Rialto Residences for Lytle Creek Conservation

05/27/2024

07/08/2018

Just and FYI for Monday evening at 7pm, Al Kelley and I will be on KCAA 1050 to talk about the Lytle Creek Ranch Specific Plan and why it should not be built in the floodplain as proposed. You can call in with questions 888-909-1050.
You can also check out the podcast of our session.

11/19/2013

SLCW's Yard Sale has come and gone and it nearly was "Gone With The Wind." On both Friday and Saturday winds gusted into the 25-30 mph range. We held on to flying clothes as best we could, retrieving many items from outlying areas when they sailed away from us unexpectedly. Although our turn out of shoppers was smaller because of adverse weather conditions, our cash box received a healthy dose of greenbacks, raising our spirits. Many thanks to all those who braved the days of blowing dust, debris and donated items.

We now look toward Thanksgiving, the end of Fall and ahead to the Holidays with anticipation for the New Year. Save Lytle Creek Wash's members will gather for their fourth annual Christmas Potluck early in December. We'll raise a glass on high for the past four years.

Have we really been together that long!? Wow. And what a journey it has been. Probably ignorance is bliss when compared to what we tasked ourselves with during these past years. If we had been told ahead of time, that we would have to take on the City of Rialto, a financially wealthy and vindictive developer from Orange County and raise enough money to hire an environmental law firm, odds on are that we might have swallowed hard and said, "Uh, no thanks."

Today we thank our lucky stars that that didn't occur and that we were able to do all of the above and then some. Are we finished? NO, not by a long shot and that is what keeps us going. The Wash is still as it has been for thousands of years (except for the CEMEX plant). Our goal still is to keep it that way for many thousands more to come.

So come Thanksgiving we'll give thanks for each other and all of you. For Christmas we'll toast our members, supporters and journey. For the New Year we'll say so long to 2013 and pray that 2014 brings good news for Lytle Creek Wash and all the endangered flora and fauna that call this place home. We hope that 2013 has been good to you and 2014 will be even brighter and better. CHEERS!

09/04/2013

Isn't technology fascinating and frustrating all at the same moment!? The photo popped up, but not the information, so here goes: Yard Sale October 4th & 5th, 7 A.M. to 2:30 P.M.

Have donations? Wonderful. Just give us a call 909-223-7063 and we'll arrange to get your useful, in good condition goodies. Desire a fun filled day? Join us in October on Yard Sale days. Or pray for cool weather; both will help immensely.

09/04/2013

Here is the Update that all the residents of El Rancho Verde and Lytle Creek will be receiving soon. Thought you might like the see it too. The opposite side showcased a photo of a previous Yard Sale and the announcement of our next fund raiser. Somehow, it won't upload here. Go figure; I've tried and can't seem to make it happen.


SAVE LYTLE CREEK WASH – UPDATE

SLCW is a public interest community organization comprised of residents of El Rancho Verde and Lytle Creek. Our Vision: To preserve for posterity the Lytle Creek Wash as it is from Lytle Creek above the 15 Frwy to where it crosses the 210 Frwy. To maintain the natural habitat and provide limited trails for education, recreation and appreciation of its natural beauty.

Since SLCW’s inception in 2010, much has happened with the project, Lytle Creek Ranch
South, as it is now known. The City of Rialto approved the plans, provoking a lawsuit that forced the developer to redo parts of the Environmental Impact Report, but he did not change the project’s overall size and scope. The developer has filed for a Stream Bed alteration permit (404)(b)(1) from the Army Corps of Engineers; the first of many permits that must be obtained before any change to the area can commence.

The downside of this project’s plans are that what is written does not necessarily mean that’s what will be built, especially when the plan has a long build-out time frame of 25 to 30 years. Take a portion of Rosena Ranch, for example, another project by the same developer, where once a retail shopping center and homes were planned, now sits
an exceptionally large warehouse.

