San Bernardino council forwards Spring Trails annexation to LAFCO amid resident concerns

The San Bernardino City Council voted 5–1 to adopt a tax-exchange resolution and transmit the Spring Trails annexation application to the San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), a procedural step required before LAFCO can schedule an annexation hearing. Councilmember Knauss cast the lone no vote.

The council and staff told residents the step is largely procedural and driven by a court settlement. Staff said LAFCO must receive the tax-exchange resolution by Aug. 6 for the commission to proceed; after that hearing the annexation itself will be considered and public comment taken.

Why it matters: the Spring Trails Specific Plan covers a large undeveloped area that has been under review for more than a decade and includes a 26‑acre “island” LAFCO asked the city to include. Opponents raised concerns about emergency access, wildfire and seismic risk, long‑term maintenance costs and whether the city would receive meaningful revenue from property taxes if development does not occur.

Council discussion and staff response Council members and residents noted the project’s long history: environmental review documents and a specific plan date to the early 2010s. Several council members said the development area poses topographic and infrastructure challenges and that state and local development standards have changed since the project’s EIR was prepared.

Councilmember Knauss said the proposal offered little current fiscal benefit and voiced concern about taking on added land and responsibilities. “I don’t support this,” she said, describing Spring Trails as “a pain in the side of the city.”

City staff told the council that the settlement agreement signed in October 2022 requires the city to file and diligently pursue annexation proceedings through LAFCO; staff advised that failing to submit the required application materials could put the city in breach of that agreement. Staff also said the LAFCO hearing will be the appropriate forum for airing unresolved issues including the 26‑acre island and any resident opposition.

Key technical points noted by staff and council - The project’s final environmental impact report and specific plan were prepared in the early 2010s and include mitigation measures. The EIR was approved with overriding considerations for some unavoidable impacts. - LAFCO has requested the city include an adjacent 26‑acre island in the annexation application to avoid creating an isolated county “donut” inside city boundaries. - The settlement agreement requires the city to file annexation materials and to pursue the LAFCO process; it also includes terms addressing secondary fire access easements and other conditions between the city and the developer.

Council action and next steps The council adopted the tax‑exchange resolution needed by LAFCO to process the annexation application. The vote was 5 in favor, 1 opposed (Councilmember Knauss). Councilmember Canas made the motion and Councilmember Charette seconded.

If LAFCO schedules a hearing the commission will consider testimony from residents, the city and the applicant before deciding whether to approve, modify or deny the annexation. Staff said they will bring council direction and any requested positions to the LAFCO hearing and recommended that council members make their policy positions explicit before staff appears at LAFCO.

The annexation remains contingent on the LAFCO process and any additional conditions that LAFCO or the city require.

Ending: The LAFCO deadline for the city’s submission is Aug. 6. If the commission accepts the application it will set a public hearing; council members and residents said they expect the LAFCO hearing to be the forum for detailed debate on fiscal impacts, service responsibilities and environmental mitigations.