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

[FNCD 26]

IRS NonProfit Tax Exemption Statement

SECTION II, page 4


Coast Findings, of the June 9. 1988 Development Agreement. [ NCD 1 ] I personally stopped reading, all their boiler plate documentation on reading their assurance statement, They were following the Irvine Coast LCP. How many other fact checker's did the same. by believing them at their word.?

On reading the TCA, Opinion letter to the A. G. dated march 25,1994
[ NCD 30 ] page 6. where the TCA states " The draft EIR/EIS and Final EIR also explicitly indicate that a toll booths would be constructed at the Pelican Hills Road (Newport Coast Drive interchange with the Corridor (draft EIR/EIS and final EIR Figure 2.5, see Exhibit 7)". On reading this I asked the A. G. office for a copy of this exhibit. The A. G. Office cover letter March 20, 1994 including TCA exhibit # 7. is copied at [ FNCD 5 ] I never found or read this signal page in the TCA. EIS. As I stopped reading it at page K. 3.--- As TCA. stated above. TCA "was following the Irvine Coast LCP".

This exhibit # 7. Is a snake eyed wiggle dotted line, the dots, mean "Ramp Toll Plaza on this the only page giving Public Toll Road Notice, for placing a toll on Newport Coast DR..By the snake eyed dotted line only. As I understand now, at this time. That the TCA was going to put a Toll on Newport Coast Drive. By showing a wiggle line ( "called out as figure 2.5" ) TCA further wrongly calls it out as Pelican Hills Road, The road was called out as Newport Coast Drive, at this time. From its opening in November of 1991. By the builders of this original By-Pass [ NCD 32 ] The Irvine Company, from PCH to MacArthur Boulevard. Did the TCA deliberately add confusion to those who would take the time to read through this EIS. And missing what this visual fraudulent " figure"snake eyed dotted line really meant. Why was their intention to put a toll on Newport Coast Drive not spelled out in clear words, what was their intentions. For not spelling it out, as required in a EIR or EIS?


In the A. G Opinion letter the TCA will call out a reply from the, Spyglass Hill Community Association [ NCD 30 ] page 6. "Comments from the public on their 1992 EIR/EIS indicating that the public well understood that the corridor included the collection of a toll at the proposed interchange with Pelican Hills Road and that the Corridor would replace a portion of Newport Coast Drive. The Spyglass Hill Community Association submitted comments on the draft EIR/EIS stating the Following:"

" The [i]nstallation of two toll booth will impact upon the Pelican Hills bypass route constructed by city of Newport [Beach] . . . . The bypass route [Pelican Hills Road] is to be usurped by the San Joaquin Corridor [and] will cause this newly constructed route to be abandoned by avoid Tolls"

The TCA is totally wrong in their self serving statement, "that the public well understood" The City of Newport Beach, did not "approve" or "build the by-pass route", As stated above. The real fact is that a member of the Spyglass Hill Community Association, found the, Snake eyed dotted line, and calling out the roads by a wrong name. And shown as the only notice in this EIS. document, a toll would be charged to use The by-pass route. They put the TCA on Formal Notice: they were not following, The "by-pass route". In the Irvine Coast LCP. That also " That The Public also Well Understood" In there comment reply letter to the TCA.

Newspapers, reported on this new free road earlier in 1991.
[ NCD 32 ] This is what the General Public really knew.


In the Irvine Coast Development Agreement [ NCD 1 ] at "Exhibit C. page 22. of, the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan Findings Of Approval And Supporting Documentation. " refers to "(see Exhibit 13 in the Executive Summary ) This is the Developer, The Irvine Companies TIC. Formal offer to the County of Orange, and California Coastal Commission, for a LCP. an County, Permit to build. Calling out road's and other mitigation's they will: give and build as Pelican Hills Road / Newport coast Drive.

At [ NCD 4 ] The Irvine Coast Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment Executive Summary page 22. calls out Pelican Hills Road Map in 1987 green fields with a yellow Pelican Hills Road, TIC. will pay for and build. As later the Irvine Company built, And opened in November of 1991. As a free by-pass road.

The TCA sites the LCP Findings, [ NCD 30 ] page 14 at top. stating "Moreover, the Development Agreement contemplated the construction of the Corridor on the approved alignment."

The corridor at this time was planned as: Highway or Freeway. As called out In written document's. And a clear visually colored road map photo as shown? ( is not a picture worth a thousand word's) Or ( or did the potential taking of millions of dollars from the public blur their eyes, in this fraud?)

TCA fails to understand the free LCP by-pass traffic mitigation for, Pelican Hills RD / Newport Coast Drive planning History from: January 19, 1982. [ NCD 2 ] And then finalized, Irvine Coast Development Agreement[ NCD 1 ] as approved, and recorded, on June 9. 1988. TCA desire to change the Corridor, in Orange County and the LCP. original plans for a: Freeway or Highway. With Their desire to Toll Newport Coast Drive. their desirers are Late. As the Irvine Coast Development Agreement, LCP Contract. was Signed, and Recorded first. Newport Coast Drive has first rights as a free road, As LCP traffic mitigation, for the public. From PCH. to MacArthur Boulevard, and agreed to by the County. [ NCD 24 ] exhibit A. page 2. and 3.

The TCA. A. G. opinion letter March 25, 1994 [ NCD 30 ] page 4. calls out their dated rights. " On October 17, 1988 the County and 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." They have no legal right in this late desire to move and put a toll on Newport Coast Drive. After its approval by Orange County, and the California Coastal Commission, both Government Agencies. Newport Coast Drive was originally built and opened on a different alignment to MacArthur Boulevard. TCA has no right at law, to alter the Irvine Coast Development Agreement. LCP Findings, as a recorded contract now, as signed on June 9. 1988.

Newport Coast Drive to MacArthur Boulevard, road development, and LCP. Road mitigation. found in these two additional, contract call out's:

1. [ FNCD 20 ] Newport Coast Second Amendment December 3, 1996.
pages,1-2.14, [ at bottom, unsupported excuse for toll on Newport Coast Drive? ] 1-4.18 1-4-19 map, and. 1-4.23

2. [ FNCD 20 ] Annexation Development Agreement Between The City Of Newport Beach And, The Irvine Company November 11, 2001.
pages, 193 c, 221 A. and 222 4.

In, The Irvine Company's, A. G Opinion letter April 1,1994. gives their background information to the A. G. office, for the opinion. With this key background history. [ NCD 18 ] page 2. "Subsequent to approval of the ICDA, as part of a plan to alleviate local and regional traffic, including traffic relief in Corona Del Mar, the County and the TCA, made the final determination that the plan could best be achieved if a portion of Newport Coast Drive, was connected to and made a part of the corridor. To finance the construction of the Corridor, the TCA determined that the corridor should be tolled and that a toll should be placed on Newport Coast Drive. 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." --------

[ ICDA, is the Irvine Coast Development Agreement. rdk]

It cannot be said any clearer than this statement. Your free by-pass road was taken from you for your toll tax payment DOLLARS to help pay off, the Toll Corridor for the TCA. And pay bond holders.

Note: The County or TCA cannot alter the original Contract rights found in the Irvine Coast LCP Findings, traffic mitigation as originally called out, for Newport Coast Drive alignment. The California Coastal Commission, And County of Orange, should have enforced the Irvine Coast LCP, Finding's. But they are the second & third, blind Rat, in this orchestrated . Fraud.

Its all about your Dollars to build and pay tolls, and not about enforcing the Coastal, LCP Findings, for our Public free by-pass road, As the Development Agreement originally called out. And now a memorialized

...continued, page 5


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