March 10, 2019
General Robert B. Neller
Commandant of the Marine Corps
Headquarters, US Marine Corps
3000 Marine Corps, Pentagon
Washington, DC 20350-3000
US Army Corps of Engineers
441 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20314-1000
US Army Corps of Engineers
5900 La Place Ct Suite 100,
Carlsbad, CA 92008-8832
Ph: (213) 452-3897;
Fax: (213) 452-4196;
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Office of Law Enforcement
2800 Cottage Way, W-2928
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6660
Fax: (916) 414-6715
US Department of Commerce
[Contact information being added]
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
South Coast Region
Regional Manager: Ed Pert
3883 Ruffin Road,
San Diego, CA 92123
FAX: (858) 467-4299
State Water Resource Control Board- Division of Water Rights
001 I Street, 24th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 341-7365
Fax: (916) 341-5252
[COMP-41767 submitted 02-21-2019] This is NEW information
State of California San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92108-2700
Chiara Clemente, Senior Environmental Scientist- Compliance Assurance Unit
[COMP-41767 submitted 02-21-2019] This is NEW information
California Department of Real Estate
Complaint Intake Unit (CIU)
320 W. 4th St. Ste. 350
Los Angeles, CA 90013-1105
[Complaint Submitted 1-31-19 at 2:33:29 pm Confirmation Number 3163271704] This is NEW information.
California Coastal Commission
200 Oceangate, 10th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Andrew Willis, Southern CA Supervisor
Re: Construction of the Tesoro Extension of SR-241 from Oso Parkway to the San Diego/ Orange County Line without a valid CEQA or NEPA review
Re: Request for Investigation of the TCA, the County of Orange, Rancho Mission Viejo, the San Diego Water Board and the Capistrano Unified School District for Collusion and Criminal Fraud.
Due to Conflicts of Interest this matter cannot be brought to Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer because he was a member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors who administratively approved this.
Due to Conflicts of Interest, this matter cannot be brought to the California State Attorney General's Office because they are a Party to a Settlement Agreement regarding this matter. If facts warrant, this matter should be referred to The US Attorney General.
The San Diego Water Board Administratively Approved Rancho Mission Viejo's 401 Waste Water Discharge Permit which included grading and drainage for the Tesoro Extension of SR-241 south of the Oso Bridge Project that was denied a 401 Waste Water Discharge permit.
[Evidence of possible Collusion and Criminal Fraud]
The San Diego Water Board granted Rancho Mission Viejo a 401 Wastewater Discharge Permit R9-2014-0144 to build "F" Street aka Los Patrones Parkway as a free arterial road. The only name on the permit is that of Rancho Mission Viejo (a private entity). The County of Orange is the proper lead agency for collector and arterial roads within the Ranch Plan Area.
CalTRANS would be the appropriate lead agency for the construction of the Tesoro Extension of SR-241 within the Ranch Plan area.
The TCA/CalTRANS were denied environmental permits to construct the Tesoro Extension of SR-241 within the Ranch Plan area without opening a new environmental review of the project.
The project that is currently being built is the Tesoro Extension of SR - 241 with Modifications. There is no valid NEPA or CEQA for the project that is currently being built south of Oso Parkway Bridge.
TCA, the County of Orange and Rancho Mission Viejo have colluded to use the permit granted to Rancho Mission Viejo to build a "free" arterial highway to instead build the Tesoro Extension of SR-241, a "tolled" road.
These three parties entered into contractual agreements that evidence this collusion:
The TCA, the County of Orange and Rancho Mission Viejo appear to have Conflicts of Interest which they have failed to fully disclose in Rancho Mission Viejo's 401 Waste Water Discharge Permit Application, which has inconsistencies with CEQA for "F" Street.
In addition, 401 Wastewater Discharge Permit R9-2014-0144 documentation shows that this permit; which was "administratively approved" contained grading and drainage for the Toll Road project that had been denied three times.
|June 13, 2006
||TCA submitted an application for Clean Water Act section 401 Water Quality Certification for the Tesoro Extension of SR-241 from Oso Parkway to the I-5 at the San Diego/Orange County line.
|February 23, 2006
||TCA submitted a final subsequent EIR and Notice of Determination which concluded that the impacts to wildlife, fisheries and vegetation could not be mitigated to less than significant levels.
|February 6, 2008
||On February 6, 2008, the San Diego Regional Water Board denied TCA's permit.
|February 6, 2008
||The California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) also rejected the toll road extension due to its recreational impacts to San Onofre State Park and San Mateo Creek, water quality effects, wetland impacts, and impacts to other environmental resources.
||TCA appealed the Coastal Commission's objection to the United States Secretary of Commerce. After holding its own public hearing, the Secretary of Commerce rejected the appeal, finding, among other things, that less environmentally damaging alternatives were available to meet the project need.
|February 9, 2009
||TCA formally withdrew their application.
|August 10, 2012
||On August 10, 2012, TCA filed a a new application with the San Diego Water Board for an initial segment of the toll road. This would extend SR 241 from its existing southern terminus at Oso Parkway approximately 5.5 miles south to Cow Camp Road in the vicinity of Ortega Highway (SR 74) in Orange County
|June 19, 2013
||A majority of San Diego Water Board members voted to deny TCA's permit.
|July 19, 2013
||TCA submitted an appeal of the denial to the State Water Board.
