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 IV, page 4

TEXT NOTES, continued

 

paragraph Two. Regarding CCC, Damm statement's.

  1. " Newport Coast Drive becoming a toll road, once again our staff has reviewed the available information including your letter, and our conclusion is that we do not have jurisdiction over the matter."
  2. "The segment of Newport Coast Drive where the toll would be charged is not in the coastal zone."

This new fallacious, new think, denial argument by MR. Damm,  speaking for the CCC. And then is parroted to MR Ben Noland, Newport Beach
[ NCD 11 ] February 3, 1984 Then this finds its way to the A. J Office in San Diego Office Rodney Lilyquist  And "Rod use this statement  in the A. G. Opinion [ NCD A ]  page 6. foot note seven. Denying any LCP. callouts' or Findings connection's, by the California Coastal Commission, in calling out the By-Pass Road, connecting Pelican  Hills/ Newport Coast Drive, between PCH. and MacArthur Boulevard.

But earlier Mr. Damm, and CCC. documentation's.  Paint's a "Direct Tie" in text and visually, to them:

10-19-87. [ NCD 8 ]  CCC. Staff Report and Recommendations.

page 7. Pelican Hill Road--LCP land needs--D. Project Description 6.1 miles.( see exhibit 3).  [ NCD 4 ] page 22. green fields yellow road line.  page 15. Recreational Access Function-- "The 1987 LCP circulation improvements provide significant relief to the most congested links of the adjacent arterial System (primarily Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Blvd.)"------" In addition to relieving traffic on Pacific coast Highway during peak commute hours, the construction of Pelican Hill Road in particular will provide significant recreational access capacity by connecting inland area directly to Crystal Cove State Park (see Exhibit 13 in the executive summary) "  " Pelican Hill Road not only meets the requirements of Coastal Act Section 30250 but also furthers the policy concerns of Coastal ACT Section 30254 both by creating new recreational access capacity directly and by freeing up additional recreational access capacity on Pacific Coast Highway through the inland diversion effect."

12-3-87 [ NCD 12 ]  CCC.  To Commissioners and Interested Persons, from: Chuck Damm, District Director.

page 3.  Recreational Access Function. " The construction of Pelican Hill Road will provide significant recreational access benefits for inland residents by providing a new access route from inland residential areas to Crystal Cove State Park. Pursuant to the requirements of the approved Irvine Coast LCP,"

page 4.  " ( See Exhibit 13 in the Executive Summary)" ---- " Pelican Hill Road will provide significant new recreational access capacity. in this way, the construction of Pelican Hill Road not only meets the requirements of Coastal Act Section 30250 but also furthers the policy concerns of Coastal Act Section 30254 both by creating new recreational access--"

11- 19- 1987.  [ NCD 13 ]  CCC ,  To Commissioners and Interested Persons, From Chuck Damm, South Coast District Director.---County of Orange Irvine Coast Segment Local Coastal Program (LCP) Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program ---

page 22. " Pelican Hill Road , in Particular, Provides Regional Traffic Benefits in Excess of Project Needs,  The 1987 LCP circulation improvements provide significant relief to the most congested links of the arterial system (primarily Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur BLVD),  by ultimately diverting approximately 30% of existing traffic around this area via Pelican Hill Road--"  -----" ( see Exhibit 13 in the Executive Summary). "  The question is why this Map was not followed by: TCA, OC. CCC. and not enforced by the A. G. Office. Forcing the public to pay a toll to use the By-Pass Road. Was this Map not clear enough to understand. [ Map 1 ] or as called out "see Exhibit 13."  [ NCD 4 ]  exhibit after page 21.  It seem's a much clear representation of intent . then the TCA representation , for charging the public a toll for continuing to use Newport Coast drive . As the TCA shows in there EIS  for the Transportation Corridor in 1982 [ NCD 25 ]  TCA. snake eyed map Shown hear in [ Map 7 ]  I totally missed seeing this map. I stopped reading their EIS , When the TCA, Stated for the record, " the Corridor is consistent with the approved LCP's for Aliso Creek, Irvine Coast."

[ FNCD Notes 23 ]  October 15, 1985. Resolution of The Board Of Supervisors of Orange County, California

Resolution No. 85- 1477. Major Thoroughfare & Bridge Fee Program.

page 2. line 13. "Whereas, Section 7-9-316 of the Codified Ordnances of Orange County provides for the establishment of major thoroughfare and bridge construction fees to be paid by sub dividers and building permit applicants in the County of Orange;" page 3. Shows who would be paying these fees, and amounts. NO TOLLS are called out.

[ FNCD Notes 24 ]  April 20, 1988.  Resolution of the Board of Supervisors  Orange County No. 88-537.

page's 1. through 5. give background on: Irvine Coast Planed Community ---

EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FACTS ( 33 text page's )

page 2. The Irvine Coast Development Agreement serves as an implementation mechanism for "the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program" , adopted by the County of Orange Board of Superiors on December 2, 1987,  and certified by the California Coastal Commission on January 14,1988. Therefore, the primary objective of the Development Agreement is to assure completion of the project as described in  "The Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program." ---------------------------------------" 1. COUNTY OF ORANGE OBJECTIVES INCLUDE:

"Assurance that construction of Pelican Hill Road will occur early in the development phasing to accomplish the following:------------------- Relieve congestion on and allow for 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; "

page 3. six callouts,

4. "Provide early construction of four lanes of pelican Hill Road from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard."

6. "Achieve maximum compatibility with the preferred alignment of the future San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor."

page 6. " construction of Pelican Hill Road ( along with other project transportation provisions)" EIR,CEQA and LCP, callouts.

page 8. " construction of Pelican Hill Road will actually reduce average daily traffic on the surrounding arterials such as PCH. MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, even with the addition of project generated traffic to these facilities. Therefore, the transportation/circulation impacts associated with the proposed development are positive."  [ The fraudulent Toll road alters this rdk ]

page 9, " As stated above , the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program Plan will provide significant circulation benefits. the construction of Pelican Hill Road more than offsets Irvine Coast Traffic related impacts on PCH through the City---"

page 17. " The Irvine Coast Development Agreement provides a legal assurance that arterial roads will be phased with development this insure that excess capacity is created to redistribute traffic off already congested roads."

page. 20 "The implementation of LCP circulation requirements for the construction of Pelican Hill road and a fifth lane on PCH, in conjunction with project participation in the "Gap" fee program which will fund a sixth lane on PCH, "

page 24. 2. Feasibility of mitigation Measures and Project Environmental Effects In Relation to Overall Project Benefits.

"However , any impacts on Laguna Beach are more than offset by (a) the diversion of PCH traffic onto Pelican Hill

...continued, page 5

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