In 1981, Orange County certified an environmental impact report (EIR) which analyzed the establishment of a transportation corridor in southeastern Orange County (now designated State Route 241) in the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways

Addendum to FEIR 589 at page 2-7

Since 1981, the Foothill Transportation Corridor (FTC) has been on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and designated a Transportation Corridor. The route was identified to run along the foothills in southeastern Orange County parallel to Interstate 5 (I-5). In 1986 a joint-powers authority, known as the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), was formed to oversee the planning, design, financing, and construction of the FTC and two other tollroads in Orange County. Recognizing the regional nature of the tollroads, the FTC was added to the State Highway System and designated as State Route 241 (SR-241). Once constructed, the roadway is transferred to the State of California. Currently, SR-241 has been constructed from SR-91 in the City of Yorba Linda south to near the City of Rancho Santa Margarita, a distance of over 24 miles. The route has been planned to extend south to I-5 just south of the Orange/San Diego County line. 

Plans to complete SR-241 from its current terminus at Oso Parkway near the City of Rancho Santa Margarita to I-5, just south of the San Diego County and Orange County border, have been analyzed for more than 20 years. An EIR/EIS was prepared addressing the environmental impacts of this approximately 14 mile southerly extension. A preferred alignment was selected by the TCA, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), USFWS, USACE, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The selected route would extend through Planning Area 2 and the Rancho Mission Viejo Planned Community, cross into San Diego County, and connect to I-5 in the vicinity of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The southern portion of the alignment is within the California Coastal Zone, which required approval of the alignment by the California Coastal Commission (CCC). In 2008, the CCC rejected the selected alignment as being inconsistent with the California Coastal Act. This decision was appealed by the TCA to the Secretary of Commerce. In December 2008, the Secretary of Commerce upheld the CCC decision.

Since 2008, the TCA has been conducting an outreach program to meet with all stakeholders, supporters, and opponents of the project to get feedback on an agreeable solution for providing an alternative to I-5 through south Orange County to improve mobility and reduce traffic congestion.

In October 2011, engineering and environmental work began on a plan to extend the current SR-241 toll road from its existing terminus at Oso Parkway to Cow Camp Road in Planning Area 2. This TCA roadway project has been named the SR-241 Tesoro Extension and would provide additional northern access for communities located inland of I-5 and commuters traveling to Orange County from the Inland Empire via Ortega Highway. When constructed, the SR-241 Tesoro Extension would provide an alternative route to I-5. As proposed, the toll road extension would be approximately 5.5 miles long with two lanes in each direction and a median wide enough for additional lanes or future transit options. The proposed alignment generally follows the alignment for Planning Area 2 future “F” Street with the exception of the most southern segment of the alignment in Subarea 2.1 (see Exhibit 10 of Section 3.0).The TCA anticipates that preliminary engineering, environmental work and the finance plan will be completed in 2013 with construction of the Tesoro Extension commencing in 2013

1986

Formed in 1986, the Petitioner is a joint powers authority composed of a number of local public entities that manages the financing, construction and operations of several toll roads in Orange County. As part of its ongoing planning and construction efforts, the Petitioner is generally the lead agency for purposes of compliance with CEQA.1 In 1981, Orange County certified an environmental impact report (EIR) which analyzed the establishment of a transportation corridor in southeastern Orange County (now designated State Route 241) in the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. 

1 Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq

In 1991, the Petitioner certified an EIR analyzing various alternatives for an extension of State Route 241.2

Petitioner’s Petition for Review of Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R9-2013-0007 (SWRCB/OCC File A-2259), p. 4

Source: Final Environmental Impact Report for Chiquita Canyon High School March 1996 

As part of the CEQA process, the County of Orange prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study (IS) for The Ranch Plan Program EIR 589 on February 24, 2003.

The County received 52 comment letters.

DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 589

The County of Orange released Draft Program EIR 589 (Draft EIR 589) for public review and comment on June 10, 2004, for a 61-day public review period. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available in the following branch libraries in south Orange County: Laguna Niguel, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano Regional, Mission Viejo, and Ladera Ranch. The County received 193 written comments (letters and emails) during the public review period on Draft EIR 589. All these comments were responded to in writing and are part of FEIR 589. In addition, five public meetings were held before the Orange County Planning Commission.