June 12, 2014
STUCK- The Parties come up with a new plan to have Rancho Mission Viejo build the Toll Road for them using it's 401 Wastewater Discharge Permit for "F" Street aka Los Patrones a free arterial highway in the event their appeal is denied.
On June 12, 2014, the TCA approved an Option Agreement with Developer [Rancho Mission Viejo] for an alignment for TEx. [the Tesoro Extension of SR-241] The TCA also authorized its Executive Director to confirm to the County of Orange (County) that it has authorized and is in support of the proposed Agreement for Grant of Fee Credits in accordance with the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. On June 13, 2014, the County received a letter from the TCA Acting Chief Executive Officer confirming this position.
Agenda Staff Report
Attachment A - Agreement for Grant of Fee Credits
Exhibit A - Grant Deed to County of Orange
Exhibit B - Irrevocable Offer to Convey
June 24, 2014
Orange County Board of Supervisors approved Agenda Item #25
25. Approve agreement D14-034 with RMV Community Development LLC for Transportation Corridor Agency fee credits for the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program; authorize Director or designee to carry out terms of agreement and execute related documents; approve grant deed, Irrevocable Offer to Convey Real Property and Memorandum of Fee Credit agreement from Rancho Mission Viejo, LLC for right of way purposes of "F" Street; authorize Director or designee to execute related documents and necessary amendments; and find that Environmental Impact Report 589 previously certified by the Board of Supervisors on November 8, 2004 satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act - District 5
|September 23, 2014
||The State Water Board remanded the matter back to the San Diego Water Board with direction
|November 24, 2014
||Rancho Mission Viejo files an incomplete application for a 401 waste Water Discharge Permit for "F" Street aka Los Patrones Parkway as a free arterial road.
|March 16, 2015
||The permit was denied again. TCA has no permission to build south of Oso Parkway.
|April 9, 2015
||Rancho Mission Viejo completes its application for a 401 waste Water Discharge Permit for "F" Street aka Los Patrones Parkway as a free arterial road.
June 4, 2015
The San Diego Water Board "administratively approves" Rancho Mission Viejo's permit for "F" Street aka Los Patrones Parkway as a free arterial road and expressly states:
"F" Street is not the Tesoro Extension of SR-241 that was denied waste water discharge requirements by the San Diego Water Board in 2013 (proceeding on Tentative Order R9-2013-0007) or a facility related to SR-241 and the Tesoro Extension is not covered by this Certification. "F" Street will be operated by the County of Orange as a free road."
However, contained within the permit was permission to do the grading and Wastewater Discharge south of Oso Parkway between the on and off ramps of Los Patrones Parkway. So in essence- the TCA used Rancho Mission Viejo's permit for Los Patrones to do the same work that has been denied all along. TCA/CalTRANS should have been named on this Permit.
The projects that were actually built under this permit were:
1. Oso Bridge Project
2. "F'" Street aka Los Patrones Parkway Project Tesoro Extension of SR-241 with modifications
3. The Oso Bridge Gap Closure Project
These 3 projects are really the Tesoro Extension of SR-241 with modifications which were denied.
Was the San Diego Regional Water Board complicit in this "arrangement"?
It appears that the San Diego Water Board administratively approved 401 Wastewater Discharge Permit R9-2014-0144 granted to Rancho Mission Viejo (a private entity) to build what is actually the Tesoro Extension of SR-241 with modifications, and did so behind closed doors in violation of the law and its own policies. As such, it appears individuals at the Water Board may have been part of the Collusion and Criminal Fraud to complete SR-241 from Oso Parkway to the I-5 at the San Diego/ Orange County line.
The Item was never placed on the Agenda. The Item was never placed on the Agenda as a consent Item. Item was never announced to the public.
The March 16, 2015 San Diego Regional Water Board meeting where the final denial was made had a large group of people that spoke in opposition to the TCA's appeal because the Item was listed as the "Tesoro Extension of SR-241 Toll Road" item.
The Rancho Mission Viejo permit was never on the San Diego Water Board meeting Agenda - not even on consent.
April 15, 2015 San Diego Water Board meeting had one consent item:
#6 Sycamore Land Fill
May 13, 2015 San Diego Water Board meeting there were no consent items.
On June 4, 2015 Rancho Mission Viejo's 401 Waste Water Discharge permit was granted. Administratively Approved behind closed doors with NO public input.
June 24, 2015 San Diego Water Board meeting there were 4 consent items:
# 6, 7, and 8 for Calmut Company
#9 for San Diego Ship Repair
The San Diego Regional Water Board failed to follow the law:
401 Wastewater Discharge Permit R9-2014-0144 contains the following language at page 24.
Further documentation that shows the intent to continue to build the Tesoro Extension of SR -241 in segments to avoid CEQA and NEPA can be found in the Final Program EIR IP#15-157 SCH No. 2015051062 entitled Orange County Affordable Housing Implementation Plan- Ranch Plan dated November 2016.
at page 446
The parties admit that if the toll road option is built environmental studies result in the following potentially significant impacts:
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
10. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project:
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not
17. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
This project should be terminated at Oso Parkway and ONLY environmentally approved arterial roads should continue south of the Oso Bridge.
The following is yet another "error" in CEQA Documentation.