Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 89-69-Upheld PC/staff-Apprvd self-serv gas station/co LOW'8 LIQUOR STORE & ROBERT ALFRED HENDER90N 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 December 06, 1990 MEMORANDUM FOR/ROUTE TO: [Sent Via Mailgram] Connie Brockway, Council Secretary [Primary Addressee] Herb Fauland, Planning Department Mike Adams, Planning Department Mr. Uberraga, City Administrator Mr. Choi Chong Soo 14928 Springdale Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Mailgram Charges Tot C7143 893-7757 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Please be advised that as of the date appearing above, Robert Henderson has resumed business representation of Low's Liquor & Convenience Market at 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647, in the matter of and reappeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69, and that our scheduled Huntington Beach City Council appearance on December 17, 1990, should be returned to calendar as an agenda item for that meeting. We regret any inconvenience that this reversal may have caused, but a substantial error in communication resulted in 11 crcmC6&d signals between parties. F Ra L w's Liquo Store & Convenience Market 4 BE NDER ON — Bu nessperson X2 -i ::4 x 3 / n i 1 �� ziOJil/V+�K ✓"�`� �, �pA��1 �: m m C7 r- � T O Page 1 , December 08, 1990 Telephone C7143 893-7757 FILEDs #18/S00-L.PW i v C 10 GEC tl) U7 � r4 N v •o W o !, In Greetings A tsi. � 0in I �n -1 iL n Im C] 4 ►� Im E j N O tV E X n A A M t' A rl 00 j ,p m p 000002 Q d in a 0' CITY OF HUNT I NSTON BEACH U m U) .0 G g 0 2000 Main Street p m m n pn z Huntington Beach CA U) G. 0 Z CI n N 92647 C 5` Ix W Ln 0 n (p j suite 'B' n Z CJ .Y En Ui U7 U) 4 wCr +6J » U • TtnJuuuu -- FH CHOI CHONG SOD dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 I November 28, 1990 x c0 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH c/o Ms Connie Brockway, City Clerk - 2000 Main Street Cn ' o Huntington Beach, CA 92648 =a Yt Dear Members Of The City Council , Attached to my letter you will find an appeal against Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69, a matter of grave and potentially injurious nature to myself and other businesses located in this small shopping center located at the NorthEast corner of the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues. While I realize that this matter has come before yourselves on a prior occasion, it is the opinion of many residents and fellow businesspersons that this concept was ram-rodded through, with the appeal process prior to this point merely a nodding gesture. Certainly UNOCAL has not made ANY point or argument for the continuance of the CUP, while many-many residents and business owner/operators have openly discussed their great opposition for a number of very valid reasons. It will be appreciated if you will acquiesce in granting a reopening of this CUP Appeal Process, and permit those most affected -by the CUP to prepare adequately for presentation, and that you instruct Huntington Beach Planning Staff to conduct the requested studies that you ordered during the meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council on September 17, 1990. Your patience and cooperation are very much appreciated, and in taking appropriate action in the best interest of many of your constituents will not go unrewarded. Respectfully, CHOI CHONG S00 � - Owner/Operator Low's Liquor Store & Convenience Market Address As Above Page 1 , November 28, 1990 Telephone C7143 693-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-L.PW FH CHOI CHONG SOD dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 M FEE UU FEE ST TO FZEOPEIV APPEAL PFtOGESS F;tEGAF;tD I NG C _ U _ P _ 4#89—Ea9 " CONSTF;�UCT SELF—S FEE FtV ICE C3AS ST"AT I ON W I TH COIVVEIV I EIVCE MAF;tICET Sc CAF3WASH " My name is Choi Chong Soo, I am the owner, lessee and operator of Low's Liquor Store and Convenience Market at 14928 Springdale Street (intersection of Balsa & Springdale Avenues, ) for which my leasehold obligation continues until the year 2009. On September 17, 1990, I appeared before the Huntington Beach City Council to appeal the granting of Huntington Beach Conditional Use (Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89- 69, which seemingly appeared to be a neutral request -upon casual review - of a major oil company and it 's local interest, Ince and Associates. Because of a "less than comprehensive" understanding and knowledge of English and more importantly the processes under which "Conditional Use Permits" are granted within the City of my business and residence, I did not initially act in a forthright and timely manner in reacting to the request for the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89- 69) . Once the seriousness of this granting came to bear upon myself did I realize that I must seek to enjoin the granting of the aforementioned Huntington Beach Conditional Use #89-69 so that I will not be forced from business by the establishment of an "almost identical " operation less than Page 1 , November 27, 1990 \ Telephone [7143 693-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW } ... . . ... .... . .. .. ... . . CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 50' from my front doors. The proposal of which I request a reopening of appeal grants a conditional use variance against a C-2 zoning, wherein a self-service UNOCAL gasoline station may be "demolished" so as to permit the building of another "self- service" UNOCAL gasoline station in same co-occupancy with a UNOCAL mini-market and UNOCAL car wash. This request to reopen the appeal process is based upon several and varied factors, not withstanding that the current land use has been a UNOCAL gasoline station for more than 20+ years, and that it has undergone SUBSTANTIAL remodelization several times in the last 5-years alone. It is an unconscionable abuse of building permits, conditional uses and variances to allow a business, to restructure itself without regard to the nature or characteristic of surrounding businesses. It is gravely unconscionable, somewhere in the range of "incredible" to believe that the City Of Huntington Beach would even consider granting a Huntington Beach Conditional Use #89-69 to a business which simply emulates at least four other businesses less than 50' from their proposed self-serve market; perhaps the City would grant a permit for all the service, beverage and foodservice establishments in the center at NorthEast Springdale & Bolsa to sell self- service gasoline. Depending upon your vision, you may see that request before your distinguished council ; perhaps when that occurs, should it ever, you will find yourself in a "Catch 22" situation. Page 2, November 27, 1990 Telephone C7143 693-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW CHOI CHONO SOD dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Among the most obvious objections to your continued authorization of Huntington beach Conditional Use #89-69, and your rejection of my first appeal , are the following: 1. 3 The applicant of the Huntington beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 at this location has asked for, and received many, many zoning variances over the last 20+ years as verified by City records contained in the planning department. (Since 1981 there have been a total of eight E87 variances and CUP"s. ) This is not a single incident, but rather an ongoing pattern and history of variance abusement wherein the City Of Huntington beach has either willingly or unwittingly became the dupe of yet another major oil company. 2. 