Website © 2014 Ronald Douglas Kennedy. All Rights Reserved. Site designed by Undisclosed
Pelican Hill Road
Irvine Coast Land Use Plan Amendment
Notes on Maps
and Text Exhibits
Pelican Hill Road/Newport Coast Drive OVERVIEW
Proposed Pelican Hill Road Alignment
Road shown going from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard
The Irvine Company grand opening of Newport Coast Drive
Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA)/Coastal Commission approval of realignment of Ford Rd.
A.G. asking for the CCC approval of TCA putting a Toll on Newport Coast Drive
Thomas map showing how the 73 toll road has consumed Newport Coast Drive, tolls fraudulently collected daily
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.)
December 19, 1980 City Of Newport Beach Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee
May 19, 1987 Draft Environmental Report For Pelican Hill Road Irvine Coast
Cover letter from A.G.’s Office regarding my request for a TCA Exhibit
San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency Ramp Transaction Summary, received from the TCA July 27, 2012
Cover letter from A.G.’s Office. This is TCA exhibit 7
January 7, 1994 Gilbert W. Ferguson Assemblyman Seventh District, Newport Beach. regarding his Opinion request.
March 17, 2012 letter to the honorable Dr. Charles Lester, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission
December 9, 1993. Gilbert W. Ferguson, Assemblyman Seventh District, Newport Beach—his first request for an A.G. Opinion
5/13/93 approved, California Coastal Commission: “Revised Proposed Findings”
December 20,1993 from Newport Beach Council Member for Corona Del Mar, writes to the Honorable Dan Lungren, Attorney General
California Coastal Commission letter April 27, 2012
6/26/92—TCA/LSA Associates, Inc.: Irvine Coast CDP (Coastal Development Permit) findings
Capitol Weekly: “The California Coastal Commission—Unrepentant Sinners”
State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General: Legal Opinions & Quo Warranto
March 3, 2009 letter from the A.G.’s Office
Letter to Department of Justice, December 4, 2012—still looking for the missing A.G. Maiser report
Orange County Resolution, NO. 82-598 Transportation Corridors Development Policy
Newport Coast Local Coastal Program, Second Amendment, December 3, 1996
Annexation and Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company, 11-08-2001
California Coastal Commission, August 18, 1995—Mr. Charles Damm, District Director, from the San Diego office
October 15, 1985. Resolution of The Board Of Supervisors of Orange County, California, Resolution No. 85-1477, Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program
April 20, 1988. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors, Orange County, No. 88-537
April 20, 1988. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors Orange County, Resolution No. 88-538
Powers Agreement." This is the TCA best evidence to their right to Toll, and defraud the public of $49,672,107 +. Their "amendment" is late and gives them absolutely no argument in law.
-----Our basic statement is: This TCA later October 17, 1988 document cited. Or any other later dated documents Cannot amend the earlier June 16, 1988 Irvine Coast Development Agreement, public contract, regarding the traffic By-Pas road, as called out. in sections C. LCP. Findings, and Section D. Public benefits. Or any other parts of this original June, contract agreement. Now the main Contract that protects our, Free public traffic rights, as called out in the LCP. Finding's mitigation rights. Also the state Legislature, Cannot alter California Coastal Commission, Development Agreement FINDING after given for a Local Coastal Plan, Signed and Dated Development Permit. TCA is late. And Legislature does not have powers here.
As the: Transportation Corridor Agency, County of Orange, California Coastal Commission, or California Attorney General Office. Do not show required L. C. P. Public Notice and Pubic Hearings to Amend the original LCP Findings of June 9, 1988. The Irvine Coast Development "Contract," is the controlling law. For free use of Newport Coast Drive. By-Pass Road rights, by the Public.
Also Orange County Resolution No 88-537 Certifying EIR NO 486 Irvine Coast Development. April 20, 1988. [ FNCD 24 ] page 2. " The Irvine Coast Development Agreement serves as an implementation mechanism for 'The Irvine Coast local Coastal Program ", adopted by the County"-------" and certified by the California Coastal Commission on January 14, 1988"-----. The Development Agreement is the Bible//.
F. >>> TCA. PRODUCED FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT, GIVEN TO A. G. IN THEIR OPINION RESPONSES, TRYING TO SHOW THEY HAVE TOLL ROAD RIGHTS IN 1982 <<<
In the March 25, 1994 TCA Opinion letter to the A. G [ NCD 30 ] at page 4. calls out (See Exhibit 3.)
Here is the complete Opinion exhibit TCA gave the A.G. Exhibit 3. as received under public record Act. request from the A. G. office. August 20, 2012. [ FNCD 3 ] [ this exhibit first 19 page section, basically is calling out the Bridge Fee Program, with the participating Cities agreeing in October & November of 1988.]
Next section totaling 43 pages starts with a one page Executive Summary
Bridge Fee program for San Joaquin Hills and Foothill/Eastern Corridors, Flood Control 1985 and (Revised by Transportation Corridor Agencies September 1988) Exhibit A. [ no wording or symbols of what this is from the 1985 Flood Control Program or 1989, revised by Transportation Corridor Agencies. page 4. Description of Corridor, " facilities necessary for collection of tolls." pages 27. to 35.
