Big Bear Lake council says no annexation planned, explains how the process works

Big Bear Lake's City Council said Oct. 14 that it is not pursuing annexation of the unincorporated east end of Big Bear Valley, responding to a crowd of nearly 100 people who filled Hofert Hall to protest.^[1] City Manager Erik Sund told the room the only action was to receive and file a staff presentation, with "no recommendation to begin an annexation process."^[1] For east-end residents, the meeting means no annexation is on the table, and any future change would involve public hearings and a formal chance to protest.^[1]

How the meeting came about

Many people came after seeing an online flyer calling itself "The Big Bear Lake Squealer." It said: "Our City Council is Proposing an Annexation for Big Bear City. If we do not Protest, We will automatically become part of the City of Big Bear Lake" (sic).^[1]

Council Member Rick Herrick said he asked for the item to be on the agenda because "there's a lot of misinformation out there as to what my position is regarding annexation."^[1] He said people living in Big Bear City had asked him about the process of joining the city limits. At the Sept. 9 regular meeting, he made a motion for a staff presentation on that process, and the Oct. 14 agenda item reported those findings.^[1]

How annexation works

Staff described two routes. One is annexation by petition, started by people outside the city who want to join. The other is annexation by resolution, started from within city government.^[1]

Either way, the process is governed by the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, known as LAFCO. Although the two routes begin differently, staff said the process is similar for both and includes public hearings and ways to protest.^[1] LAFCO also reviews the financial components and implications to decide whether a proposal is in the public interest.^[1]

The history explains why the valley is a patchwork. The City of Big Bear Lake was incorporated in November 1980. Before that, a valley-wide survey found that not all valley residents wanted to be in a city, which is why one incorporated city sits among many unincorporated, county-run areas.^[1]

What residents said

During public comment, many people spoke against any kind of annexation. Most were concerned about taxes and land use rules, according to the Big Bear Grizzly's account of the meeting.^[1] The account does not quote individual speakers.

One speaker took a different view, chiding the audience for coming together to preserve the fire district but now wanting to stay separate entities. That person asked everyone to consider what is best for Big Bear, work toward consistent policies and regulations, and eliminate redundancies.^[1]

What the council said

Herrick said: "My position is, if there is any desire for annexation it has to come from the citizens outside the city boundaries." All of the council members echoed that.^[1]

Council Member Perri Melnick said that if the council were queried, "we would all say, 'Terrible idea,' at this point." She added: "I just want people to understand there is no action item that we are considering to annex the east end of the Valley. This is purely informational."^[1]

Council Member Charles Hicks, Jr. said, "Never fear. It would take an awful lot to convince me to incorporate the east side of the Valley."^[1]

Mayor Randall Putz said people have asked him over the years why the valley isn't one city, and some have asked what it would take. His answer each time, he said, is that it would have to come from the east end, "because you're not going to see it come from the west end. Because it doesn't make sense for Big Bear Lake."^[1]

What's next

The complete staff report is posted with the Oct. 14 meeting agenda, according to the Big Bear Grizzly.^[1] The council took no action to begin annexation, and the account of the meeting does not describe any next step.