Big Bear Lake council interviews GPAC applicants; appointments set for next week amid debate over committee size

The Big Bear Lake City Council on Monday interviewed applicants for its 2050 General Plan Advisory Committee and agreed to hold a second round of interviews next week, while members debated how large the advisory committee should be and whether to name alternates.

Erica, who opened the session, told applicants that the council had allotted 15 minutes and four questions per interview and that the city clerk would time each session. "We have allotted 15 minutes for each interviewee," Erica said, and later told candidates staff would "reach out to you and to all the applicants and let you know whether or not you have been appointed to serve." The council said it intends to make GPAC appointments next Tuesday following the second round of interviews.

Three applicants who spoke during the session emphasized local ties and collaborative approaches. Janet Nelson said Big Bear Lake has been her home since 2000 and full time since 2010 and described nonprofit work through Race Face Foundation supporting local women and children, plus service in the arts council and a newly formed 4‑H club. "I just would love to be a part of how we can make this community stand out in the areas of kindness, compassion," Nelson said.

Another candidate, Jeremy, said he moved to the area about five years ago and has managerial experience at an immigration law firm, where he oversees teams and creates process templates. He told council members he would "read through everything" and seek to balance different perspectives when reviewing technical documents and making recommendations.

Yvonne said she has longstanding ties to Big Bear Lake as a recreational user and community member and described project accounting and operations management experience coordinating architects, engineers and consultants. She said that experience gives her practice in bringing differing viewpoints together and noted empathy for a broad cross-section of residents.

Council discussion after the interviews focused on logistics and the GPAC’s composition. Members confirmed they will schedule up to five more interviews next Tuesday beginning at 11:30 a.m. and asked staff to continue outreach to no‑shows. The council also debated the committee’s eventual size: the current nominal board is 17 members, some members urged keeping that number while others proposed a smaller minimum such as 13 or keeping flexibility to add alternates to avoid repeated re‑interviews if members step down.

Several council members said they wanted applicants to understand the expected commitment. Staff noted an explanatory two‑page lead was included with applications and that the GPAC is anticipated to meet up to 12 times a year. The council asked staff to provide an orientation in the GPAC’s first meeting that underscores the panel’s advisory role — that the council, not the GPAC, will make final decisions on the general plan.

The meeting ended with the council agreeing to reconvene appointment decisions after the second round of interviews and to follow up on questions about any legal constraints on committee size and consultant guidance on typical committee structures.