3 The ability of the original appellant to the initial Huntington beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 granting, myself , was diminished by a misunderstanding of the nature of the wording of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69, and I was misled as to the implications of which the Huntington beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 would impact upon myself and my family owned business. No effort was made by the City Of Huntington beach to gauge the impact of this Huntington beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 on the local neighborhoods, nor on the financial impact this competing business would have on other local businesses. At the time of the original hearing on the Huntington beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69, insufficient advance notice was provided to the businesses forming the perimeters of the two strip Page 3, November 27, 1990 Telephone E7143 893-7757 FILED: #17/800-O.PW CHOI CHONG SOD dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 centers which go East and North adjacently from the location of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 obtainee. EVEN ON THE OCCASION OF THE INITIAL APPEAL OF THIS Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69, the necessary mailing labels supposedly already in possession of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 applicant and city clerk, were mysteriously delayed from use, creating a VOID in continuous public involvement and outcry. There exists an ongoing question why these preexisting labels were not readily available, and why the list finally furnished appeared to be a patchwork of addresses falling within the 300' rule, and not a list of typically furnished County Assessor datum. Additionally, as NO southbound access is available from Springdale into the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 location, all access must derive itself from ONLY northbound Springdale, or from ONLY westbound Bolsa Avenues. The only other alternative to access to this proposed modified use is through "cross cutting" the northernmost private common parking areas, making an illegal left turn across an area clearly marked with DOUBLE yellow lines. 3. 3 Since 1981 the occupant at the subject Huntington Beach. Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 address has asked for, and received, 8 zoning changes since 1981 , all in the exact same site. 4. 1 At the last appeal hearing, more than 200 individually signed "opposing" petitions to this Huntington Beach Page 4, November 27, 1990 Telephone C7143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SO0-G.PW CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 were presented to the City Clerk, Ms Connie Brockway. These opposing petitions represented the outpouring of the negative opinion of local residents and businesspersons or businessowners concerns over the nature and circumstance of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69. In addition to these petitions by adjacent businesses and homeowners, the property owners of the strip centers to the North and East of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 site also signed petitions categorically in opposition to this proposed use modification, and indicating that their "reciprocal opposition" to the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 might necessitate a remodeling of landscaping and planters in such a way as to impede the use of their parking lot areas as thoroughfares to and from the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 applicants location. 5. 1 At NO TIME during the application or appeal process has any study been conducted by the City Of Huntington Beach with regard to noise pollution, traffic impairment or impact, general street access, and the like. During the original appeal , Council had asked staff to conduct traffic and noise measurements in and around the location 'of this Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69. To date, and to the best of my knowledge, no such supplemental impact studies have been conducted, and the applicant of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 has merely proceeded as though nothing need more to be done to address it 's own council Page 5, November 27, 1990 Telephone [7143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW CHOI CHONG BOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 inquiries and council instructions. 6. 1 During the initial appeal , statements were made by Staff as to the effect that "egress and ingress" into this landlocked strip center was without question between the three owners of property situated on this "L" shaped parcel at the NorthEast corner of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues. There exists NO reciprocal egress or ingress, or parking relationship between UNOCAL and the two other property owners of the center. Copies of their signed petitions showing opposition to this Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 are attached herewith. 7. 3 At the initial appeal hearing, Council was denied a thorough briefing on the site plan, analysis of traffic flow (for which there is none,) nor any other meaningful briefing upon which to base their decision. 8. 3 While it is not my contention that Huntington Beach is an "oil town, " it certainly seems that oil companies have their way with just about anything they want to in this City, including the wetlands, the bluffs, Seacliff , Holly Sugar and the like. The tragedy of the oil Spill Off of the bluffs shows the careless disregard of oil interests for anyone or entity other than themselves. 9. 3 At the initial appeal hearing, a speaker was "denied" the opportunity to make a presentation simply because the rules of "scheduling, calendaring and registration" with the Sergeant Of Arms were not meticulously followed. 10. 3 I request that the city council instruct the clerk of Page 6, November 27, 1990 Telephone C7143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW CHOI CHONG SOD dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 the city to photocopy all existing petitions now in the possession of the city, and to return the originally signed petitions so that they may be logged into our records, and that additional signed business and citizen petitions may be added to this demonstration of general and specific opposition to the subject Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69. At the original appeal hearing the only representative of either Ince & Associates or UNOCAL took less than two minutes to respond to the outcrying of hundreds of residents and numerous businesses in written and verbal opposition to the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69. I request the cooperation of the Huntington Beach City Council in permitting the reopening of the appeal against CUP, and that the council instruct staff to conduct already requested studies of them, and that all demolition, remodeling, modification and rennovation to the aforementioned site at 14972 Springdale Street, known commercially as a UNOCAL "self-service" gasoline station, be placed on hold pending the additional and sizeable demonstration of opposition during a regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council , before the residents and business owner/operators who are in fierce opposition to it 's granting and continuance. My address appears at the top of this request, my business telephone number is 17143 893-7757, and my home is [7141 895-3912. I have asked a customer of mine to assist in Page 7, November 27, 1990 Telephone E7143 893-7757 FILED: #17/800-G.PW CHOI . CHONG SOD dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 communicating with yourselves; his name is Mr. Robert Henderson. Respectfully submitted to the Huntington Beach City Council on November 28, 1990, at Huntington Beach City Hall , Huntington Beach, California, County Of Orange, California. ----- -N--- CHOI CHONG SOO Dated, 11-28-1990 @ Huntington Beach, CA Page B. November 27, 1990 Telephone E7143 893-7757 FILED: #17/S00-G.PW Page 6 - Regular Council/Agency Minutes - 9/17/90 (City Council) APPEAL FILED BY CHOI SOO- - DENIED - PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION UPHELD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 89-69 - APPROVED (CONSTRUCT NEW SELF-SERVICE GAS STATION WITH CONVENIENCE MARKET AND CARWASH) - INCE & ASSOCIATES (420.40) -- a The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour s.et for a public hearing to _ consider the following: APPLICATION NUMBER: lConditional Use Permit No. 89-69 APPELLANT: Choi. Chong Soo APPLICANT: Ince & Associates LOCATION: 14972 Springdale Street (northeast corner of Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue) ZONE: C2 (Community Business District) RE UE T: To demolish .an existing self service gas station and permit the construction of a new 1 ,700 square foot self service gas station with convenience market and carwash. The proposal does not include the , sale of alcoholic beverages. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk' s Office by staff had been mailed, published, and posted. No communications or written protests were received on the matter. The Community Development Director presented a staff report. The City Clerk stated there had been three sets of informal petitions bearing approximately 56 signatures of persons in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. She stated later in the meeting that the additional signatures she had received totaled 200 instead of 56. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Choi Chong Soo, appellant, spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. He stated the proposed convenience market would infringe on his family busi.ness. Don Weiler spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. He stated he did not believe a certificate of occupation should be issued for the proposed market since it would be in front of Mr. Soo' s establishment. Robert Henderson presented a an informal petition bearing approximately 56 signatures of persons in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. Paul Flynn spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. != Tufan Ince, representing the developer, stated Unical had complied with � Y Huntington Beach regulations and that he was present to answer questions. Gordon Phillips stated he lives 50 feet from the proposed carwash and that he is opposed to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 because of the noise, polution, g and traffic impact he believed it would cause. 0 VOW I S L• MOR 14928 SPRINGDALE ST HUNTINGTUN EEACN .CA '92647' 1-0116903343 12/09/90 ICS IPMRNCZ CSP SNAA 7148920298 MGMB TDRN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 85 12009 0957P' ES • T - • • CONNIE BROCKWAY 2000 MAIN' ST HUNTINGTUN" BEACH CA 92648 • i • PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT AS''OF THE DATE APPEARING ABOVE', 'ROBERT HENDERSON HAS RESUMED BUSINESS REPRESENTATION OF .LOW 'S LIQUOR AND i CONVENIENCE MARKET AT 14928 SPRINGDALE' STREETp HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92647, IN THE MATTER OF AND REAPPEAL' OF :CONDITONAVUSE; PERMIT 469-69, AND THAT OUR SCHEDULED HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL° APPEARANCE UN DECEMBER 17TH, 1990 SHOULD BE RETRUNED - TO .CALENDER AS AN AGENDA- FOR THAT MEETING. FOROLOW ' S LIQUOR STORE AND 8 CONVENIENCE MARKET 0 R08ERT ' A HENDERSUN • BUSINESSPERSON- 0 21157 EST • MGMCOMF 0 0 0 • O c CID mq • Cam' -�NFri N T n cJbco r m 0 g• v N 100 To reply by Mailgram Message,see reverse side for Western Union's toll-free numbers. N�';i �' { 1------ `. �`.. � � r ��� - � l ,, - � • • ! 1 � , . � I � � �� i � 1 � ' f �� � � � -- - �' � • r � 1 `�__ •. • � � _ • � ' • • I � � i � � i � ���; � aam � � ra • 3 °° � me am i • � s i y CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Michael Uberuaga From Connie Brockway City Administrator City Clerk Subject Letter from Mr. Choi Chong Soo Date December 10, 1990 (Delivered by Mr. Robert Henderson) Last week Mr. Henderson gave the City Clerk's Office the attached communication from Mr. Soo requesting to reopen the appeal process on Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. He requested to appear under the Public Comments section of the agenda. Mr. Henderson brought the letter to the office signed by Mr. Soo. Later, Mr. Henderson called saying he did not wish to appear on the agenda. However, as Mr. Soo signed the letter, not Mr. Henderson, I am transmitting it for your information. Regarding the public hearing on CUP 89-69, see minutes of 9/17/90 meeting attached. CC: Mayor and City Councilmembers City Attorney Community Development Director Mr. Choi Chong Soo 12/11/90 Mr. Henderson's telegram (attached) changing his mind was received today. I am attemptimg to reach Mr. Henderson to inform him that the agenda deadline is past. 0994K ` t--o w is L• rtf ttR ti 14928 SPRINGDALE 5T HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92847 1-0116906343 12/09/90 ICS IPMRNCZ CSP SNAA 7148020298 MGMB TDRN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 85 12,09 0957P EST CONNIE BROCKWAY 2000 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92848 <r� PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT AS OF THE DATE APPEARING ABOVE, ROBERT HENDERSON HAS RESUMED BUSINESS REPRESENTATION OF LOWIS LIQUOR AND CONVENIENCE MARKET AT 14928 SPRINGOALE STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92647, III THE MATTER OF AND REAPPEAL OF .CONDITONAL USE PERMIT #69w69 , AND THAT OUR SCHEDULED HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ,,- APPEARANCE ON DECEMBER 17TH, 1990 SHOULD BE RETRUNED TO CALENDER AS AN AGENUA FOR THAT MEETING. FORILOW ' S LIQUOR STORE AND & CONVENIENCE MARKET ROBERT ' A HENDER_ SUN y BUSINL5SPERSON ,. 21157 EST MGMCOMP D rC {, : Ci C= Ij n 0 j t V To reply by Mailgram Message,see reverse side for Western Union's toll-free numbers. FH CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET ' 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 November 28, 1990 z _. • `ice, HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH _a m c/o Ms Connie Brockway, City Clerk , r, 2000 Main Street ` ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 , Dear Members Of The City Council , Attached to my letter you will find an appeal against Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69, a matter of grave and potentially injurious nature to. myself and other businesses located in this small shopping center located at the NorthEast corner of the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues. While I realize that this matter has come before yourselves on a prior occasion, it is the opinion of many residents and fellow businesspersons that this concept was ram-rodded through, with the appeal process prior to this point merely a nodding gesture. Certainly UNOCAL has not made ANY point or argument for the continuance of the CUP, while many-many residents and business owner/operators have openly discussed their great opposition for a number of very valid reasons. It will be appreciated if you will acquiesce in granting a reopening of this CUP Appeal Process, and permit those most affected •by the CUP to prepare adequately for presentation, and that you instruct Huntington Beach Planning Staff to conduct the requested studies that you ordered during the meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council on September 17, 1990. Your patience and cooperation are very much appreciated, and in taking appropriate action in the best interest of many of your constituents will not go unrewarded. Respectfully, CHOI CHONG SOO Owner/Operator Low 's Liquor Store & Convenience Market Address As Above Page 1 , November 28, 1990 Telephone 17143 893-7757 FILED: #17/S00-L.PW FH CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 F7EQUEST TCl F;ZECIF''EIV APF=11 FEE AL PF2C3CESS F:ZEGAFID I NG C . U _ F" _ ##89-69 " CCINSTFRUCT S FEE LF=—SEF:ZV I CE GAS STAT I C3 P4 W I TH CCl1VWEh! I EIrJCE MAF;ZICET Se CARWockSH " My name is Choi Chong Soo, I am the owner, lessee and operator of Low's Liquor Store and Convenience Market at 14928 Springdale Street (intersection of Bolsa & Springdale Avenues, ) for which my leasehold obligation continues until the year 2009. On September 177 19909 I appeared before the Huntington Beach City Council to appeal the granting of Huntington Beach Conditional Use (Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89- 69, which seemingly appeared to be a neutral request -upon casual review - of a major oil company and it 's local interest, Ince and Associates. Because of a "less than comprehensive" understanding and knowledge of English and more importantly the processes under which "Conditional Use Permits" are granted within the City of my business and residence, I did not initially act in a forthright and timely manner in reacting to the request for the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89- 69) . Once the seriousness of: this granting came to bear upon myself did I realize that I must seek to enjoin the granting of the aforementioned Huntington Beach Conditional Use #89-69 so that I will not be forced from business by the establishment of an "almost identical " operation