Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Bernardino council forwards Spring Trails tax-sharing resolution to LAFCO after divided vote
Summary
The City Council voted 5-1 to send a tax-exchange resolution for the long‑running Spring Trails specific‑plan area to the Local Agency Formation Commission, a move staff said was required under a prior settlement; opponents on the council raised infrastructure, safety and fiscal concerns.
The San Bernardino Mayor and City Council voted to send a tax‑sharing resolution for the Spring Trails specific‑plan annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), a procedural step LAFCO requires to open an annexation hearing. The council approved the resolution 5‑1, with Council Member Kanas recorded in opposition.
The council and staff said the action implements terms of a 2022 settlement agreement related to the project. Staff told the council that LAFCO requires a tax‑exchange resolution by Aug. 6 for the agency to schedule its annexation hearing; without that step, staff said, LAFCO would not proceed and the city could face legal consequences under the settlement.
Why it matters: The Spring Trails site has been discussed for more than a decade. It includes a large, mostly undeveloped tract east of the city that was covered by a specific plan and a 2013 environmental review. Supporters say the plan unlocks housing supply and infill development on a property that has been dormant for years. Opponents on the council and several members of the public warned that the site presents engineering and infrastructure challenges — including limited access, proximity to fault and fire hazards, and uncertain sewer and road improvements — and said the city could inherit costs if the land remains undeveloped.
Council debate and next steps - Council members repeatedly noted the project’s long history; staff said the specific plan and environmental documents date back to 2013 and earlier. Several members urged careful review at the forthcoming LAFCO hearing rather than halting the required procedural step. City staff said the annexation decision itself still depends on the LAFCO process and that the council’s action was to transmit the tax resolution so LAFCO can open a formal public hearing. - The council was told LAFCO also expects an adjoining 26‑acre “island” of parcels to be included in the annexation; staff said LAFCO dislikes donut‑shaped jurisdictional gaps and asked the city to include the island as part of the filing. - If the LAFCO hearing moves forward, council members said they expect staff, the mayor and council members to present the city’s concerns and conditions during that public process.
Legal and fiscal context - Staff and the city attorney described the action as part of a settlement the city entered in October 2022; language in that settlement requires the city to file annexation paperwork for the project. - Staff emphasized that the tax resolution itself does not automatically transfer property tax revenue to the city but is a required procedural step for LAFCO to consider the annexation. Several council members asked for more detailed fiscal estimates of the city’s service obligations if the property remains undeveloped.
What remains unresolved: The annexation must be approved by LAFCO at a public hearing. If affected residents or property owners object, LAFCO will receive those comments before taking a decision. City staff said additional technical questions — about sewer connections, secondary access and the condition of the 26‑acre adjacent island — will need to be addressed during later approvals and any future development review.
Provenance: Staff presentation introducing the annexation tax‑resolution and context (transcript excerpt at 8430.835–8469.095) and the vote announcement and clerk’s confirmation of the result (transcript excerpt at 10419.41–10423.19).
