Panel to reconsider San Bernardino annexations

Andrew Edwards - December 31, 2009 7:58 PM
Staff Writer

SAN BERNARDINO - A woman who opposes her neighborhood's annexation into the city has shelled out nearly $7,000 to halt the municipal union.

Susan Hulse, who lives in an unincorporated area near eastern San Bernardino, contends the government panel with authority over annexations overstepped its bounds in November when its members voted to join her neighborhood and five other areas to San Bernardino.

Hulse says she and her neighbors should have been given a chance to vote on the issue. Leaders of the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission, also known as Lafco, responded that the process followed state law designed to make city boundaries more rational.

Lafco's board is scheduled to meet Jan. 20 to decide whether to waive the $6,600 that Hulse paid to bring the issue back to the table. The panel is then scheduled to meet Feb. 17 to reconsider its approval of the annexations.

"Now, we're being told if you can't afford to pay, you don't have a right, let alone a right to vote," Hulse said.

A 2004 state law allows cities to annex land without a vote of residents if certain conditions are met. One of the key requirements is that the annexed areas encompass less than 150 acres.

Although Lafco leaders have said the pockets of land meet all the necessary conditions, it's Hulse's opinion that officials are trying to make an end-run around the law.

Hulse views the annexations as piecemeal attempts to force San Bernardino to take on areas larger the 150-acre limit, particularly in her neighborhood.

Hulse lives in a 130-acre area that is contiguous with 61-acre area that is also slated to be annexed. Lafco considered the neighborhoods as two separate zones when the annexations were approved.

That process met the necessary requirements, Lafco executive director Kathleen Rollings-McDonald said.

She also said the seemingly high-cost of a requesting a reconsideration - $1,100 per area - is not enough to pay the full costs of notifying all area residents that the issue is up for another vote.

"We're sending out 8,000 notices ... we have to translate the notices into Spanish," she said.

Third District San Bernardino County Supervisor Neil Derry, who also has a seat on Lafco's board, has met Hulse to discuss her concerns.

Derry was not present at the November meeting when the annexations were approved. He did not commit to voting with Hulse's wishes at future meetings, but also said he is not convinced that annexations were done properly.

"I think that the piecemealing of the pockets to avoid a public vote is certainly a concern, and I have questions about it's legality," he said.

Lafco officials tied the annexations to San Bernardino's effort to add the Arrowhead Springs area to its territory. Hulse, however, is not seeking to overturn the annexation of that area, which is to the north of the city limits and east of Highway 18.

That Arrowhead Springs area could eventually be a prime location for upscale residential and commercial development.

Lafco's rationale for linking the other six areas, which are already developed, is based on the idea that if San Bernardino wants Arrowhead Springs the city should also take responsibility for neighborhoods just outside the city limits that are presently governed by San Bernardino County.

San Bernardino has yet to officially take on any of the new territories. The six residential annexations are on hold until Hulse's request is settled.

If Lafco commissioners rebuff her efforts, Hulse or another opponent has the option of filing a lawsuit to block the annexations. If there is no lawsuit or a plaintiff able to get a judge to block the annexations, the neighborhoods could become part of the city in late February.

Adding the areas in late February could be a revenue-neutral affair for the current fiscal year, city management analyst Adam Raymond said.

 BACK