less than . Page 1 , November 27, 1990 Telephone [7143 893-7757 FILED: #17/900-G.PW CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Bleach, CA 92647 50' from my front doors. The proposal of which I request a reopening of appeal grants a conditional use variance against a C-2 zoning, wherein a self-service UNOCAL gasoline station may be "demolished" so as to permit the building of another "self- service" UNOCAL gasoline station in same co-occupancy with a UNOCAL mini-market and UNOCAL car wash. This request to reopen the appeal process is based upon several and varied factors, not withstanding that the current land use has been a UNOCAL gasoline station for more than 20+ years, and that it has undergone SUBSTANTIAL remodelization several times in the last 5-years alone. It is an unconscionable abuse of building permits, conditional uses and variances to allow a business, to restructure itself without regard to the nature or characteristic of surrounding businesses. It is gravely unconscionable, somewhere in the range of "incredible" to believe that the City Of Huntington Beach would even consider granting a Huntington Beach Conditional Use #89-69 to a business which simply emulates at least four other businesses less than 50 ' from their proposed self-serve market; perhaps the City would grant a permit for all the service, beverage and foodservice establishments in the center at NorthEast Springdale & Bolsa to sell self- service gasoline. Depending upon your vision, you may see that request .before your distinguished council ; perhaps when that occurs, should it ever, you will find yourself in a "Catch 22" situation. Page 2, November 27, 1990 Telephone [7143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW CHOI CHONG SOD dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Among the most obvious objections to your continued authorization of Huntington Beach Conditional Use #89-69, and your rejection of my first appeal , are the following: 1 . 1 The applicant of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 at this location has asked for , and received many, many zoning variances over the last 20+ years as verified by City records contained in the planning department. (Since 1981 there have been a total of eight 181 variances and CUP 'S. ) This is not a single incident, but rather an ongoing pattern and history of variance abasement wherein the City Of Huntington Beach has either willingly or unwittingly became the dupe of yet another major oil company. 2. 3 The ability of the original appellant to the initial Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 granting, myself , was diminished by a misunderstanding of the nature of the wording of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89769, and I was misled as to the implications of which the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP.) #89-69 would impact upon myself and my family owned business. No effort was made by the City Of Huntington Beach to gauge the impact of this Huntington Beach. Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 on the local neighborhoods, nor on the financial impact this competing business would have on other local businesses. At the time of the original hearing on the Huntington ,Beach Conditional Use- (CUP) #99-69, insufficient advance notice was provided to the businesses forming -the perimeters - of the two strip Page 3, November 27, 1990 Telephone 17143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 centers which go East and North adjacently from the location of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 obtainee. EVEN ON THE OCCASION OF THE INITIAL APPEAL OF THIS Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69, the necessary mailing labels supposedly already in possession of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 applicant and city clerk , were mysteriously delayed from use, creating a VOID in continuous public involvement and outcry. There exists an ongoing question why these preexisting labels were not readily available, and why the list finally furnished appeared to be a patchwork of addresses falling within the 3`=' rule, and not a list of typically furnished County Assessor datum. Additionally, as NO southbound access is available from Springdale into the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89=69 location, all access must derive itself from ONLY northbound Springdale, or from ONLY westbound Bolsa Avenues. The only other alternative to access to this proposed modified use is through "cross- cutting" the northernmost private common parking areas; making an illegal left turn across an area clearly marked with DOUBLE yellow lines. �. ] Since 1981 the occupant at the subject Huntington beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 address has asked for, and received, 8 zoning changes since 1981 , all in the exact same site. 4. 1 At the last appeal hearing, more than 200 individually signed "opposing" petitions to: this Huntington Beach Page 4, November 27, 1990 Telephone 17143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 were presented to the City Clerk, Ms Connie Brockway. These opposing petitions represented the outpouring of the negative opinion of local residents and businesspersons or businessowners concerns over the nature and circumstance of the Huntington beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69. In addition to these petitions by adjacent businesses and homeowners, the property owners of the strip centers to the North and East of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 site also signed petitions categorically in opposition to this proposed use modification, and indicating that their "reciprocal opposition" to the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 might necessitate a remodeling of landscaping and planters in such a way as to impede the use of their parking lot areas as thoroughfares to and from the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 applicants location. 5. 1 At NO TIME during the application or appeal process has any study been conducted by the City Of Huntington Beach with regard to noise pollution, traffic impairment or impact , general street access, and the like. During the original appeal , Council had asked staff to conduct traffic and noise measurements in and around the location of this Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69. To date, and to the best of my knowledge, no such supplemental impact studies have been conducted , and the applicant of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 has merely proceeded as though nothing need more to be done to address it 's own .council Page 5, November 27, 1990 Telephone [7143 893-7757 FILED: #17/S00-G.PW CHOI CHONG BOO dba LOWS LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 inquiries and council instructions. 6. 1 During the initial appeal , statements were made by Staff as to the effect that "egress and ingress" into this landlocked strip center was without question between the three owners of property situated on this "L" shaped parcel at the NorthEast corner of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues. There exists NO reciprocal egress or ingress, or parking relationship between UNOCAL and the two other property owners of the center. Copies of their signed petitions showing opposition to this Huntington Beach Conditional Use. (CUP) #89-69 are attached herewith. 7. 1 At the initial appeal hearing, Council was denied a thorough briefing on the site plan , analysis of traffic flow (for which there is none, ) nor any other meaningful briefing upon which to base their decision. 8. 1 While it is not my contention that Huntington Beach is an "oil town, " it certainly seems that oil companies have their way with just about anything they want to in this City, , including the wetlands, the bluffs, Seacliff , Holly Sugar And the like. The tragedy of the oil spill off of the bluffs shows the careless disregard of ❑il interests for anyone or entity other than themselves.' 9. 1 At the initial appeal hearing, a speaker was "denied" the opportunity to make a presentation simply because the rules of "scheduling, calendaring and registration" with the Sergeant Of Arms were not meticulously followed. 10. 