Countywide : No Opinion Due on Newport Coast Drive

State Atty. Gen. Daniel E. Lungren has rejected a lawmaker’s request for a legal opinion on the fate of Newport Coast Drive, a portion of which will be converted into a toll road.

Assemblyman Gil Ferguson (R-Newport Beach) fired off an angry response to Lungren on Friday, complaining that the attorney general failed to address his bid for a full-scale investigation into possible malfeasance, not just a legal opinion on the fate of the disputed road.

“I want to know if there’s been any malfeasance here, and why no public hearings were . . . held before the county made a deal with the Transportation Corridor Agency that was buried in the bowels of an environmental impact study,” Ferguson said.

Two months ago, Ferguson requested a review by the attorney general’s office.

Corona del Mar and North Laguna residents rely on Newport Coast Drive for their daily commutes and to bypass traffic on Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard near Fashion Island.

But tollway officials contend that the San Joaquin Hills tollway needs the right of way occupied by a northern stretch of Newport Coast Drive. When completed, that section will cost drivers a 50-cent toll.

Some Corona del Mar residents believe the fee will discourage people from using the road, resulting in more traffic congestion on local streets.

The 15-mile, $1.1-billion tollway will connect the southern end of the Corona del Mar Freeway near John Wayne Airport with Interstate 5 near San Juan Capistrano.

Ferguson, whose legislation helped authorize toll roads in Orange County, nevertheless has argued that it’s illegal to take a public road and turn it into a toll road, at least without public hearings. As a result of the Newport Coast Drive controversy, he has introduced a bill that, in future cases, would require authorities to provide toll-free parallel routes.

Tollway officials contend that a free bypass will be built before the tollway opens.

In the letter to Ferguson, Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Rodney O. Lilyquist wrote that “responses are not prepared . . . to resolve factual disputes or to resolve conflicting inferences which may arise from certain facts.”