After the completion of the Seven Oaks Dam above Redlands in 2000, the most viable population of San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat was thought to be secure; however, it wasn’t.
The natural flood runoff that maintained the habitat ceased to exist. Now nearly fourteen years later, Lytle Creek Wash has become the last viable, naturally sustainable habitat for this Federally Endangered species. Lytle Creek Floodplain and Wash are key to the SB Kangaroo Rat’s chances of existing into the future. This is why SLCW continues to work to protect and keep the existing floodplain as it has been for hundred of thousands of years.

Can the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and a housing development co-exist? Yes, but only IF the housing development is pulled back from the creek bed and flood plain so that neither are channelized, compromised or destroyed.

SAVE LYTLE CREEK WASH continues to seek the preservation of this last natural environment of Southern California to ensure that all the endangered, and threatened species of Lytle Creek Wash can survive for future generations to study and enjoy.
You can support our efforts by donating to our next Yard Sale (see other side for information), attending our meetings and being involved, and/or making a financial donation. Contact Lynn Boshart at (909) 877-6005 for further information.

06/21/2013

Happy First Day of Summer! I'm loving it and expect that you are too. The garden bursts with veggies, flowers, rabbits and ground squirrels. The last two are not particularly beneficial; they just like what is. Those critters are decidedly cute and it grieves me to capture and move them to higher ground; however, they reproduce fast enough to offset the loss.

On the other hand, the loss of Lytle Creek's critters and natural resources would be another kind of detriment altogether. Save Lytle Creek Wash, the Endangered Habitat's League and others seek to keep Lytle Creek as wonderfully natural as possible.

Last month we wrote letters to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the Public Notice of Pharris' application for a permit to alter Lytle Creek, the Wash and build 8,407 dwellings smack dab in the middle of the floodplain. Our efforts weren't the only ones. Other agencies posted missives to the Corps stating their deepest concerns.

One government agency in particular used strongly worded verbiage - jeopardizing, very concerned, insufficient mitigation, underestimated impacts, risk of flood damage, etc.. Another agency wrote - degradation, seriously threatened, risk of extinction, substantial direct & indirect adverse effects, not sufficient, etc.. Other groups, an environmental consulting group, and a native plant society felt strongly about the area to write in their objections to permitting. Between SLCW and EHL's efforts to send letters and signatures stating our concerns and objections, the Corps received upwards of 250+.

The Corps has been busy too. They've written to the applicant and had a meeting with him about all the letters.
Now Pharris has some decisions to make and we'd like to help him decide. With apologies to Perry Como. . . .

"Dear Pharris, would you be so kind as to fill our request and ditch this project we detest?"

Can we get a application withdrawal as a YES!!? Stay tuned, the Fat Lady hasn't sung just yet.

05/25/2013

Three days left to fire off your missive of protest to the Corps. Mine has gone and here it is for what it's worth.
Enjoy. (Please, I know about the typos; it may be what I'm most famous for.)

Via Email ([email protected])
Aaron O. Allen May 22, 2013
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District Regulatory Division
2151 Alessandro Drive, Suite 110
Ventura, CA 93001

Re: Comments on Proposed Lytle Creek Ranch South Commercial and
Residential Development; SPL-2013-00183-CHL

Dear Mr. Allen,

The following comments are submitted in response to the Army Corp of Engineers Public Notice regarding the permit application for the Lytle Creek Ranch South Commercial and Residential Development (LCRS).

This project has many areas of concern; that the project as submitted does not
demonstrate the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative,”
(LEDPA); that Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFFSS), San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR), other threatened species and species of special interest would be brought to extinction levels; that the size and scope of the project warrants an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), that proposing to construct a revetment to be able to build in a known flood plain creates problems of hydrology, water quality, and further destruction of habitat; that there are many unanswered questions with regards to mitigation lands, how the applicant arrived at the data which supposedly supports the project, and that the applicant’s previous project’s concerns have a direct bearing on this project and are multiplied fourfold for LCRS.

Although I will discuss each of the above mention items, almost all of them overlap into one another.

