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 III, page 1

Documented Arguments Against Tolling

N. >>> A. G. & TCA ANOMALIES. AT ASSEMBLYMAN FERGUSON PACIFIC CLUB PRE-OPINION MEETING. ENDING IN THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLYMAN, ASKING FOR AN OPINION <<<

The above Mr Damm letter [ NCD 11 ] may seem a careless, demurer statement by "the CCC commission's staff person" That in the last days found its way into the opinion, providing the ruling on the LCP free road question. [ NCD A ] At page 6 foot note 7. As passed on by MR. Damm On such an important Question. The CCC. Attorney's are also from the A. G. Office. A clear conflict of interest. From the start of the Opinion process the A. G Office set the pattern for the player's. In bending and abusing the law to fit their desired outcome. The A. G. here is using their own legal client the CCC. letter, to make the key LCP. denial ruling. And by a unknown. "Commission staff "?

The opinion process starts of with a hearing on December 8 1993 by California,Congressman Gilbert T. Ferguson, at the Pacific Club in Newport Beach [ NCD 14 ] he is hoping he can resolve the By-pass Road issue by having the principle player's talk out the issue, some of the attendees are listed at page 2. it was a standing room only hearing. To his right side by his special invitation was Ms. Olivia Maiser, Special Assistant to Attorney General Dan Lungren.

He opened the meeting with pleasantries to all, and asked all sitting at the Conference table to introduce themselves and their affiliation. His plan was for two beginning presentation's to be made: first by MR.Rob Thornton, TCA Legal Counsel, and "Ron Kennedy, past citizen member, of the, City of Newport Beach Traffic Committee" [your,writer of this document] then a general discussion.

Mr. Thornton presented his pile of boilerplate documents. Without a direct "tie" for their right to amend, the original Irvine Coast Development Agreement, or the "LCP Findings. [ As called out in document's, Now a Contract, calling out public free By-Pass Road mitigation rights, also as called out "visually" as shown on the Finding's road map.] [ NCD 4 ] page 22. Newport Coast Drive road map.

I presented : County of Orange, and California Coastal Commission LCP. Document's as my rebuttal. reading the face of the document, then reading key paragraphs. (As cited more fully in a later letter to the new Director of the CCC. [ FNCD 7 ] at page 1). On finishing Mr. Ferguson asked MR. Thornton point blank. "Are these documents, Kennedy presented True"?

Mr Thornton started pulling his documents into a pile and standing up, lifted them of the table, turned his back on Assemblyman. Ferguson and started walking out of the room not saying a word, as toll road supporters at the table were pleading with him to say something. [ A good Lawyer never lies to a direct question] As he reached the door Assemblyman Ferguson rose with a smile and turned to his right requesting of Ms Maiser. " I request an Attorney General Opinion". The meeting broke up and ended with the TCA Lawyer walking out of the room, without giving a reply. With his followers tailing behind.

O. >>> Ms OLIVIA MAISER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL DAN LUNGREN. HER ASSEMBLYMAN FERGUSON, MEETING REPORT NOW IS MISSING, OR DESTROYED ? >>>

Ms. Olivia Maiser: Report on Assemblyman Ferguson, Pacific Club meeting December 8 1993. For the Honorable Dan Lungren, is missing: hidden, lost, or destroyed, [ FNCD 18 ] Clearly not where it should be in the history file for Opinion No. 93-1205. she also made a request of some of the Documents I referred to In the meeting. For her report back to the, Attorney General, Dan Lungren . [ NCD 15 ]

the TCA had no answer's in 1993 to put forward. And Ms. Olivia Maiser, 1993 special report on the "meeting" is now missing?

The TCA still have: no legal answer's or right's to toll. Newport Coast Drive.

