Rialto asked to consider large housing project

10:00 PM PDT on Monday, July 12, 2010

Cassie MacDuff

Rialto tonight will consider a housing project along Lytle Creek Wash that it rejected more than a decade ago as leapfrog development that would strain city resources.

The council is poised to vote on Lytle Creek Ranch, a 2,447-acre tract that would quadruple the number of homes allowed south of Glen Helen Regional Park.

More than 8,400 houses, townhomes and apartments would be built from the mouth of Lytle Creek Canyon to El Rancho Verde Country Club between Riverside Avenue and the wash.

When the city rejected Lytle North Development years ago, the firm took its plans to San Bernardino County, which approved 2,500 homes on 647 acres on the east side of the wash, the largest housing tract the county had permitted.

Environmental groups sued, saying the development would consume some of the last habitat for endangered species including the kangaroo rat and alluvial fan sage scrub.

In January 2003, they were granted two years to raise funds to buy the land from the Pharris family, which has been mining in the wash for decades.

They couldn’t come up with the money and, in 2005, the land was sold to homebuilder Lennar. Only about 300 homes were built before the mortgage meltdown hit.

Now, Lytle Development Co. has come to Rialto with a plan for the west side of the wash. This time the city seems receptive. The planning commission unanimously approved it June 2.

The council must vote on it because it requires changes to the general plan, annexation of 1,753 acres, approval of a new specific plan and rescinding of a previous one.

The same environmental issues raised when the county considered Lytle Creek North are being raised about Lytle Creek Ranch:

The proposal puts too many homes in an area of high winds and fire danger below the San Bernardino National Forest.

Lytle Creek is known for dramatic flooding that traps residents and sends boulders the size of Volkswagens down the road.

Homes would be built too close to active earthquake faults.

New streets would all dump onto one artery, making traffic unbearable and evacuation impossible.

A coalition of residents hired a lawyer to challenge the project on environmental grounds: failure to protect endangered species, failure to adequately address flooding, low-ball estimates of traffic impacts and permitting homes next to active mining (prohibited by the city general plan).

To read entire column, click here.