TCA. Then shows an Altered, O. C. Resolution No. 82-598 "Transportation Corridors Development Policy." trying to use a Two page. Orange County, Resolution 82 - 598 at page -29- dated 1982. and a series of five additional map's not dated, or , noted where they originally came from, it's obvious they are not all from the same, source document's. The map's at page's 34 & 35 showing a ----line going from PCH to the. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Are the TCA Lawyer's here implying to the Attorney General, this is how the Pelican Hills Road was planned, for collection of Tolls, as they date, As in using a 1982 exhibit?
[ Note: The 1982 County resolution would protect the road bed for the original plan, of a Highway or Freeway which was actually planned in 1982] Is the TCA trying to say they have some type of Toll right as far back as 1982, Which would be another clear fraud.
Here is a unaltered [ FNCD 19 ] complete three page fresh copy of O. C."Resolution 82-598 Transportation Corridors Development Policy. "This Instrument is A Correct Copy of The Original On File In This Office Attest page 3. (Dated:) 12/19/12" Susan Novak Clerk Of The Board", Orange County [blue ink seal signed by clerk Deputy.] [ FNCD 19 ] This unaltered original copy shows three pages, not two as the TCA exhibit shows. The page missing is page two. These two paragraph's were a problem and why page two was not shown in the TCA Resolution version, " 3. Construct arterial over crossings for internal arterials." and " 5. Participate, among other designated beneficiaries, in any established corridor development fee program."
Note: The TCA "Exhibit shows Roman # II. at top, which is not on the original.
And the other numbered Map's cited by the TCA in Exhibit 3, were not part of this original 1982 resolution, as Page 2 . @ 18. and Page 3. @ 7. It's all TCA make believe that there were, toll planning rights as far back as in 1982.
Was this effort designed, for those Government groups willing to sanction any fraudulent document's. As here for tolling a public road, for collecting toll dollars, from the public.
This Resolution 82 - 598, Does talk about a Fee Program at page 2. at line 18. and page three at line's 6. and 7. The fee program is to pay the Land Owners as TIC. for the lands which will be bought from them. And used for the Transportation Quarter in the future. ( here is separate resolution No. 85-147, by the O. C. Board of Supervisors [ FNCD 23 ] October 15, 1985. Bridge Fee Program page 2. line 13. and page talks about who and how much charged. for Corridor Building.)
NOTE: at the bottom of page 19 and top of page 20, Tolls are called out, in August 22, 1988. But this is two months after the Irvine Coast Development Agreement, Contract date. June 9, 1988 was agreed to by the County of Orange, California Coastal Commission and The Irvine Company, as recorded. And also giving the public LCP Findings , and O. C. By-pass traffic free road rights
This August 22, 1988 date is also called out in [ NCD 5A ] in a, "Irrevocable offer of Dedication"
Giving to the TCA the road bed, as originally given to Orange County, a LCP Permit and County development permit to build. In the Irvine Coast Development Agreement. Tolls are not called out in the Development Agreement, "Contract".
The Irvine Company, states [ NCD 18 ] In their A .G. opinion letter response, dated, April 1. 1994. On page 2. " However, at the time the company entered into the development agreement and agreed to construct and dedicate Newport Coast Drive, the decision to toll it had not been made." [ as signed - June 9, 1988 RDK.]
Here the A. G. Opinion Office is put on Notice by the land owner, builder of Pelican Hill / Newport Coast Drive. The road was built as a Public free road. for reducing traffic congestion on Pacific Coast Highway in Corona Del Mar and MacArthur Boulevard, for also reducing traffic congestion leading to their, major business and shopping center. Fashion Island.
The irrevocable offer of dedication is amended [ NCD 5B ] March 16, 1993. "In favor of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Agency. Page 4. 'Terms and conditions" bottom right, " upon the ability of Agency or its successor or designee to collect road way tolls" This toll statement does not amend the Original Irvine Coast Development Agreement Public Contract of June 9, 1988. LCP Mitigation Findings our any other part of this contract related to the Newport Coast Drive. By-Pass Road, Public rights.
G. >>> TCA. FRAUDULENT EIS. MISINFORMATION <<<
There was a full Environmental Impact Statement EIR/EIS. Federal requirement, for the Proposed Construction of State Route 73. done by the TCA in 1992. [ NCD 25 ] showing what they planned, inches thick. With public hearings, and letters mailed back to the TCA with Questions and Comments.
The question might be asked why was this problem not brought out and Corrected earlier by the TCA. our other Government agency's, or the public, in reading this voluminous document, comments on it?
The TCA. Fraudulently and clearly state's on page K - 3. " the corridor is consistent with the approved LCPs for Aliso Creek, Irvine Coast," This told me and possibly other fact checkers, the TCA was following the Irvine Coast Development Agreement Local Coastal Plan Section C. Irvine
...continued, page 4