1 I request that the city council instruct the clerk of . Page 6, November 27, 1990 Telephone [7143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 the city to photocopy all existing petitions now in the possession of the city, and t❑ return the originally signed petitions so that they may be logged into our records, and that additional signed business and citizen petitions may be added to this demonstration of general and specific opposition to the subject Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69. At the original appeal hearing the only representative of either Ince & Associates or UNOCAL took less than two minutes to respond to the outcrying of hundreds of residents and numerous businesses in written and verbal opposition to the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69. I request the cooperation of the Huntington Beach City Council in .permitting the reopening of the appeal against CUP, and that the council instruct staff to conduct already requested studies of them, and that all demolition, remodeling, modification and rennovation to the aforementioned site at 14972 Springdale Street, known. commercially as a UNOCAL "self-service" gasoline station, be placed on hold pending the additional and sizeable demonstration of opposition during a regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council , before the residents and business owner/operators who are in fierce opposition t❑ it 's- granting and continuance. My address appears at the top of this request, my business telephone number is 17143 893-7757, and my home is C7141 895-3812. I have asked a customer of mine to assist in Page 7, November 27, 1990 Telephone C7143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 communicating with yourselves; his name is Mr. Robert Henderson. Respectfully submitted to the Huntington Beach City Council on November 28, 1990, at Huntington Beach City Hall , Huntington Beach, California, County Of Orange, California. ---- X- - - ��---X_�f�_ --_ ---- - ----�-- CHOI CHONG SOO Dated, 11-28-1990 C Huntington Beach, CA Page 8, November 27, 1990 Telephone 17143 893-7757 FILED: #17/S00-G.PW Page 6 - Regular Council /Agency Minutes - 9/17/90 (City Council) APPEAL FILED BY CHOI SOO - DENIED - PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION UPHELD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-69 - APPROVED (CONSTRUCT NEW - _ SELF-SERVICE GAS STATION WITH CONVENIENCE MARKET AND CARWASH) - INCE & ASSOCIATES (420.40) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the following: APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 APPELLANT: Choi Chong Soo APPLICANT: Ince & Associates LOCATION: 14972 Springdale Street (northeast corner of Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue) ZONE: C2 (Community Business District) RE UE T: To demolish an existing self service gas station and permit the construction of a new 1 ,700 square foot self service gas station with convenience market and carwash. The proposal does not include the sale of alcoholic beverages . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk' s Office by staff had been mailed, published, and posted. No communications or written protests were received on the matter. The Community Development Director presented a staff report. The City Clerk stated there had been three sets of informal petitions bearing approximately 56 signatures of persons in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. She stated later in the meeting that the additional signatures she had received totaled 200 instead of 56. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Choi Chong Soo, appellant , spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. He stated the proposed convenience market would infringe on his family business . Don Weiler spoke in opposition to Conditional Use _Permit No. 89-69. He stated he did not believe a certificate of occupation should be issued for the proposed market since it would be in front of Mr. Soo' s establishment. Robert Henderson presented a an informal petition bearing approximately 56 signatures of persons in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. Paul Flynn spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. Tufan Ince, representing the developer, -stated Unical had complied with Huntington Beach regulations and that he was .present to answer questions. Gordon Phillips stated he lives 50 feet from the proposed carwash and that he is opposed to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 because of the noise, polution, g and traffic impact he believed it would cause. Page 7 - Regular Council /Agency Minutes - 9/17/90 In answer to Councilman Green' s inquiry, Gordon Phillips stated he believed people would be using the tract he lives in for convenience. Elsie Phillips stated she be-tieved that in order for people to miss the a s traffic light at Springdale, the would cut through her tract and that she gY 9 believed it would be a danger for the children living in the tract. There being no one present to speak on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Councilmember Winchell stated for the record that the applicant nodded affirm- atively to the inquiry of working on a reciprocal easement with the neighbor. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Silva, to deny the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission and staff decision of approval based on the following findings and conditions of approval as set forth on Attachment No. 1 of the RCA dated September 17, 1990: Findings For Approval - Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69: 1 . The establishment, maintenance and operation of a self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash without the sale of alcoholic beverages will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. I2. The proposed self-service gas station with convenience market and car l.' wash without the sale of alcoholic beverages is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map. 3. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash properly adapts the proposed structures to streets , driveways and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 4. The combination and relationship of one proposed use to another on site are property integrated because adequate parking, reciprocal access and ingress and egress points are proposed. 5. The access to and parking for the proposed self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash does not create an undue traffic problem. Conditions of Approval : 1 . The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated June 4, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. -Prior to submittal . for building permits , the applicant/owner shall complete the following: `'SrG a. Depict all utility apparatus , such as but not limited to backflow devices and Edison transformers , -on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. �q Page 8 — Regular Council /Agency Minutes — 9/17/90 b. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. C. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. '. ' Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building ri in terms of materials and colors . If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing screening and must be approved. d. If outdoor lighting is included, high—pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations . e. A detailed soils analysis- shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. .This analysis shall include on—site soil sampling and laboratory testing 9f materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties , foundations , retaining walls , streets , and utilities . f. The site plan shall include (or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits , the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity) , an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval . The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Section 9608 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. b. Landscape irrigation system shall be designed and constructed to include a separate water line for the use of reclaimed water subject to Water. Department approval . C . A grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and it must be approved (by issuance of a grading permit) .. A plan for silt control for all water runoff. from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works . d. