commission to consider neighbors is puzzling.
We live in the Presidential Tract just east of the 55 freeway. It has come to our attention that at their regular meeting on 6/24/2025, the City Council will vote to update Title 17 of the municipal code to make it easier to locate chicken enclosures on small residential properties, increase the number of chickens allowed on such properties, and, most important to us, prohibit roosters. We would like to express our whole-hearted support for these revisions to the municipal code.
We have no serious issue with backyard chicken farming. We do, however, take issue with neighbors having roosters. Roosters by nature are extremely vocal. We are daily reminded of this, as we currently share a backyard wall with neighbors who since last fall have kept not one but two roosters. These birds crow incessantly, often starting at dawn and continuing intermittently all day, sometimes even after dark. We filed a complaint with Orange Code Enforcement, only to learn that keeping roosters in residential Orange is perfectly legal, and there was nothing they could do.
For residents who work from home, work night shifts, have sleeping babies or just seek peace in their own space, crowing roosters can, and in our case do, negatively impact concentration, mental health and overall quality of life. Their constant crowing leads to distraction, lost sleep, unnecessary stress, and ill will toward neighbors who are showing open disregard for us and others living nearby. We also worry that this situation might affect any future plans we have to sell this property; we certainly wouldn’t purchase a home knowing a potential neighbor cared so little for the sensibilities of others.
Having had some debate of this issue on Orange Buzz, we surmise that most residents would support banning roosters in residential areas; many Orange residents seem to believe, wrongly, that roosters were already prohibited. We did discover through the Buzz thread that there are “rooster boosters” who will likely oppose this code revision (at least the part that bans roosters). The argument goes that a rooster is required to protect hens from predators like raccoons, hawks and coyotes. This is nonsense. Code (current and revised) requires that chickens be kept in an enclosure and no rocket scientist is required to build one that can safeguard hens from predators common to our city. Furthermore, the reason most people keep backyard chickens is to obtain eggs and roosters do nothing to enhance egg production. Some studies even show that the presence of a rooster can decrease egg production. The only other obvious reasons to have a rooster are to propagate chicks (arguable illegal in our area), engage in cock fighting (blatantly illegal nationally) or “just because I want one.” None of these arguments justifies the crowing or the resulting negative impact on neighborhood peace and goodwill.
We recognize that this code revision, by itself, would provide no immediate relief to our family, since the neighbors acquired these animals before the code revision was passed. But it would at least give us hope that our current plight has an end date. Please approve this measure; it is a common-sense compromise between residents who want to engage in backyard chicken farming and their neighbors who wish to enjoy the many other amenities of suburban life.
David and Karen Bustamante