Source: Addendum to FEIR 584 and FEIR 589 "F" Street page 2-1

Shows 2 roads: The 24 Toll Road Extension aka "Green Alignment" and a collector road "Tesoro Creek Driveway"

County of Orange - Errata Sheet/Supplemental CD/ Comment period Extension

Draft Program Environmental Impact Report No. 589

Document: Ranch Plan Program Final EIR 589 

Lead Agency: County of Orange

Date: November 8, 2004

Action: Certification of FEIR 589 Project Approval

Source: Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-1

On November 8, 2004, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a General Plan Amendment (Resolution No. 04-291), Zone Change (Resolution No. 04-292 and Ordinance No. 04-014), and Development Agreement (Resolution No. 04-293 and Ordinance No. 04-015) for the 22,815-acre Rancho Mission Viejo Planned Community.

The Board of Supervisors selected Alternative B-10 Modified, which established a blueprint for the long-term conservation, management, and development of the last large-scale, integrated landholding in south Orange County. This alternative allowed for the construction of 14,000 dwelling units, 3,480,000 square feet of Urban Activity Center (UAC) uses on 251 acres, 500,000 square feet of Neighborhood Center uses on 50 acres, and 1,220,000 square feet of business park uses on 80 acres, all of which were proposed to occur on approximately 7,683 acres of the Rancho Mission Viejo Planned Community. The balance of the Rancho Mission Viejo Planned Community, totaling approximately 15,132 gross acres (or approximately 66.32 percent), was identified for open space uses.

Concurrent with the foregoing approvals, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 04-290, certifying FEIR 589 as complete, adequate, and in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. A Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations were adopted as part of the approval process. The Findings of Fact for unavoidable adverse impacts were made for the following topical areas: land use and relevant planning, agricultural resources, water resources, air quality, noise, aesthetics and visual resources, mineral resources, fire protection services and facilities, traffic and circulation, and biological resources

Source: Addendum to FEIR 584 and FEIR 589 page 2-1

PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 589 (SCH Number 20033021141)

FINAL RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Volume 2 Responses to Comments

THE RANCH PLAN General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (PA 010114)

at page 3-264

COMMENTER 22 CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Dated: August 9, 2004

Final Program Environmental Impact Report 589 (SCH Number 2003021141) THE RANCH PLAN General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (PA 01-114) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THE RANCH PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 589 SCH NO. 2003021141

On December 8, 2004, the City of Mission Viejo (City) and a coalition of concerned environmental groups (Resource Organizations) filed separate actions in the Orange County Superior Court challenging the Board of Supervisors’ approval of the Ranch Plan project and its certification of FEIR 589 (Orange County Superior Court Case Nos. 04CC11999 and 04CC01637).

In summary, the individual actions raised questions concerning

(1) potential local and regional transportation impacts associated with implementation of the Ranch Plan project and

(2) the appropriate/desired scope of biological resource protection to be implemented within the boundaries of the Rancho Mission Viejo Planned Community.

Following a series of meetings and negotiations between representatives of the County, the City, the applicant, and the Resource Organizations, the parties achieved full settlement of the outstanding issues on June 9, 2005 (City) and August 16, 2005 (Resource Organizations), with dismissal of the individual lawsuits following thereafter

The City of Mission Viejo settles law suit with County of Orange.

(Orange County Superior Court Case Nos. 04CC11999 and 04CC01637).

The terms of the individual settlements were memorialized in separate settlement agreements executed by and between the parties on the identified dates.

August 16, 2005

Resource Organizations settle law suit with the County of Orange.

(Orange County Superior Court Case Nos. 04CC11999 and 04CC01637).

The terms of the individual settlements were memorialized in separate settlement agreements executed by and between the parties on the identified dates. Notably, the provisions of the August 16, 2005, settlement agreement (Resource Organizations) resulted in certain refinements to the Ranch Plan project that, in effect, increased the amount of open space that will be permanently protected and managed (i.e., from approximately 15,132 gross acres to 16,942 gross acres) and reduced the acreage available for development activities (i.e., from approximately 7,683 acres to 5,873 acres). The refinements focused on further protection of resources by concentrating development in the areas with lower biological resource values while continuing to protect high resource values, including the vast majority of the western portion of the San Mateo Creek Watershed within the Rancho Mission Viejo Planned Community and portions of Planning Area 2. As set forth in FEIR 589, Planning Area 2 would have allowed for 1,030 gross acres of development uses; under the settlement agreement, 895 gross acres of development uses are identified.