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. e. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal drive— way and parking easement(s) between the subject site and adjacent properties . A copy of thelegal instrument shall be approved by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall_ be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. A copy shaLl be filed with the Department of Community Development. Page 9 - Regular Council /Agency Minutes - 9/17/90 4. The Public Works Department requirements are as follows : a. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (27 ' ) in width and shall be o r radius-type construction. b. Construct all right-of-way and street improvements pursuant to Public Works standards and specifications . C. The car wash shall design and use a recycled water system to the satisfaction of the Water Department and Public Works Department. d. The developer will be responsible for the payment of any additional fees adopted in the "upcoming" Water Division Financial Master Plan. 5. Fire Department Requirements are as follows : a. Service roads and fire lanes , as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. b. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. C. The applicant shall meet all applicable local , State and Federal Fire Codes , Ordinances , and standards. d. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding i installation and operation of all underground storage tanks . 6. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 7. All building spoils , such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material , shall. be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 8. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection/within twelve (12) months . 9. During construction, the applicant shall : a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the s-i t e; b. Wet down areas in .the late morning and after work is completed for the day; C . Use low sulfur fuel ( .05 by weight) for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts) ; e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts . 10. The hours of operation for the proposed car wash shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM daily. Page 10 - Regular Council /Agency Minutes - 9/17/90 11 . Construction shall, be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall, be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays . 12. Prior to final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Community Development Department. b. All signs shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (Article 961 ) C. All improvements (including landscaping) to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein. d. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. 13. Should a Traffic Impact Fee be adopted by the City Council , the appli- cant/property owner shall be responsible for paying such fee prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or final building permit approval . 14. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . 15. Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 shall become null and void unless exer- cised within one (1 ) year of the date of final approval , or such exten- sion of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Green, Mays , Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister The Community Development Director stated that condition 2d pertains to off- sight light spillage. (City Council ) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING RESOLUTION NO 6211 '- ADOPTED - ACOUISITION OF PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN - RESOLUTION OF NEED AND NECESSITY - ELLIS AVENUE WIDENING - MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY DISTRICT NO 1990-1 (650.50) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for an administrative hearing to consider adoption of Resolution of Need and Necessity relative to acquisition of property for widening of Ellis Avenue. (Seven lots on the "! south side of Ellis Avenue) Communications were received on the matter from Margaret Lindsey, Elmer Olson, ^ Barbara Harmon, and Randi Fjaeran. 4 ,2 Robert Franz, Deputy City Administrator/Administrative Services , presented a ti staff report. 4 CITY'. HUNTINGTON BEACH INfiE&DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Mike Uberuaga From Connie Brockway City Administrator City Clerk- Subject Letter from Mr. Choi Chong Soo Date November 29, 1990 (Delivered by Mr._ Robert Henderson) - Attached is a communication from Mr. Soo (Robert Henderson) which he requested appear under the Public Comment section of the 12/17/90 Council Agenda. I have enclosed a copy of the minutes from that meeting for your review. Enclosure CC: Gail Hutton Mike Adams 0994K FH ti ` CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14929 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 November 29, 1990 .-i HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH c/o Ms :Connie Brockway, City. Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' , LLD Dear Members Of The City Council , cam: Attached to my letter you will find an appeal against Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69, a matter of grave and potentially injurious nature to myself and other businesses located in this small shopping center located at the 'NorthEast corner of the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues. While I realize that this matter has come before yourselves on a prior occasion, it is the opinion of many residents and fellow businesspersons that this concept was ram-nodded through , with the appeal process prior to this point merely a nodding gesture. Certainly UNOCAL has not made ANY point or argument for the continuance of the CUP, while many-many residents and business owner/operators have openly discussed their great opposition for a number of very valid reasons. It will be appreciated if you . will acquiesce in granting a reopening of this CUP Appeal Process, and permit those most affected - by the CUP to prepare adequately for presentation,: and that you instruct Huntington Beach Planning Staff to conduct the requested studies that you ordered during the meetinq of the Huntington Beach City Council on September 1.7, 1990.' Your patience -and cooperation are very much appreciated, and in :taking appropriate action in: the best interest of many of your constituents will not go unrewarded. Respectfully., CHOI CHONG SOO Owner/Operator Low 's Liquor Store & Convenience Market Address As Above Page 1 , November 28, 1990 Telephone [7143 893-7757_ FILED: #17/SOO-L.PW FH ` CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 REGlUEST TO REOF"E-=M AFm'F='EAL F=*ROC FEE SS REGARn I IVG C _ U _ F'' _ 4#89-6.9 " CC3 S;-rFRUCT SELF=—SERV I CE GAS . STAT I OhJ W I TH COtVVEtV I ENCE MARFCET; Zc CARWASH " My name is Choi. Chong Soo, I am the owner., lessee " and operator of Low's Liquor Store and Convenience. Market at 14928 Springdale Street: :(intersection of Bolsa & Springdale Avenues, ) for which my leasehold obligation continues until the year 2009. On September 17, 1990, I appeared before the Huntington Beach City Council to appeal the granting of Huntington Beach Conditional Use (Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89- 69, which seemingly appeared to be a neutral request -upon casual review - of a major oil company and it 's local interest, . Ince and Associates. .Because of a "less than comprehensive" understanding and knowledge of English and more importantly the processes under which "Conditional Use Permits" are granted within the City of my business and residence, I did not initially act in `a forthright and timely ' manner in reacting to the request for the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (Huntington Bea ch. Conditional Use (CUP) #89- 69) . Once the seriousness of this granting came to bear upon myself did I realize that I must seek to enjoin the granting of the aforementioned Huntington Beach Conditional Use #89-69 so that I will not be forced from business by the establishment of an "almost identical " operation less than . Page 1 , November 27, 1990 Telephone 17143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW ` CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 