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
Coastal Commission for review. The Commission approved the Irvine Coast Land Use Plan and it was certified on January 19, 1982.
[ NCD 1 ] Irvine Coast Development Agreement, Approved. by The California Coastal Commission.
Exhibit C. "IRVINE COAST LOCAL COASTAL PLAN"--.page 22. ( see exhibit 13 in the Executive summary) Pelican Hill RD. / Newport Coast Drive, this is at [ NCD 4 ] page 22. exhibit 13. THIS IS THE BYPASS ROAD, FROM PCH TO MACARTHUR BOULEVARD. AS APPROVED, AND RECORDED, AS A PUBLIC CONTRACT, ON JUNE 9, 1988.
U >>> CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" <<<
"Conflicts-of interest, laws are grounded on the notion that government officials owe paramount loyalty to the public"
Some , A. G. Officials, fraudulently breached their fiduciary duties in : altering Assemblyman Gilbert Ferguson opinion request letter January 7, 1994. [ FNCD 6 ] by altering question 2. in deleting, this State agency, "California State Coastal Commission". And deleting all of question, 8. that asked: "During the process wherein these roads were abandoned and conveyed to the SJHT or subsequently, was or has there been any illegal attempt, by elected or appointed officials of the County or SJHT or their employees or agents, to hide or obfuscate the act from the public?".
Assemblyman Ferguson was again on point, in asking this direct question. But who would have believed the, California Attorney General’s Office, was a major player in this fraud, at this time?
Then in February 10, 1994 [ NCD 17 ] the A. G. Office, puts out for public review regarding: Opinion No. 93-1205
" We have a received a revised request from Assemblyman Gilbert Ferguson for an opinion of the Attorney General on the Following". Question 2. is altered, and question 8. totally deleted. This altered version is printed on State of California Department Of Justice A. G. letter head. Making this opinion a contrived, sham, fraudulent document, from it's start.
In Law its a conflict of interest for the A. G. office to do an opinion. Where their ruling is clearly supporting their own legal client. A Government agency, as here the "California Coastal Commission". Who they do lead legal work for.
The A. G. opinion, and negative, LCP Coastal, mitigation ruling is found in [ NCD A ] --at page 6. foot note seven. " 7 A separate aspect of this opinion concerns the local coastal program for the area of the Irvine Company's development and requirements imposed under the California Coastal Act of 1976. The commission's staff has determined that placing a toll booth at Newport Coast Drive will not violate any requirements imposed under the Coastal Act of 1976. We have been presented with no evidence or legal arguments requiring a contrary conclusion"
this major A. G legal ruling, is a deliberate fraud.
Now a separate issue by itself, A . G. Office Fraud requiring a separate, investigation. In a Federal Court of Law.
[ NCD 11 ] on running down this foot note I received this CCC. page with a note at the top from "Rod". Rodney O. Lilyquist Senior Assistant Attorney General, San Diego Office,. "Ron: I believe this is the letter we relied upon for footnote 7. ROD". In putting this totally FIXED: fraudulent, California Coastal Commission letter in play. As shown above.
In a latter letter to the new Coastal Commissioner. Dr Charles Lester, with a J. D. in Law. Putting him on notice of past fraudulent conflict of law, by his CCC. predecessor as commissioner on not taking action to correct this fraudulent, taking of public LCP. mitigation road rights.
[ FNCD 7 ] March 17, 2012. Still waiting for his reply letter, to correct this $ 49 Million Dollar +, and growing daily, in new Frauds, as Dollar's collected, daily.
V. >>> A. G. LAWYERS ALSO LAWYERS FOR THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION <<<
[ FNCD 14 ] Capitol Weekly April 30, 2009. Ronald A. Zumburn
"Not coincidently, the California Attorney General's Office, which represents the Coastal Commissioner. Imposed the fines and served a lawsuit against Ms, Kenny.
W. >>> THE GREAT RESPECT OUR STATE COURTS GIVE TO: A. G. OPINION'S <<<
[ FNCD 15 ] "State of California - Department of Justice. Office of the Attorney General. Kamala D. Harris. Legal Opinions & Quo Warranto".
"The formal legal opinions of the Attorney General have been accorded "great weight" by the courts"
[ NCD 29 ] " In The Court Of Appeal Of The State Of California Fourth Appellate District Division three FILED OCT 12 1999 G020843 (super Ct No 736471) OPINION. Here the Court rules on Newport Coast Drive Defense Fund, V. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor agency et al, the court states "The Judgment is affirmed." And on page 12. calling out, "(See 77Ops. Cal. Atty Gen.94 (1994).)" This is the Attorney Generals Original Opinion turning down any public LCP. By-Pass Road Mitigation Right's. for the Public. [ NCD A ] dated May 12, 1994 page 6. foot note 7
Then the Court writes on page 11. " Even if we could decipher NCDDF's argument, we would not."
The Court, could have just read NCDDF's Interrogatories. Eighty Six page's. Using County of Orange, own County Resolutions, as filed over the years relating to, Pelican Hill Rd/Newport Coast Drive, history
[ NCD 23 ] In understanding the truth of what was approved, and the Resolution date it was approved. and Nine more pages relating to: Plaintiff Newport Coast Drive Defense Fund's Responses To Defendant County Of Orange's Demand For Identification And Production Of Documents, Set One.
This is why we will ask for a Federal Court review and trial. As they are impartial to the California Attorney General's Office's of power, In California, State Court's. In their Federal, handling of fraudulent State Government issue's.
X. >>> A. G. OFFICE NEGATIVE REPLY TO NEWPORT COAST DRIVE LETTER AND DOCUMENTS, AND WEB SITE. www.NewportCoastDrive.Com JANUARY 16. 2008 <<< [ NCD 1 ]
Letter mailed to Dept of Justice A .G. Office in January 16. 2008. Asking for a "review".
On not receiving a reply. February of 2009. I mailed out "Public Records Act Request" for a reply on the detailed information given. March 3, 2009 received Department of Justice, reply. [ FNCD 16 ] ---"I have not found anything that would require us to reach a different view of the matter,"----- "we decline your request to revisit that opinion". signed Susan Duncan Lee, Supervising Attorney General.----- for Edmund G. Brown JR. Attorney General.
Now with these frauds and omissions out in the open. And with your financial donations, we will file in a Federal Court of Law.
Thank You All. Ron
Ronald Douglas Kennedy
...continued, page 6