LCRS is four times the size of the applicant’s previous project Lytle Creek North Residential Development Project (LCNRD)
SPL-2001-00124-AJS and has more than four times the impact on all of Lytle Creek Flood Plain. LCRS is a large and complex project and as such requires an amount of information commensurate with the level of the project’s impacts, which will be destructive and vast.

While looking over documents in order to write this letter, I came across the I Environmental Assessment (EA) for LCNRD. In the EA nine off-site alternatives were considered and rejected as the LEDPA. Alternatives Six and Eight , both were represented as being located within the city of Rialto, (although I don’t believe that all of either one were) and rejected as possible building sites, appeared to me to be the very project sites the applicant seeks a 404 (b)(1). Following are the descriptions of both alternatives taken from the EA.

ALTERNATIVE SIX

“This alternative is located in the City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino. This parcel is an undeveloped area of approximately 1,100 acres and is zoned Single Family Residential/Specific Plan. The applicant currently owns this parcel. The development constraints included construction of additional flood control improvements within Lytle Creek while needing to avoid impacts to a water district groundwater recharging facility. Several biological constraints also exist for this parcel. These include direct and indirect impacts to mature alluvial fan sage scrub occupied by the SBKR within Lytle Creek. In addition, a population of slenderhorned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), a federally endangered species, was located on site by Michael Brandman Associates within Lytle Creek just below the I-15 Freeway overpass. Gnatcatcher habitat covers 85 percent of the area and 88 percent of the property is SBKR critical habitat. Based upon existing on-site floodways, existing groundwater recharging facilities, and biological constraints, this alternative was dropped from consideration.”

ALTERNATIVE EIGHT

“This alternative is located in the City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino. It is an undeveloped area of approximately 654 acres and is zoned single Family Residential/Specific Plan. It is owned by the applicant and supports an alluvial floodway and flood plain. The soils are suitable for development, however, development constraints include additional flood control improvements required within Lytle Creek and avoiding a water district groundwater recharging facility and its wells. Several biological constraints also exist for this parcel. These include impacts to approximately 100 acres of mature alluvial fan sage scrub within Lytle Creek, habitat used by the Federally-endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rate (Dipodomys merriami)(SBKR). In addition development of this parcel will cause both direct and indirect impacts to the SBKR and may impact a community that may potentially support the Federal and State endangered Santa Ana wooly star (Eriastrum densifolium spp. sanctorum). SBKR critical habitat covers 90% of the area while 56% of the area is designated gnatcatcher habitat. Based upon the requirement for flood control improvements to Lytle Creek, existing on site floodways and biological constraints, this alternative was dropped from consideration.

All bold wording was my addition to the paragraphs written by USACE. All the constraints and problems with these two parcels caused them to be rejected as alternatives suitable for building the proposed project LCNRD. Those constrains still exist. If these parcels could not be accepted as the LEDPA then, how could they be acceptable parcels for building now? The impacts to RAFSS, SBKR, slenderhorned spineflower and the wooly star are no less a concern and constraint today than they were yesterday; the impacts and constraints to Lytle Creek, ground water recharging and to the alluvial floodway and flood plain are no less a concern and constraint today than they were yesterday.

LCRS cannot be considered as the LEDPA here since it was once rejected as such for LCNRD. The constraints remain as do questions about how something once rejected by USACE now could become acceptable to USACE under the definition of LEDPA, which is designed to “avoid environmental impacts instead of mitigating them.” Alternatives Six and Eight were determined to not be “practicable and the least environmentally damaging,” and thereby were removed as LEDPAs.

The project applicant has put forth LCRS as the LEDPA because of his desire for a certain percentage return on investment; however, there are other alternatives, which would satisfy the need to be both practicable and the least environmentally damaging. The project applicant has rejected all alternatives citing “findings of economic infeasibility.” An alternative is only practicable if it is capable of being done taking into consideration the overall project purpose, which is its generic purpose or function. Overall purpose does not include a “desired return on an investment.” In the October 7, 2011 ruling on Endangered Habitats League and Save Lytle Creek Wash v. City of Rialto Ruling states: “The findings of economic infeasibility for alternatives HAA1 and 2 are not supported by substantial evidence.” Yet the project applicant’s desire is to only look at the bottom line and not what is an environmentally and prudently sound project . Alternatives that reduce the size of the project would also reduce the impacts to jurisdictional waters, to endangered habitats and species, to water quality and potential downstream havoc that a 7 ½ mile revetment/levee would create, to noise, and air quality, of which San Bernardino County has some of the worst.