50 ' from my front doors. The proposal of which I request a reopening of appeal grants a conditional use variance against a C-2 zoning, wherein a self-service UNOCAL gasoline station may be "demolished" so As to permit the building of another "self- service" UNOCAL gasoline station in same co-occupancy with a UNOCAL mini-market and UNOCAL car wash. This request to reopen the appeal process is based upon several and varied factors, not withstanding that the current land use has been ' a UNOCAL gasoline station for more than 20+ years, and that it has undergone SUBSTANTIAL remodelization several times in the last 5-years alone. It is an unconscionable abuse of building permits, conditional uses and variances to allow a business, to restructure itself without regard to the nature or characteristic of surrounding businesses. It is gravely unconscionable, somewhere . in the range -of "incredible" to believe that the City Of Huntington Beach. would even consider granting a Huntington Beach Conditional Use #89-69 to a business which simply emulates at least four other businesses less than 50 ' from their proposed self-serve market; perhaps the City would grant a permit for all the service,: beverage and foodservice establishments :in the center at NorthEast Springdale & Bolsa to sell self- . service gasoline. Depending upon your vision, you :may see that request before your distinguished council ; perhaps when that occurs, should it -ever , you will find yourself in a "Catch 22" situation. Page 2, November 27, 1990 Telephone 17143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW CHOI CHONO SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Among the most obvious objections to your continued authorization of Huntington Beach Conditional Use #89-69, and your rejection of my first appeal , are the following: 1 . 1 The applicant of the Huntington Beach Condit-ional: Use (CUP) #89-69 at this location has asked for , and received many, many zoning variances over the last 20+ years as verified by City records contained in the planning department. (Since 1981 there have been a total of eight [81 variances and CUP ' S. ) This is not a single incident, but rather an ongoing pattern and history of variance abusement wherein the City Of Huntington Beach has either willingly or unwittingly became the dupe of yet another major oil company. 2. 7 The ability of the original appellant to the initial Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 granting, myself , was diminished by a misunderstanding of the nature of the wording of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69, and I was misled .as. to the implications of which the Huntington Beach Conditional Use ' (CUP) #89-69 would impact upon myself and my family owned business. No effort was made` by ;the City Of Huntington Beach to gauge the 'i mpact of this Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 on the local neighborhoods, nor on the financial impact this competing business would have on other local businesses. At the time of the. original hearing on the Huntington Beach Condit.ional Use (CUP) #89-697 insufficient advance notice was provided to the businesses forming the perimeters of the two strip Page 3, November 27, 1990 Telephone 17143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-O.PW CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 centers which go East and North adjacently from the location of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #99-69 obtainee. EVEN ON THE OCCASION OF THE INITIAL APPEAL OF THIS Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69, the necessary mailing labels -supposedly already in possession of the . Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 applicant and city clerk , were. mysteriously delayed from use, creating a VOID in .continuous public involvement and outcry. There exists an ongoing question why these preexisting labels. were not readily available, and why the list finally furnished appeared to be a patchwork of addresses falling within the 00 ' rule, and not a list of typically furnished County Assessor datum. Additionally, as NO southbound access is available from Springdale into the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 location , all access must derive itself from ONLY northbound Springdale, or from ONLY westbound Bolsa ,Avenues. The only other alternative to access :to- this proposed modified use is through "cross cutting" the northernmost . private common parking areas, making an illegal left .turn across an area :clearly marked with DOUBLE yellow lines. 3. 3 Since 1981 the occupant at the subject Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 address has asked for, and' received, 8 zoni:ng changes since. 1981 , all in the exact same . site. 4. 1 At the last appeal hearing, more than 200 individually signed "opposing" petitions to this Huntington Beach Page 4, November 27, 1990 Telephone 17143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOWS LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14929 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 were presented to the City Clerk, Ms Connie Brockway. These opposing petitions represented the outpouring of the negative opinion of local residents and businesspersons or businessowners concerns over the nature and• circumstance :.of the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69. In addition to these petitions by adjacent businesses and homeowners, : the property.. owners of the strip centers to the North and East of• the Huntington , : Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 site also signed petitions categorically in opposition to this proposed use modification, and indicating that their "reciprocal opposition" to the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 might necessitate a remodeling of landscaping and planters in such a way as to impede the use of their parking lot areas as thoroughfares to and from the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 applicants location. 5. 1 . At NO TIME during the application or appeal process has any study been conducted by the City Of Huntington Beach with regard to noise pollution, traffic impairment or impact , general street access, and the like. During the original appeal , Council had asked staff to conduct. traffic and noise measurements in and around the location of. this Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69. To date., and to the best of my knowledge-, no such supplemental impact studies have been conducted , : and the applicant ofl the Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 has merely proceeded as though nothing need more to be done 'to .address it 's: own council. Page 5, November 27, 1990 Telephone 17143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SOD-G.PW CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW 'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET • 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 inquiries and council instructions. 6. 1 During the initial appeal , statements were made by Staff as to the effect that "egress and ingress" into this landlocked strip center was without question between the three owners of property situated on this "L" shaped parcel at the NorthEast corner of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues. There exists NO reciprocal egress or ingress., or parking relationship between UNOCAL and the two other property owners of the center. Copies of their. signed petitions showing opposition to this Huntington Beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69 are attached herewith. 7. 1 At the initial appeal hearing, Council was denied a thorough briefing on the site plan, analysis of traffic flow (for which there is none, ) nor any other meaningful briefing upon which to base their decision. 8. 1 While it is not my contention that Huntington Beach is an ."oil town , " it certainly seems that oil companies have their way with dust about anything they want to . in. this City, including the wetlands, the bluffs, Seacliff , Holly Sugar and the like. The tragedy of the oil spill off of the 'bluff s shows the careless disregard of oil interests for anyone or entity other than. themselves. 9. 