The Ranch Plan project was further and subsequently influenced by input received from the general public, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)1 , and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The refinements resulted in what is referred to as “Alternative B-12”, a plan that is consistent with the settlement agreements.

Alternative B-12 would retain 16,942 gross acres of the Rancho Mission Viejo Planned Community in protected open space and would allow for development activities on 5,873 acres.

At the same time, Alternative B-12 provides the same level of housing and nonresidential development as previously approved for the B-10 Modified Alternative. It should be noted that for the B-12 Alternative, an overstated impact analysis is assumed for development in Planning Areas 4 and 8 and for the orchards in Planning Areas 6 and 7. The impact analysis is considered “overstated” as the final footprint of future development/orchards within these planning areas was undefined at this time because the precise location of future development/orchards was not known. As such, possible impacts in Planning Area 4 are assumed to affect a larger “impact area” of approximately 1,127 acres and the impacts for Planning Area 8 are assumed to affect a larger “impact area” of approximately 1,349 acres. The impact areas in Planning Areas 6 and 7 were approximately 249 acres and 182 acres, respectively. Therefore, the total impact area for Alternative B-12 was approximately 7,788 acres. It should be emphasized that this impact analysis overstates possible impacts because, ultimately, Ranch Plan project development in the areas of overstated impacts is limited to 550 acres of development and 175 acres of reservoir uses in Planning Area 4, 500 acres of development in Planning Area 8, and a total of 50 acres of orchards in Planning Areas 6 and/or 7. Since the approval of the Settlement Agreements, the 50 acres of orchards have been planted in Planning Area 7. The configuration of the 500 acres of development in Planning Area 8 is required to take into consideration the findings of five years of arroyo toad telemetry studies in conjunction with minimizing impacts, as required by the USACE Special Conditions.

All subsequent discussion of the “Ranch Plan project” in this Addendum refers to Alternative B-12 outlined in the settlement agreements, unless otherwise noted.

On March 23, 2006, the California State Parks Commission and a number of environmental groups sued the Petitioner, challenging the adequacy of the FSEIR.5 That litigation was eventually dismissed without prejudice.

Cal. State Parks Foundation, et al. v. Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (Super. Ct. San Diego County, Case Nos. GIN51194 and GIN 051371).

Because the sixteen mile extension of State Route 241 required a Clean Water Act section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Petitioner submitted an application for a Clean Water Act section 401 water quality certification to the San Diego Water Board on June 13, 2006. 

ADDENDUM NO. 1 (PA06-0023) FOR FINAL EIR NO. 589

Document: Ranch Plan Program Final EIR 589 

Lead Agency: County of Orange

Date: July 26, 2006

Action: Approval of Addendum Project Approval

Source: Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-1

In July 2006, the County of Orange approved the Master Area Plan (PA06-0023) and five Subarea Plans (PA06-0024 through PA06-0028) for Planning Area 1. Addendum No. 1 to FEIR 589 was approved by the County of Orange to support the approval of the Master and Subarea Plans. The County approved the following components for Planning Area 1:

• Planned Community (PC) Statistical Table and PC Development Map.

• Planning Area 1 Master Area Plan.

• Five Subarea Plans for Planning Area 1.

• Vesting tentative tract maps (VTTM) for Planning Area 1 (VTTM 10751, VTTM 17052, VTTM 17053, VTTM 17054, and VTTM 17055).

• Grading Permits (GA 06-0037, GA 06-0045, and GA 06-0046).

• Required infrastructure improvements.

Subsequent to the approval of the “A” Vesting Tentative Tract Maps (listed above), “B” level Tentative Tract Maps (TTMs) that were found in substantial compliance with the “A” maps, were approved. Subsequent to these approvals, changes to the “B” level TTMs, Planning Area 1 Master Area Plan, Subarea Plans 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 and a further Addendum (No.1.1) were approved by the County of Orange in February 2011. Planning Area 1 is currently under construction with opening anticipated in mid-summer of 2013.

The application was deemed complete by the San Diego Water Board on September 13, 2006. 