SBKR habitat is diminishing rapidly because of encroaching development and failed projects designed to restore and/or preserve crucial habitat, eliminating SBKR from all but about 5% of its historical range. That the proposed project LCRS would destroy the 90% of SBKR’s critical habitat mentioned in Alternative Eight is a given should LCRS be allowed, necessarily invoking Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Thus what little would remain most likely wouldn’t survive into perpetuity. Little remains now of what was once a large distribution of both SBKR and alluvial fan sage scrub.
Further encroachment of either one signals the eventual and complete destruction of the other.

Many questions arise from the studies of SBKR completed in 2007. What methods were used? Were they in compliance with regard to traps, location, mapping, and assessment of supporting habitat? How extensive was the trapping and during what part of the year? Much has changed with regard to significant rain fall, breaching of the Cemex levee, damage to the SBKR island, shutting down of the golf course which is adjacent to habitat and over time could conceivably support SBKR if left untouched and allowed to be reclaimed by the forces of nature. One can’t be cavalier when assessing the death knell that this project would signal for SBKR. Mitigation lands have been offered for SBKR, but do those lands currently have SBKR, can it support SBKR’s requirements for long term survival if no population currently exists?
Would these offered mitigated lands survive a 100 year flood?
In light of other failed relocations of SBKR, what would make this mitigation have any different out come? Mitigation is like getting an artificial limb; it sort of functions, but never as well as the original.

Just to be sure that SBKR’s once plentiful existence won’t go totally unheralded, you might consider capturing the last SBKR, and having it stuffed and displayed at the Smithsonian right next to “Martha,” the last passenger pigeon (Ectophistes migratorus) for posterity. Baring that, a full examination of the area is needed; an EIS covering the entire project should be required before any consideration of permitting occurs.

Although I am not a hydrologist, I do know that building a 7 ½ mile revetment/levee in Lytle Creek to channel the water will create a huge problem downstream when the water bursts out at the far end with such velocity that it will probably take out sections of Muscoy, Vulcan’s mitigated islands and banks, as well as mitigated county lands. Yet the applicant’s hydrology team argues that all will be well once the revetment/levee is in place. How do they know and how did they arrive at that conclusion? Does anyone other than the applicant know how the data was compiled and by what methods? Have they used current and accurate FEMA flood plain maps or ones they themselves created? How can the accuracy of the assertions be judged if no one is allowed to view the data? How is the ground table water to be recharged? That was a concern when LCRND looked at LCRS lands as an alternative and remains one now. In 2005, the amount of water coming out of Lytle, without benefit of channelizing, surged over a roadway, sweeping a car driven by a pregnant woman to her death. Water seeks a familiar path. Lytle Creek has been surging down the mountain on to the flood plain far earlier than recorded time and it still does.

This is a 100 year flood plain and FEMA has designated Lytle Creek as such because of previously devastating flood events going all the way back to the 1860’s. All high flow (flooding) events cannot be ignored or dismissed or changed to suit the applicant. Now that Global Warming is changing our weather patterns, in all likelihood a mega storm or arkstorm is in California’s future as discussed in the January 13, 2013 article in Scientific American by Mike Dettinger (USGS) and Lynn Ingram (UC Berkley).

Channelizing Lytle Creek and allowing a massive project to be built, removes any and all refugia for SBKR should a major flood event occur. Where are the critters supposed to go? SBKR has survived and flourished during all previous flooding events because it could escape the high waters by reaching higher ground. Remove access to higher ground and you sign SBKR’s death notice.