P. >>> ASSEMBLYMAN FERGUSON'S RESTATED CLARIFICATION LETTER FOR THE OPINION QUESTIONS, SHOWS THE CALIFORNIA A. G. OFFICE DELIBERATE & FRAUDULENT ACT, IN NOT FAITHFULLY REPRODUCING HIS FACTUAL QUESTION'S. FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. AS NOW PRINTED ON THEIR, REPLACEMENT A. G. LETTERHEAD <<<

The A. G. request for Opinion here will show five separate letter's
[ FNCD 8 ] [ 5. separate letters.]

In trying to show the unraveling, of this Solemn duty by the, A. G. Office, which they totally, fraudulently failed in. That also looks like a deliberate coordinated conspiracies with the California Coastal Commission. In setting up a fraudulent opinion answer, based on altering Assemblyman Ferguson's second question, and deleting all of question eight.

[1. of 5]. December 9. 1993 Opinion request "REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION AND LEGAL OPINION" At [ NCD 14 ] is a five page letter, explaining the Assemblyman reasons for an Opinion.

[2. of 5]. December 30, 1993 Notice to the public by the A. G. " to submit comments by the public" ---- "We have received a request from Assemblyman Gilbert Ferguson"

[3. of 5]. January 7, 1994 Assemblyman Ferguson letter "The matters in question are:" He shows eight, ( 8) clarification question's. Note: this original request is printed on the Assemblyman's Official blue letter head. The A. G. office did not accurately forward this letter to the public, for opinion comment's. [ I received this copy, / Discovered 3/23/2009 from the A. G. office as part of an email document download file]. A copy of his original letter [ FNCD 6 ]. now shows a clear Fraud by the A. G. Office in not, Answering all ,eight questions the Assemblyman asked. and faithfully sending it out, for public comment, as originally written. As now shown in the A. G. altered version dated, February 10, 1994. shown below here as exhibit # 5. --below.

[4. of 5]. January 8, 1994. Are my opinion comments to the A. G. in response to their December 30, A .G. request. shown at # 2. above. A copy of my 6. page reply to the A. G. Request is at. [ NCD 20 ]

[5. of 5]. February 10, 1994. also at [ NCD 17 ] From the A. G. Office "We have received a revised request from Assemblyman Gilbert Ferguson for an opinion" Now with seven, questions. Note: this "request" is now also printed on A. G. letter head. And question two, is altered. And all of question eight, has been deleted.-----This revised request is referring to Assemblyman Ferguson letter to the A. G. Office dated January 7, 1994 (at 3 of 5) above. And does not state the A. G. has deleted key parts of it, from the original letter, except for the two alterations, the rest is, word for word.

The A. G. office FRAUDULENTLY alter's: Question Two by deleting, "California State Coastal Commission". [and failing to state this agency defends the California Coastal Commission in Court as their lead Legal Lawyers.] This is a clear fraud for the Attorney General's Office to Delete " California Coastal Commission" and then do an opinion on a client CCC., agency they also represent as lead council in Court. It is a clear conflict of interest in doing the opinion. The A. G. Opinion is rendered worthless by this illegal act.

Especially In light of The A. G. Office Opinion, at foot note 7. [ NCD A ] page 6. foot note 7.

The critical importance of, California Coastal Commission, Local Coastal Plan for the Irvine Coast. And The Development Agreement, Local Coastal Plan LCP. Traffic By-Pass Mitigation Findings. Is totally denied at page 6 of their A. G. opinion, In their key denial foot note statement.

The only real question from day one. Is the LCP Findings a legally binding, road by-pass Mitigation. As called out in the. Irvine Coast Development Agreement. Recorded June, 9. 1988. with it's supporting document call outs, [ NCD A ] Section C. findings, and Section D. Benefits to the County and its Residents. And O. C. Resolution, No 88-537 dated April 20, 1998. in exhibit A page 2. Stating the Development agreement is the agreed "implementation mechanism" by the County And the Coastal Commission. The Development Agreement calls out the Law regarding the Project. and County And Coastal Commission, Are equally to use there office's and Laws to see it is faith fully carried out as agreed to on . June 9, 1988.

...continued, page 2

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