No Public In-put!

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.

NEW INFORMATION
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:

• Grant Deed to County of Orange,
• Irrevocable Offer to Convey real property,
• Agreement for Grant of Fee Credits for Right-of Way purposes of "F" Street).

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.

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.

• #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.