My husband and I bought a house in this area during October of 2003 just before the Old Fire and the Grand Prix Fire swept across the Inland Empire, burning everything in its path. We didn’t know if we would have a house to move into when the fires were put out and residents were allowed back to their homes. We had decided to leave the tight knit suburban Orange County for wider, more open spaces, which seemed ideal at the time. We knew nothing of the winds, flooding dangers, large earthquake faults or the propensity for fires in the IE. But we have learned about that and the wonderfully rich and diverse wildlife and love the area.

I understand that a project by the applicant was floated in the 1990’s. Those who lived here then told me that SBKR stopped the project and would likely do so into the future. However, now it appears that the SBKR isn’t as powerful a deterrent as it once was when its habitat would have been that much larger than it is today. Keep what remains of the habitat as it is. Don’t allow this project in its present form to wipe from the face of this earth all the last vestiges of those very special species who call Lytle Creek Wash home. We owe it to future generations to keep what can’t be replaced.

Thank you for your consideration of my remarks.

Sincerely,

Lynn M. Boshart
Save Lytle Creek Wash
5529 Larch Ave.
Rialto, CA 92377
909-877-6005

05/15/2013

Good Golly Miss Molly, I have made a mistake! (Not the first or last one either).

Seems I put in the wrong project number for writing to the Army Corps (that's Corps as in core pronunciation, not co**se as in a dead man). So, the correct numbers should be SPL-2013-00183-CHL, when referring to the 404 permit application.

Okay, how many of you have written your letter? A show of hands please. Just as I thought. You are waiting until the
last minute to express your displeasure, disgust, disdain,
disheartened attitude regarding what Ron Pharris and Lytle Development Co. are planning to build in a 100 year flood plain, which incidentally, had in 2005 a 25-50 year food event.

The Army thinks that's atypical of Lytle Creek, but for those
who have lived here longer than Solomon, (bet you know a few) can attest to the power of the water and the destruction that can happen. With all this Global Warming stuff changing the weather patterns, we could see California under water from a mega storm in no time. Who needs an earthquake to have ocean from property?

Now, get to writing that letter you keep putting off!
Yes, mine is almost complete and who knows, maybe I'll share it with all of you when it's finished. Remember, you need not be erudite, an expert or a polished professional writer to express your opinion. Just say what's in your heart.

The Corps wants to hear from you. That's one reason they call it PUBLIC NOTICE. However, the other side hopes that you don't NOTICE and consequently do nothing to stop what could be the biggest travesty San Bernardino County has seen since the Colonies debacle.

I'll be headin' for the post office soon. Hope to see you there with your letter in hand. HI HO SILVER AND AWAY!
(If you spot a silver Pontiac, wave, that's me).

04/24/2013

"O' Army Corps, O' Army Corps, how do you view this project?
O' Army Corps, O' Army Corps, we must protest and object!
Give us more time to make our case. An opportunity not to waste.
O' Army Corps, O' Army Corps,
Protect you must, the Lytle Flood Plain.

( This is sung to the tune of O'Christmas Tree, which seems appropriate now that many of the pines on the golf course have died.)

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) is the first of many hurdles Lytle Development, AKA Ron Pharris must jump successfully to realize his project. Both Federal and State Fish & Wildlife agencies, the Santa Ana Water Quality Board and LAFCO will have their say regarding Pharris' grandiose idea for Lytle Creek Wash.

The public's remarks have impact too, so I encourage you to write to the Corps and let them know your opinion about what happens to Lytle Creek Wash, all the critters that sneak, squeak, squawk, snarl, slither, skip, skitter and soar, and the habitat which supports them. And also to mention how 8,407 houses would exacerbate our already lousy air quality, for starters.
Send your comments to the follow:

Aaron O. Allen (via email [email protected])
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District Regulatory Division
2151 Alessandro Drive, Suite 110
Ventura, CA 93001

Re: Comments on Proposed Lytle Creek Ranch South Commercial and Residential Development; SPL-2010-00984-CLH

Take a moment to just say NO to destroying what remains of a national watershed of importance and significance and the only viable remaining habitat for the Federally endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR). (He's not really a rat, more like a cute mouse with a good pair of jumpers and a very long tail. Look him up.)

