Website © 2014 Ronald Douglas Kennedy. All Rights Reserved.                                             Site designed by Undisclosed

Exhibit 13

Pelican Hill Road

Irvine Coast Land Use Plan Amendment




A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H
I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P
Q  R  S  T  U  V  W
X  Y  Z

Notes on Maps
and Text Exhibits

click here

Requires FREE
Adobe Reader



[Map 1]

Pelican Hill Road/Newport Coast Drive OVERVIEW

[Maps 2A & 2B]

Proposed Pelican Hill Road Alignment

[Map 3]

Road shown going from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard

[Map 4]

The Irvine Company grand opening of Newport Coast Drive

[Map 5]

Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA)/Coastal Commission approval of realignment of Ford Rd.

[Letter 5B-1 & 5B-2]

[Letter 5C-1–5C-3]

A.G. asking for the CCC approval of TCA putting a Toll on Newport Coast Drive

[Map 6]

Thomas map showing how the 73 toll road has consumed Newport Coast Drive, tolls fraudulently collected daily

[Map 7]

The EIR graphically shows that a toll booth will be placed at the intersection with Newport Coast Drive (using the old name Pelican Hills Rd.)



[FNCD 1]

December 19, 1980 City Of Newport Beach Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee

[FNCD 2]

May 19, 1987 Draft Environmental Report For Pelican Hill Road Irvine Coast

[FNCD 3]

Cover letter from A.G.’s Office regarding my request for a TCA Exhibit

[FNCD 4]

San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency Ramp Transaction Summary, received from the TCA July 27, 2012

[FNCD 5]

Cover letter from A.G.’s Office. This is TCA exhibit 7

[FNCD 6]

January 7, 1994 Gilbert W. Ferguson Assemblyman Seventh District, Newport Beach. regarding his Opinion request.

[FNCD 7]

March 17, 2012 letter to the honorable Dr. Charles Lester, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission

[FNCD 8]

December 9, 1993. Gilbert W. Ferguson, Assemblyman Seventh District, Newport Beach—his first request for an A.G. Opinion

[FNCD 9]

5/13/93 approved, California Coastal Commission: “Revised Proposed Findings”

[FNCD 10]

December 20,1993 from Newport Beach Council Member for Corona Del Mar, writes to the Honorable Dan Lungren, Attorney General

[FNCD 11]

California Coastal Commission letter April 27, 2012

[FNCD 12]

6/26/92—TCA/LSA Associates, Inc.: Irvine Coast CDP (Coastal Development Permit) findings

[FNCD 13]

A.G. Conflicts-of-interest

[FNCD 14]

Capitol Weekly: “The California Coastal Commission—Unrepentant Sinners”

[FNCD 15]

State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General: Legal Opinions & Quo Warranto

[FNCD 16]

March 3, 2009 letter from the A.G.’s Office

[FNCD 17]


[FNCD 18]

Letter to Department of Justice, December 4, 2012—still looking for the missing A.G. Maiser report

[FNCD 19]

Orange County Resolution, NO. 82-598 Transportation Corridors Development Policy

[FNCD 20]

Newport Coast Local Coastal Program, Second Amendment, December 3, 1996

[FNCD 21]

Annexation and Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company, 11-08-2001

[FNCD 22]

California Coastal Commission, August 18, 1995—Mr. Charles Damm, District Director, from the San Diego office

[FNCD 23]

October 15, 1985. Resolution of The Board Of Supervisors of Orange County, California, Resolution No. 85-1477, Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program

[FNCD 24]

April 20, 1988. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors, Orange County, No. 88-537

[FNCD 25]

April 20, 1988. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors Orange County, Resolution No. 88-538

SECTION I, page 3


regard, and while I agree with you that it may be inferred* that Newport Coast Drive was to be "free" public street, that does not provide us with legal jurisdiction to require an amendment to the permit or the LCP. The segment of Newport Coast Drive where the toll would be charged is not in the coastal zone"

All that is being asked, is, that the original: County Permit's and California Coastal Commission LCP Findings, as called out, in Section's C. and D. of the, County of Orange Irvine Coast Development Agreement, as recorded in. [ NCD 1 ] June 9. enforced. Regarding Public LCP. contract rights at Law.

Also this is a very date sensitive subject for: records and Documents put forward. Anything after June 9, 1988. Are: Late & worthless ,as not a part of the Original: LCP. Or Orange County: Resolution's, Planning, or Development permit history. In altering the original planning of. June 9. 1988.

3.----- In the 1992 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency SJHTC. "Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4 (f) Evaluation."  [ NCD 25 ] In this EIS, there's this key, Fraudulent statement made at page K-3. "The Corridor is consistent with the approved LCPs for Irvine Coast,"

The TCA in their Opinion letter to the A. G. show their exhibit 7.
[ FNCD 5 ] that shows a figure 2.5 Toll Plaza Locations figure 2,5. a map with a snake eyed line. I personally completely missed finding this only one page reference to a toll planned for Newport Coast Drive, in this voluminous TCA. EIS. This in Conflict with the Irvine Coast Development Agreement. and LCP.   Note: Which is now supported by the later dated frauds. [ look below at capital G. and R. for more information.]

4----- California Coastal Commission 5/13/93 Approved, Revised Proposed Findings On Combined Consistency Certification And Coastal Development Permit Application [ FNCD 9 ] Applicant Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA)

"Development Description: Construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) ( also referred to as "(Corridor") ".

"E. Status of Local Coastal program. ----County of Orange's LCP has been certified by the Commission, but has not been incorporated into the CCMP." This is where Newport Coast Drive is called out as By-Pass LCP traffic mitigation.