Letter from Senior Environmental Scientist James Smith, San Diego Water Board, to Richard Beck (Sept. 13, 2006). Note that, in this case, the application being deemed complete only means that the application has fulfilled the minimum requirements of the State Water Board certification regulations. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 3856.) Fulfillment of this requirement by an applicant does not mean, and should not be construed to mean, that the applicable regional water quality control board or the State Water Board has received sufficient information to make its determination that a proposed project or activity is reasonably assured to comply with water quality standards or other applicable requirements of state law.

Document: Southern Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan/Master Streambed Alteration Agreement/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/MSAA/HCP) EIR/EIS 

FEIR 584

Lead Agency: County of Orange

Date: October 24, 2006

Action: Certificate of FEIR 584 Project Approval

Source: Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-1

NCCP/MSAA/HCP

The Southern Subregion NCCP/MSAA/HCP and Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) were prepared by the County of Orange in cooperation with the CDFW and the USFWS in accordance with the provisions of the State Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991 (NCCP Act), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), and Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. The Southern Subregion NCCP/MSAA/HCP would provide for the conservation of designated State- and federally-listed and unlisted species and associated habitats that are currently found within the 132,000-acre NCCP/MSAA/HCP study area (i.e., the “Southern Subregion”). The NCCP/MSAA/HCP is a voluntary, collaborative planning program involving landowners, local governments, State and federal agencies, environmental organizations, and interested members of the public. The purpose of the NCCP Program is to provide long-term, large-scale protection of natural vegetation communities and wildlife diversity while allowing compatible land uses and appropriate development and growth. The NCCP process was initiated to provide an alternative to “single species” conservation efforts. The shift in focus from single species, project-by-project conservation efforts to large-scale conservation planning at the natural community level was intended to facilitate regional and subregional protection of a suite of species that inhabit a designated natural community or communities.

The proposed Conservation Strategy of the plan “focuses on long-term protection and management of multiple natural communities that provide habitat essential to the survival of a broad array of wildlife and plant species” (County of Orange 2006). The NCCP/MSAA/HCP creates a permanent habitat reserve consisting of (1) 11,950 County of Orange-owned acres contained within 3 existing County regional and wilderness parks (O’Neill Regional Park, Riley Wilderness Park, and Caspers Wilderness Park) and (2) 20,868 acres owned by Rancho Mission Viejo (RMV).

With respect to the CEQA document, the County of Orange Board of Supervisors certified the EIR, hereafter referred to as FEIR 584, on October 24, 2006.

With respect to the NEPA documentation, the USFWS distributed the Final EIS for public review on November 13, 2006. The Implementation Agreement (IA) was signed by the Participating Landowners (i.e., the County, RMV, and the Santa Margarita Water District [SMWD]) in December 2006. The USFWS issued a Record of Decision, signed the IA, approved the Southern HCP, and issued Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permits (ITP) for federally listed species to RMV and the SMWD on January 10, 2007 (1-6-07-F-812.8) (“the Opinions”). The Opinions state that proposed incidental take will occur as a result of habitat loss and disturbance associated with urban development and other proposed activities (i.e., Covered Activities) identified in the Plan. The Opinions further identify “construction of residential, commercial, industrial and infrastructure facilities” as RMV-Covered Activities. The Opinions address 6 federally listed animals, 1 federally listed plant, and 25 unlisted plants and animals for a total of 32 species.

CDFW issued an MSAA for the Ranch Plan on September 29, 2008. The MSAA covers the activities associated with implementation of the approved development. The covered activities include: (1) development in Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, 5, and 82 ; (2) cultivation of orchards; (3) roadway improvements; (4) construction of bikeways and trails; (5) sewer and wastewater facilities; (6) drainage, flood-control, and water quality facilities; (7) maintenance of existing facilities within the Ranch Plan boundary; (8) habitat restoration; (9) geotechnical investigations; and (10) relocation of the RMV headquarters.

Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-4

NEPA documentation, the USFWS distributed the Final EIS for public review on November 13, 2006.

Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-4

The USFWS issued a Record of Decision, signed the IA, approved the Southern HCP, and issued Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permits (ITP) for federally listed species to RMV and the SMWD on January 10, 2007 (1-6-07-F-812.8) (“the Opinions”). The Opinions state that proposed incidental take will occur as a result of habitat loss and disturbance associated with urban development and other proposed activities (i.e., Covered Activities) identified in the Plan. The Opinions further identify “construction of residential, commercial, industrial and infrastructure facilities” as RMV-Covered Activities. The Opinions address 6 federally listed animals, 1 federally listed plant, and 25 unlisted plants and animals for a total of 32 species.

Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-4

Document: Southern Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan/Master Streambed Alteration Agreement/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/MSAA/HCP) EIR/EIS 

Final EIS

Lead Agency: USFWS

Date: January 10, 2007

Action: Approval of Final EIS Approval of the Southern HCP and issuance of FESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permits

Source: Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-1

Document: Southern Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan/Master Streambed Alteration Agreement/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/MSAA/HCP) EIR/EIS 

Final EIR

Lead Agency: CDFG

Date: January 26, 2007

Action: Approval of Streambed Alteration Agreement

Source: Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-1

Document: San Juan Creek and Western San Mateo Creek Watershed Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) EIS

Lead Agency: USACE

Date: March 2007

Action: Approval of EIS Approval of project and issuance of long-term 404 permit

Source: Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-1

2.4.1 SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN

A Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) is a voluntary watershed-level planning and USACE permitting process involving local landowners and public agencies that seek permit coverage under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act for future actions that affect jurisdictional “Waters of the U.S.”. The purpose of a SAMP is to provide for reasonable economic development and the protection and long-term management of sensitive aquatic resources (biological and hydrological). Under a SAMP, to the extent feasible, federal “Waters of the U.S.” (including wetlands) are avoided and unavoidable impacts are minimized and mitigated. The San Juan Creek and Western San Mateo Creek Watersheds SAMP provides a framework for permit coverage for the San Juan Creek Watershed (approximately 113,000 acres) and the western portion of the San Mateo Creek Watershed (approximately 15,104 acres). The SAMP study area includes the Ranch Plan area.

The SAMP, which was approved by the USACE in 2007, establishes three regulatory permitting procedures: (1) Regional General Permit Procedures for Maintenance Activities Outside of the Rancho Mission Viejo Planned Community; (2) Letter of Permission Procedures for Future Qualifying Applicants Subject to Future Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines Review Outside the Rancho Mission Viejo Planned Community; and (3) Long-Term Individual Permits/Letters of Permission for Dredge and Fill Activities within the Rancho Mission Viejo Planned Community. With respect to the Rancho Mission Viejo Planned Community, the USACE issued an Individual Permit of extended duration to specify allowable impacts to “Waters of the U.S.” over the life of the Ranch Plan project. The long-term Individual Permit would require additional review and analysis as individual projects are proposed within the Rancho Mission Viejo Planned Community to ensure consistency with allowable impacts and the terms and conditions of this long-term Individual Permit. The USACE would review specific activities under the Letter of Permission procedures for the geographic area covered by the Individual Permit as each activity is proposed for implementation.

Despite the submission of supplemental documentation, the Petitioner’s request for a water quality certification was denied without prejudice on February 6, 2008. The San Diego Water Board noted that the Petitioner’s application remained insufficient to address outstanding concerns regarding the Petitioner’s runoff management plan, water quality mitigation measures, proposed habitat mitigation and monitoring plan, baseline water quality monitoring, and antidegradation.

The Petitioner subsequently withdrew its application for water quality certification.

Letter from Executive Officer John Robertus, San Diego Water Board, to Richard Beck (Feb. 6, 2008).

Also on February 6, 2008, the California Coastal Commission voted not to approve the Petitioner’s request for a consistency determination pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act.  The Petitioner appealed the California Coastal Commission’s determination to the United States Secretary of Commerce who, in turn, rejected the Petitioner’s appeal.

Petitioner’s Petition for Review of Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R9-2013-0007 (SWRCB/OCC File A-2259), p. 4; Letter from Manager Mark Delaplaine, California Coastal Commission to James Herink (Dec. 6, 2013), p. 2. The California Coastal Commission is the agency responsible for determining consistency with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.) 

See Decisions and Findings by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce in the Consistency Appeal of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency from the Objection by the California Coastal Commission (Dec. 18, 2008). After the rejection of the Petitioner’s appeal, the plaintiffs challenging the FSEIR voluntarily dismissed their writ petition on January 12, 2011. (Petitioner’s Petition for Review of Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R9-2013-0007 (SWRCB/OCC File A-2259), Exhibit 8.)

Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-8

In 2008, the CCC rejected the selected alignment as being inconsistent with the California Coastal Act. This decision was appealed by the TCA to the Secretary of Commerce. In December 2008, the Secretary of Commerce upheld the CCC decision.

