Big Bear Lake planning commission backs citywide code amendment tightening animal rules, bans roosters in most residential zones

The City of Big Bear Lake Planning Commission on Aug. 20 voted 5-0 to recommend the City Council approve Development Code Amendment 2025-28, a citywide text change that clarifies which domesticated animals are permitted in residential zones, establishes setback and water-well separation requirements, raises the minimum lot size for horses in R-1 to three-quarters of an acre, and allows limited indoor animal boarding in some commercial zones while prohibiting animal breeding.

Community Development Director Andrew Mellon, presenting the staff report, described the package as a cleanup and clarification of ambiguous sections of Title 17. "Before us today is a development code amendment 2025-28. It is a citywide development code amendment and it's in relation to animals and associated land uses," Mellon said. He told the commission the code changes respond to recurring questions from residents and changes in how some animals are classified since the code was last updated.

Staff said the amendment has three main components: (1) revisions to the residential land-use table (Table 17.25.040a in the staff report) to list permitted small domesticated animals (examples in the staff report include pot-bellied pigs, pygmy goats, hens, rabbits and chinchillas) and to explicitly exclude animal breeding in residential zones; (2) clarified setback rules under Section 17.25060 specifying that animal-keeping structures must be at least 50 feet from the front property line, at least 40 feet from any dwelling on an adjacent property used for human habitation or assembly (parks, schools, hospitals, churches), and at least 100 feet from any domestic water well; and (3) changes to the commercial use table (Section 17.35030) to allow indoor animal boarding (for example, dog day-care or boarding inside a structure) while expressly prohibiting physical breeding in commercial zones and expanding veterinary clinic allowances for boarding when medically appropriate.

On the question of male poultry, Mellon said staff "analyzed" the pros and cons and concluded "the cons outweigh the pros," and therefore recommended removing roosters/male poultry from the allowed lists in RL, R-1, R-3 and R-4 zones. He also said staff adjusted the horse standard after analysis to permit horses on parcels of three-quarters of an acre or larger in the R-1 zone; staff estimated roughly 108 parcels in the city would meet that threshold out of more than 10,000 total parcels (staff characterized the change as affecting fewer than 0.01 percent of parcels).

Two residents spoke during the public hearing. Stephanie Wong, a Big Bear Lake homeowner who said she has worked in local animal rescue for two decades, told commissioners she supports keeping restrictions. "Many of us who move to Big Bear Lake ... choose to buy a home in Big Bear Lake as opposed to other unincorporated parts of this valley do so because of the restrictions," Wong said, adding later, "I do not agree with changing any ordinance to be more lenient in this area." Chris Wong, another resident and parent, gave a list of concerns about allowing farm animals in residential areas, focusing on public health, waste management, noise and nuisance, and impacts to property values; he framed those concerns under "public health and sanitation" and related nuisance risks.

Commissioners and staff emphasized that the amendment is intended to provide clearer rules so code enforcement can address nuisance complaints consistently and to reflect how some species are now commonly kept as pets. Mellon said the text change is not intended to open Big Bear Lake to full-scale agricultural uses: "We're not trying to open up new districts and residential zones to allow farms," he told the commission, noting the revision targets smaller companion-type animals weighing roughly 100 pounds or less and similar household-scale keeping.

Staff reported the item was noticed per municipal code (posted in three public places and published in The Grizzly on Aug. 7). The staff report noted one email to staff received the morning of the hearing and no other written correspondence. Staff also said they expect to rely on the "common-sense" CEQA exemption; Mellon recommended the commission find the amendment categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because the change is text-only and does not authorize new physical development.

Commission action and next steps: Vice Chair Beveridge moved — and Commissioner Biss seconded — a resolution determining the project exempt from CEQA and recommending City Council approval of Development Code Amendment 2025-28. The motion passed 5-0 and was recorded as Resolution No. 2025-11. The commission will forward the amendment to the City Council for a first reading and introduction on Sept. 10, followed by a second reading and possible adoption at the council's Oct. 2 meeting; staff told the commission an adoption-effective date would be roughly 30 days after council adoption (staff estimated an effective date around Nov. 3).