Just recently it has come to my attention that emails and letters are going out from El Rancho Verde to the USACOE under the mistaken notion that the El Rancho Verde golf course is coming back just because the developer's front guy - the one with the prematurely white hair - has said so. What a guy! And some have believed this pitch. However, make a call to Rialto City headquarters and the City Manager in charge will tell you otherwise. In fact "a golf course" is no longer in the description of the project.

A better description of the project would be a "modified alternative" that reduces the project footprint from Sasquatch to that of the SBKR, so as to protect his habitat and preserve Lytle Creek for all in perpetuity. That's my desire; what's yours?

03/13/2013

Ah. Spring is in the air and my sweet peas have just poked their heads up reaching for the warm sunshine. As we awaken from our winter's gloom to the glories of green and budding, let us not miss the movements of the opposition.

Like all of California bracing for that inevitable major earthquake, we know that Lytle Development Co. is stealthily edging forward to have their Lytle Creek Ranch Specific Plan sanctioned by government agencies and thus be able to devastate the wilderness that so many love and enjoy. The application to the US Army Corps of Engineers has resurfaced, with the Corps set to issue a Public Notice of its
review of their project plans. This app signifies the coming of other applications, some concurrently, others in line like aftershocks.

Now it is our duty to be prepared. Not with bottled water and stored foods, although, I do hope you have those on hand just incase they are needed. We prepare by reviewing documents, emails, notes, letters, interviews, and contacting others who also have an interest in the outcome. We begin again to battle forces, persons and untold monies determined to destroy nature, not preserve it in any form.
There remain alternatives that allow Lytle Dev. Co. to build and not ravage Lytle Creek Flood Plain completely; the case must be made for a better solution.

Against Mother Nature's wrath, we have little recourse but to
clean up, learn, rebuild smarter and become more respectful of her power. However, when man seeks to change the course of Mother Nature artificially, the rest of us will not be
able to fix the damage. Once a habitat and natural flood way are altered, there is no regaining what has been for hundreds of thousands of years. Join with us in convincing the government powers that be that other ways exist to keep Lytle Creek intact and allow for building on the periphery.

Otherwise, knowing Mother Nature, there could hell to pay in the future should she decide to shake, rattle, roll or rain for forty days and nights. Heck, we all know that it's not nice to fool with Mother Nature!

01/30/2013

Hey, January is nearly over . . . the Super Bowl is upon us . . . and you may be wondering, what's been going on!? It's document time as I'm up to my knees with stacks of paper waiting to be read, digested, catalogued and the information of who, whom, what's that about, when; meaning date and time exactly, and possibly where up-loaded into the computer in some sensible format so that anyone and everyone remotely interested in the future and fate of Lytle Creek Wash floodplain could understand it. Whew! Makes me tired just thinking about doing all that, but that is what I am currently doing.
Thanks to our members who helped read, highlight and note tab sensitive info so that I could find it and load it into a spread sheet. Progress is happening. Disjointed documents, emails, attachments, letters, etc. don't create captive reading moments. Now, there is a flow of thoughts, ideas, desires, demands, and "do as I say." And a much clearer picture is emerging of who is pulling the strings and how the "puppets" are or are not responding. (Neither Pinocchio nor Gippetto is amused.)
Beyond that, there is the sneaky suspicion that what is being revealed on the computer screen is 1/2 of 1% of the documents that still need to be researched. So request, receive, research and catalogue will continue to be the watch-word moving forward so that the governing agencies can be assisted, informed, helped and held accountable. A symbiotic path creates a better relationship than a cantankerous one.
It's a new year and a new day. We are positive that SLCW will have an effective influence in this year just like the last two. And as to who is controlling whom, well. . . "We've got no strings to hold us down, . . .there are no strings on us." (Thanks Pinocchio!)

12/21/2012

Save Lytle Creek Wash wishes everyone a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Stay safe, be happy, be thankful and joyful; let love fill your heart to overflowing.