Document: Southern Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan/Master Streambed Alteration Agreement/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/MSAA/HCP) EIR/EIS 

Final EIR

Lead Agency: CDFG

Date: September 29, 2008

Action: Approval of the MSAA

Source: Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-1

CDFW issued an MSAA for the Ranch Plan on September 29, 2008. The MSAA covers the activities associated with implementation of the approved development. The covered activities include: (1) development in Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, 5, and 82 ; (2) cultivation of orchards; (3) roadway improvements; (4) construction of bikeways and trails; (5) sewer and wastewater facilities; (6) drainage, flood-control, and water quality facilities; (7) maintenance of existing facilities within the Ranch Plan boundary; (8) habitat restoration; (9) geotechnical investigations; and (10) relocation of the RMV headquarters.

Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-4

Document: Cow Camp Road and Ancillary Infrastructure Improvements Addendum to FEIR 584 and FEIR 589

Lead Agency: County of Orange

Date: November 18, 2008

Action: Approval of Addendum Approval of Project

Source: Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-1

In 2009, the City of San Juan Capistrano purchased 132 acres of the Rancho Mission Viejo Planned Community of which 105 acres were within the boundaries of Planning Area 1. The property was annexed into the City for use as recreational open space. This change to a portion of the Ranch Plan area resulted in administrative corrections to the Ranch Plan Planned Community Development Map and Ranch Plan Statistical Table in February 2011. As revised, the Ranch Plan totals 22,683 acres with approximately 16,915 acres (or approximately 74.57 percent) identified for open space uses with 5,768 acres for development uses.

Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-4

REVISED PLANNING AREA 1 MASTER AREA PLAN SUBAREA PLANS 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4 (PA 11-0003, PA 11-0004, PA 11-0005, AND PA11-0006)

ADDENDUM 1.1 TO FINAL EIR NO. 589 SUBAREA PLANS 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4 (PA 11-0003, PA 11-0004, PA 11-0005 AND PA 11-0006)

Document: Addendum No. 1.1 to Final EIR 589

Lead Agency: CDFG

Date: January 26, 2007

Action: Approval of Addendum Project approval

Source: Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-1

Document: Planning Area 2: Zone 1/Zone A Reservoir Project

Lead Agency: Santa Margarita Water District

Date: August 2, 2011

Action: Approval of Addendum Approval of Project

Source: Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-1

Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-8

In October 2011, engineering and environmental work began on a plan to extend the current SR-241 toll road from its existing terminus at Oso Parkway to Cow Camp Road in Planning Area 2. This TCA roadway project has been named the SR-241 Tesoro Extension and would provide additional northern access for communities located inland of I-5 and commuters traveling to Orange County from the Inland Empire via Ortega Highway. When constructed, the SR-241 Tesoro Extension would provide an alternative route to I-5. As proposed, the toll road extension would be approximately 5.5 miles long with two lanes in each direction and a median wide enough for additional lanes or future transit options. The proposed alignment generally follows the alignment for Planning Area 2 future “F” Street with the exception of the most southern segment of the alignment in Subarea 2.1 (see Exhibit 10 of Section 3.0).The TCA anticipates that preliminary engineering, environmental work and the finance plan will be completed in 2013 with construction of the Tesoro Extension commencing in 2013.

The Petitioner filed a report of waste discharge for the Tesoro Extension with the San Diego Water Board on August 10, 2012

After analyzing the Petitioner’s documentation and repeated meetings with the Petitioner, San Diego Water Board staff drafted WDRs Tentative Order No. R9-2013-0007 (Tentative Order) for the Tesoro Extension. On January 17, 2013, San Diego Water Board staff issued a public notice announcing the availability of the Tentative Order and setting a March 13, 2013 public hearing for the San Diego Water Board to consider adoption of the Tentative Order. The public notice established a February 18, 2013 deadline for written comments on the Tentative Order.