Why did the California Coastal Commission, not require this permit to be processed through the County of Orange: where the free Transportation Corridor was born, where the major road bed was given by the Irvine Company, Who also built Pelican Hills Road/ Newport Coast Drive, as part of the Irvine Coast Development Permit. As granted by the Coastal Commission and the County of Orange, and recorded on June 9, 1988.
[ NCD 1 ] And later where the Transportation Corridor was revised
[ NCD 30 ] at page 4. From a free corridor to a Toll Corridor, on October 17, 1988. Under the guidance and permit's of the County of Orange. And then later altering / diverting Newport Coast Drive in to the Toll Road in 1997 for collecting tolls. from its original free connection to MacArthur Boulevard.

Here the TCA makes another fraudulent statement regarding their complying with the California Coastal Act on page 11.

" F. Applicant's Consistency Certification. TCA has certified that the proposed activity complies with California's approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program."

5----- In the March 25, 1994 TCA Opinion reply letter to the A. G.
[ NCD 30 ] TCA calls out (See Exhibit 3.) on their opinion page 4. Here in their own TCA. exhibit, it looks like, they tried to create a fraudulent conclusion for their toll rights in 1982. Here's a full copy of this exhibit from the A. G. office with their cover letter to me dated August 20, 2012. [ FNCD 3 ] On page 4. it calls out: "First And Restated Joint Exercise of powers Agreement Creating The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency" [ statement date is October 17, 1988. As stated by TCA. to the AG. in their opinion letter comments. March 25, 1994. [ NCD 30 ] at page 4. calls out "see exhibit 3"]

Then the TCA shows in exhibit "3" [about 34 pages in to it] " Major Thoroughfare And Bridge Fee Program For San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor And Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors" --- "Prepared by Environmental Management Agency Transportation/Flood Control Program Office July 1985" Then stating "(Revised by Transportation Corridor Agencies September 1988" What call-outs are from the revised September 1988 or 1985/86 document, is not stated to determine a factual time line. [ flood control program 1985 ?] . Then on page numbered 29. there is an Exhibit ll [ Roman # 2.] Showing a two page "Resolution of The Orange County Board of Supervisors, dated April 21, 1982" with four undated TCA maps meaning just what is not stated? It looks like the TCA is implying 1982. is a important date for their right to toll ? If so it would be a fraudulent effort.

A full unaltered copy of this original "three page" Resolution NO. 82-598 Transportation Corridors Development Policy. can be read in full at  [ FNCD 19 ] [ note Exhibit ll  is not shown on the original? [fraud]

Note page 2. is missing in A. G. copy to me. at 5. a fee program is called out, This was for Highways, or Freeways. Tolls or toll road are not planned in 1982. I believe the intent of this "resolution" was to set aside an area for Highways and Freeways. Their altering this resolution with a # ll. And with a area of undated back ground: writings and maps. is a fraudulent effort. The A. G. regards this as a proof of the TCA right to take 49, 000,000.00 Dollars + from the Public, in tolls.

6-----TCA omission in not following the original by-pass, LCP road findings. As they call out in their own TCA. Opinion letter, to AG. March 25, 1994 [ NCD 30 ] at page 14. calls out "(Exhibit C to Development Agreement at p. 22 [emphasis added] and [ exhibit 5].)" This is found in [ NCD 1 ] at exhibit C. page 22. referring too (see Exhibit 13 in the Executive Summary ) which is [ NCD 4 ] 1987.(The developer, The Irvine Company's By-Pass road mitigation in the Local Coastal Plan, Findings . Exhibit C. ) Road Map 1987. page 22. calling out Pelican Hills road alignment MAP, green field's, yellow by-pass road line in "1987". Here the TCA Calls out the LCP. But they do not honor/ or follow, the very LCP Findings they call out. to the A. G. Office. And Fraudulently charge a Toll for a right they never had.

Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Daily Pilot " Ferguson urges toll road investigation" December 9, 1993. [ NCD 21 ] Here is a key phrase which will help the reader, to understand better how the TCA seemed to have such a free hand in doing as they wished, regarding the Orange County, Irvine Coast Development Agreement. And the County not carrying out the, Newport Coast Drive LCP. By-Pass free Road Findings.

" Thornton answered for Smith saying the portion of Newport Coast Drive that will become part of the toll way was transferred to the agency under a joint powers agreement between the county, several cities and the TCA ."The TCA is the alter ego, if you will, of the County of Orange," Thornton said.

[ this above is before I made my presentation, using County and LCP documents. And Thornton standing up turning his back on Ferguson and walking out, rather than answering his questions. Are the documents Kennedy presented true ?] MR. Thornton is the TCA Lawyer. and authored the TCA Opinion letter to the A. G. [ NCD 30 ] March 24. 1994. There's more on the Pacific Club hearing at N. below

7----- Orange County Counsel reply to the A. G. Opinion request, dated March 24, 1994 [ NCD 31 ] Page 3. calls out "The issue of The Irvine Company's development rights under its Local coastal Plan and Development Agreement and whether they are jeopardized by the advent of the corridor as a toll facility. We do not believe that they are jeopardized."

But the County Completely waves its duty to the public in carrying out its Fiduciary, duties of enforcing its Irvine Coast Development Agreement
[ NCD 1 ] Local Coastal Plan. for Pelican Hills RD. / Newport Coast Drive, free public by-pass road mitigation. as called out in Section C. and D. of their own Development Agreement. And the California Coastal Commission waves its duties also.

Also in not following their own call-outs' as in,[ FNCD 24 ] O. C. Resolution 88-537, Certify EIR No. 486. April 20 1987. Exhibit A. Statement Of Facts.

...continued, page 4


A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H
I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P
Q  R  S  T  U  V  W
X  Y  Z