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

Exhibit 13

Pelican Hill Road

Irvine Coast Land Use Plan Amendment

Home SECTION I SECTION II, Items B,C,D SECTION III, Items N,O,P SECTION IV--Map & Text Notes

QUICK LINKS

SECTIONS

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

 

MAPS

[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.)

 

TEXT

[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 II, page 2

 

Our original public road rights were given to use on, the Signing and Recording of the Irvine Coast Development Agreement, Now a memorialized public Contract. Calling out our free traffic By-Pass, public mitigation road rights. in June 9, 1988.

Any and all arguments or exhibits after the Irvine Coast Development Agreement signing and recording. June 9, 1988. Are late. As new argument's for trying to allow the Tolling. And are only a: coordinated, confusing, worthless, fraudulent attempt, to deceive others. For the financial gain, by the Transportation Corridor Agencies TCA. And cannot, and does not take the public free use rights of Newport Coast Drive LCP. By-Pass away from the Public.

Even if the "San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency, has fraudulently, taken and now shows their Ramp Transaction Summary" for Newport Coast Drive Dollars as of FY 2012. charged and collected $49,672,107.00 in tolls from the public, [ FNCD 4 ] And this does not even count for the first five years where they did not even bother to keep recorders on Newport Coast Drive, of toll dollars they illegally collected.

[ NCD 1 ] Irvine Coast Development Agreement. calls out our contract rights in, "EXHIBIT C. Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan Findings of Approval and Supporting Documentation" and "Irvine Coast Development Agreement EXHIBIT D. Benefits to the County And its Residents" As now memorialized in the, Irvine Coast Development Agreement County of Orange June 9, 1988. A Contract calling out, Public LCP & O. C. Road Mitigation rights, and benefits. Developer rights, and Orange County rights.

These Development Agreement Contract Call-outs below. Are also clearly called out in numerous other: Orange County, and California Coastal Commission. Local Coastal Plan LCP. document's .

"Exhibit C. Findings". [California Coastal Commission. Findings, as memorialized in the development Agreement June 9. 1988 ] [ NCD 1 ]

p. 1 "Pelican Hill road certified by the Board on September 15, 1987"

p. 3 "regional freeway and highway networks"

p. 21 "Pelican Hill Road , in Particular, provides Regional Traffic benefits in Excess of Project Needs" ---primarily Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Blvd) by ultimately diverting approximately 30% of exiting traffic around this area via Pelican Hill Road while only adding 15% of existing traffic back onto the system in these critical locations."

p. 22 "recreational access capacity by connecting inland areas directly to Crystal Cove State Park

(see Exhibit 13 in the Executive Summary)."

This 1987 yellow road line, on a green field road map. from Pacific coast Highway to MacArthur Blvd. is shown at [ NCD 4 ] at page 22. This exhibit is additionally called out in CCC. and OC. documents as, "see exhibit 13."

 

[ note] The TCA actually calls out the Development Agreement, and Exhibit C. Coastal Findings. calling out page 22 Colored Road Map, and Exhibit D. In there Opinion letter to the A .G. March 25, 1994. [ NCD 30 ] At page 14. Why did the TCA Lawyers not tell the TCA board of Directors: they would be violating the California Coastal Commission, Local Coastal Plan. Findings and Benefits to Orange County and its residents. In putting a toll on this LCP. By-Pass road call-outs. Or were they told to go ahead and take this LCP Traffic mitigation road anyway, by the TCA for collecting Million's of Toll Dollars, from the Public. With Governmental, body political help, in collecting a toll tax, legal our not. As documented in past contracts, and approved Coastal Findings?

Irvine Coast Development Agreement "Exhibit D." [Benefits to Orange County and its residents]

page. D-9 " Previously Exacted Benefits: The previously exacted public benefits to be received by County and its residents as a result of the project are described in more detail in the 1988 Local coastal Program, part one, chapter 2, entitled "Coastal Act Consistency and Overall Findings and Conclusions," Chapter 3," D. "Early construction of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard;"

page. D-10 "Transportation Improvements. Pelican Hill Road."------"Under the 1988 Local Coastal Program. Pelican Hill Road will be constructed at four lanes from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur instead of the two lanes provided for under the 1982 Land Use Plan"------"Relieves congestion on and allows for a significant diversion of traffic from Pacific Coast Highway and sections of MacArthur Boulevard by providing a bypass route around Corona Del Mar in Newport Beach,"

Pelican Hill Road Project Report
[ NCD 9 ] Approved IN Concept February, 1987
10 - 8 - 87 as signed.

page 24. " Pelican Hill Road project may ultimately be incorporated in to the transportation corridor" ---"For an urban freeway," Both roads were planned at this time as free to public use, a freeway, and Pelican Hills Road. Free roads connecting together was the plan in 1987.----- A toll road was not called out at this time.

The above are the by-pass road rights for the Public as documented. I have asked but never received a dated, factual document prior to the June 9, 1988 Development Agreement Contract. To answer the question of why we are required by law to pay this toll now. As a daily requiring fraud?

The: Attorney General, California Coastal Commission, and County of Orange. As Government Agencies. had a duty to bring out all information they knew, regarding the legality or non-legality of tolling Newport Coast Drive, in the A. G. Opinion. Their failure to do this. And conspiring, to paint a false picture in the opinion. Is also a fraudulent act.

E. >>> The: TCA, CCC, and A. G. FRAUDULENT MISINFORMATION <<<

In the "war years" after the above Development Agreement was signed, as a free standing Public Contract. The TCA. will certify they meet the CCC. LCP. And further mix facts with painted fiction, in implying a false picture of reality. In some documents they will generate. Regarding who has first road rights: a free by-pass road, or a toll road. The CCC Long Beach Office will generate their own totally false document. Citing on their San Diego Office letterhead, addressed to the city of Newport Beach, and then passed on to the A. G. Office, for their opinion. Arguing the coastal zone boundary is the controlling issue. Where a toll can be charged. Stating "where a toll is proposed is not in the coastal zone".
[ NCD A ] page 6. foot note 7. And which the A. G. uses in their opinion for denying any CCC. LCP. traffic mitigation findings. The California A. G. Office opinion is based on: orchestrated, manufactured, conclusion's, of fraud's.

Also the A. G. office should have recused themselves in doing this opinion, As lawyers for the CCC. In the first place, as a conflict of interest, as lead lawyers for the CCC. The California State Court's can not be trusted further [ NCD 29 ] [page 12. "( See 77 Ops. Cal. Att. Gen. 94 (1994).)" . This is the A. G. Opinion [ NCD A ] to make a ruling against their own State Government, Attorney General's Office.

[ look at A. above] Where in fact the A. G. Office fraudulently altered a clarification letter from Assemblyman Gilbert Ferguson, the head of the Little Hover Commission in Sacramento. There is a clear conflict of interest regarding any State Court ruling on this issue, against the California, Attorney Generals Office. In any way in the future regarding this issue.

In March 1994 TCA lawyers in a letter to the Attorney General regarding his up coming opinion, They write. "On October 17,1988. the County and the City members of the TCA amended the Joint Powers Agreement to exercise the power authorized by the legislature to impose and collect tolls on the Corridor."

[ NCD 30 ] page 4 regarding, " ( See Exhibit 3.) The amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement were adopted only after noticed public meetings in all agencies that were parties to the Joint

...continued, page 3

SECTIONS

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