Document: Cañada Gobernadora Multipurpose Basin Project Addendum to Final EIR 584

Lead Agency: Santa Margarita Water District

Date: December 3, 2012

Action: Approval of Addendum 

Source: Addendum to FEIR 589 page 2-1

On February 15, 2013, the Petitioner’s staff finalized a CEQA addendum to the 2006 FSEIR for the Tesoro Extension (Addendum) and submitted it to San Diego Water Board. The Addendum stated that the Petitioner proposed to construct the Tesoro Extension, and identified the Tesoro Extension as the project for the purposes of CEQA analysis. The Addendum concluded that, since the Tesoro Extension generally followed the same alignment as the first 5.5 miles of the sixteen mile extension preferred alternative that had been analyzed in the 2006 FSEIR, the Tesoro Extension would not result in any significant environmental effects that were not already discussed in the 2006 FSEIR. The Addendum also concluded that there was no need to prepare a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, and that the 2006 FSEIR, coupled with the Addendum, satisfied the Petitioner’s CEQA obligations for the Tesoro Extension.

Due to the last-minute submission of the Addendum by the Petitioner and the extensive written comments that related to the San Diego Water Board’s CEQA obligations if it were to approve the Tentative Order, the San Diego Water Board decided that its staff needed additional time to evaluate and respond to CEQA-related issues. The San Diego Water Board stated that it would proceed with the scheduled March 13, 2013 public hearing, but that it would not take any final action on the Tentative Order on that date

Addendum to the South Orange County Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report – Tesoro Extension Project (Feb. 2013), p. 3-22

Due to the last-minute submission of the Addendum by the Petitioner and the extensive written comments that related to the San Diego Water Board’s CEQA obligations if it were to approve the Tentative Order, the San Diego Water Board decided that its staff needed additional time to evaluate and respond to CEQA-related issues. The San Diego Water Board stated that it would proceed with the scheduled March 13, 2013 public hearing, but that it would not take any final action on the Tentative Order on that date.

During the hearing on March 13, 2013, the Chair of the San Diego Water Board announced that a second hearing would be scheduled for the purpose of receiving comments related to CEQA, and that San Diego Water Board staff would circulate specific CEQA-related questions prior to the second hearing. A coalition of environmental groups called the Save San Onofre Coalition (Coalition) and a large number of individuals argued against adoption of the Tentative Order, voicing a number of concerns related to water quality best management practices (stormwater BMPs), hydromodification, sediment generation and transport, and compensatory mitigation implementation and monitoring, as well as CEQA

San Diego Water Board Hearing Transcript (March 13, 2013), pp. 36-37, 70-71

The “Save San Onofre Coalition” consists of a dozen non-governmental entities, including the California State Parks Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club California, Surfrider Foundation, and Orange County Coastkeeper

Tentative Order No R9-2013-0007

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY TESORO EXTENSION (SR 241) PROJECT ORANGE COUNTY

Contact Valeria McFall This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Order No. R9-2013-0007 serves as individual waste discharge requirements for discharges of fill to non-federal waters of the State. Should the USACOE non-jurisdictional determination be reversed for this site, without any material change in the nature of the discharge, this Order may also serve as a CWA Section 401 water quality certification.

Notice Public Hearing January 17, 2013 - Comments by February 25, 2013

Public Hearing March 13, 2013 Agenda Item #8

Executive Office Summary Report

Meeting Minutes

No Action was taken by the San Diego Water Board. 

During the hearing on March 13, 2013, the Chair of the San Diego Water Board announced that a second hearing would be scheduled for the purpose of receiving comments related to CEQA, and that San Diego Water Board staff would circulate specific CEQA-related questions prior to the second hearing.

On March 15, 2013, counsel to the San Diego Water Board circulated a memorandum with CEQA-related questions to the Petitioner, the Coalition, and the public. The memorandum inquired as to how the Petitioner defined the project for which WDRs were being requested, and whether it was the same as the Petitioner’s CEQA definition of the project. Additionally, the memorandum asked about the CEQA consequences of the Addendum, given the lack of the Petitioner’s approval of the Tesoro Extension or filing of a CEQA Notice of Determination

Letter from Senior Staff Counsel Catherine Hagan to Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, Save San Onofre Coalition and Interested Persons (March 15, 2013)

PLANNING AREA 2 ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR NO. 589 SUBAREA PLANS 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 (PA130001, PA120002, PA130003, PA130004 AND PA130006

As a result of this approval the Director of OC Planning took sole control of reviewing and Approving Authority in place of all over oversight. 

Addendum to FEIR 589 Appendix "A" Ranch Plan PA2 Addendum Regulation Compliance Matric

The Petitioner’s Board of Directors approved the conceptual design for the Tesoro Extension and approved the Addendum

Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency Resolution No. 2013F-05.

San Diego Water Board Denies TCA their waste wwater discharge permit.

The San Diego Water Board conducted the second hearing on June 19, 2013. At the hearing, the public was asked to limit their comments to the revisions to the Tentative Order and CEQA-related issues. San Diego Water Board staff explained that the revisions to were designed to address water quality concerns related to the Tesoro Extension that had been expressed by Board Members as well as the prior hearing. The revisions addressed sediment supply and hydromodification; the timing of the habitat mitigation monitoring plan and the runoff management plan. The San Diego Water Board’s counsel described the Petitioner’s recent approval of the conceptual design for the Tesoro Extension and the Addendum, explained that, as a CEQA responsible agency, the San Diego Water Board was bound by the Petitioner’s 2006 EIR and the Addendum. Counsel explained that the Revised Tentative Order did not contain any specific findings about environmental impacts related to potential future segments of the toll road.

After reviewing the written comments and listening to the public comments at both hearings, the Board Members engaged in deliberations about whether to approve the Revised Tentative Order. Eventually, one Board Member made a motion to not approve it. The motion carried, with three Board Members voting in favor of the motion and two Board Members voting against the motion. In response, the Petitioner filed a timely petition with the State Water Board alleging, among other things, that the San Diego Water Board improperly denied the Revised Tentative Order because it believed that the Petitioner’s CEQA documents, particularly the description of the Tesoro Extension as the CEQA project in the Addendum, were inadequate

San Diego Water Board Hearing Transcript (June 19, 2013), pp. 2-3.

Id., p. 14.

Id., pp. 30-31, 35-36.

The San Diego Water Board had declined to adopt Waste Discharge Requirements for F/ETCAs Tesoro Extension Project on June 19, 2013, after accepting extensive public comment and holding two public hearings on the Project. F/ETCA appealed the decision to the State Water Board alleging among other things, that the San Diego Water Board had exceeded its legal authority in denying issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements for the Project and the board had not provided adequate factual support for its decision.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Executive Officers Report (David Gibson) page 10

San Diego Water Board Meeting Wednesday August 14, 2013 CLOSED SESSION Agenda Item #p page 6

Petition of Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency for Review of Action, and Failure to Act, in Connection with Waste Discharge Requirements (Tentative Order No. R9-2013-0007) for the Tesoro Extension Project, Orange County, June 19, 2013, SWRCB/OCC File A-XXXX, filed July 2013. (Darren Bradford)

The State Water Board issued a draft Order on August 23, 2014. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Executive Officers Report October 8, 2014 (David Gibson) page 10

TCA's Appeal is Denied

On December 10, 2013, the San Diego Water Board responded to F/ETCAs petition outlining the reasons for its decision and the evidence in the administrative record supporting the decision.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Executive Officers Report October 8, 2014 (David Gibson) page 10

Board Agenda page 1

Board Audio Consent Calendar at 16:20

This Item was passed on Consent without Discussion

Donations average $3.5 to $4 million per year

Donations this month $312,543.53

Board Agenda at page 6

Board Audio 

There is one way in, and one way out of Tesoro High School. 

It is a DRIVEWAY named Tesoro Creek Road.

The only way to access what is legally defined as a DRIVEWAY into Tesoro is from Oso Parkway.

Tesoro has extremely limited busing and a student population of just under 2,600 High School students who drive themselves to school.

When Oso Parkway is under construction there will be reduction in lanes, and sometimes full closures. How will these students get to school on time?

More importantly, in the case of an emergency like a fire... or an earthquake... How will they get out?

It is unconscionable that the desire to complete the Toll Road at all costs includes the gross disregard for the health, well being and safety of the staff and students at Tesoro High School.

It only takes a shift in the wind to create a disaster for these children.

What about an earthquake? The TCA is draining all the water from the Oso Bridge Project and the Oso Bridge Gap Closure Project under Tesoro High School. That soil is known to liquify with vibration. The result- unstable soil- the building could sink.

The Kitchel Report stated that Tesoro High School was showing signs of structural cracking that may be the result of soil issues

Not one entity has stepped forward to protect students at Tesoro.

Lisa Bartlett - your sign is misleading. You are building the Tesoro Extension of the 241 Toll Road. 

You forgot to re-open CEQA prior to beginning work on the Oso Bridge Gap Closure Project.

Stop work.

Protect the students and staff at Tesoro High School.

Letter to California State Water Resources Board - Office of Enforcement