1. At the initial appeal hearing, a speaker was :"denied" the opportunity to make a presentation simply because the rules of "scheduling, calendaring and registration_" with the Sergeant Of Arms were not meticulously followed: 10. 1 1 request that the city council instruct the -clerk of . Page 6, November 27, 1990 Telephone 17143 893-7757 FILED: #17/S00-G.PW CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW 'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 the city to photocopy all existing petitions now in the possession of the city, and to return the originally signed petitions so that they may be logged into our records, and _that additional signed business and citizen petitions may be added to this; demonstration of general and specific opposition to the subject Huntington beach Conditional Use ` (CUF) #89-69. At the original appeal hearing the only representative of either Ince & Associates or UNOCAL took less than two minutes to respond to the outcrying of hundreds of residents and numerous businesses in written and verbal opposition to the Huntington beach Conditional Use (CUP) #89-69. I request the cooperation of the Huntington beach City Council in permitting the reopening of the appeal against CUP, and that the council instruct staff to conduct already requested studies of them, and that all demolition, remodeling, modification and rennovation to the aforementioned site at 14972 Springdale Street, known commercially as a UNOCAL "self-service" gasoline station, be placed on hold pending the additional and sizeable demonstration of opposition. during a regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington beach _City Counci 1 , : before the residents and business owner/operators who are in fierce opposition' to. it 's granting and continuance. My address appears at the top of this request, - my business telephone number is [7141 893-7757, and my home is [7141 895-3812. I have asked a customer of mine to assist in Page 7, November 27, 1990 Telephone 17143 893-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 communicating with yourselves; his name is Mr. Robert Henderson. Respectfully submitted to the Huntington Beach City Council on November 28, 1990, at Huntington Beach City Hall , .Huntington . Beach, California, County Of Orange, California. X- - �- _ - G�--- . X � CHOI CHONG SOO Dated, 11-28-1990 Huntington Beach, CA Page 8, November 27, 1990 Telephone 17143 993-7757 FILED: #17/SOO-G.PW r Page 6 - Regular Council/Agency Minutes - 9/17/90 (City Council ) APPEAL FILED BY CHOI SOO - DENIED - PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION UPHELD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-69 - APPROVED (CONSTRUCT NEW SELF-SERVICE GAS STATION WITH CONVENIENCE MARKET .AND CARWASH) - INCE & ' ° ASSOCIATES (420.40) ; The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a -public hearing to consider the following: APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit :No. 89-69 APPELLANT: Choi Chong Soo . APPLICANT:" Ince & Associates LOCATION: 14972 Springdale. Street (northeast corner. of Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue) ZONE: 'C2 (Community Business District) RE UE T: To demolish an existing self service gas station and permit the construction of a new 1 ,700 square foot self service gas station with convenience market and carwash. The proposal does: not include the sale of alcoholic beverages . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk' s Office by staff had been .mailed, published, and posted. No communications or written protests were received on the matter.The Community Development Director presented a staff report. The City Clerk stated :there had been three sets of informal petitions bearing approximately 56 signatures of persons in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. She stated later in the meeting that the additional signatures she had received totaled 200 instead of 56. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Choi Chong Soo, appellant, spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. He stated the proposed convenience market would infringe on his family business. Don Weiler spoke in opposition to :Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. He stated he did not believe a certificate of occupation should be. issued for the proposed market since it would be in front of Mr. Soo'-s establ;ishment. Robert Henderson presented a an informal petition bearing approximately 56 signatures of persons i.n opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. Paul Flynn spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69. Tufan Ince, representing the developer, stated Unical had. complied with Huntington Beach regulations and that he was present to answer questions. Gordon Phillips stated he lives 50 feet from the proposed carwash and that he ` is opposed to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 because of the noise, polution, and traffic impact he believed it would cause. Page 7 - Regular Council /Agency Minutes - 9/17/90 In answer to Councilman Green' s inquiry, Gordon Phillips stated he believed people would be using the tract he lives in for convenience. Elsie Phillips stated she believed that in order for people to miss- the traffic light at Springdale, they would cut through her tract and that she believed it,,would be a danger for the children living' in the tract. There being. no one present to speak on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Councilmember Winchell stated for the record :-that the. applicant nodded affirm- atively to the inquiry of working on a reciprocal easement with' the neighbor. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Silva, to deny the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission and staff decision of approval based on the following findings and conditions of approval as set forth on Attachment No. 1 of the RCA dated September 17, 1990: Findings For Approval - Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69: 1 . The establishment, maintenance and operation of a self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash without the sale of alcoholic beverages will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The proposed self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash without the sale of alcoholic beverages is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map. 3. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed self-service 'gas station with convenience market and car wash properly adapts the proposed structures to streets , driveways and other adjacent .structures and uses in a harmonious- manner. 4: The combination and relationship of one proposed use to -another on site are property integrated because adequate parking, reciprocal access and ingress and egress points are .proposed. 5. The access to and parking for the proposed self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash does not create an- undue traffic problem. Conditions of Approval : 1 . The site plan, floor plans and elevations . received and dated June 4, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits , the applicant/owner ' shall ;I complete the following: a. Depict all utility apparatus , such as but not limited to backflow devices and Edison transformers, on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. ' r Page 8 - Regular Council /Agency Minutes - 9/17/90 b. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. C. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. j Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building ~� in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing screening and must be approved. d. If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used.. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site,.plan and elevations. e. A detailed soils analysis ' shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to: provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties , foundations retaining walls , streets , and utilities. f. The site plan shall include (or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits , the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity) , an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval . The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Section 9608 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. b. Landscape irrigation system shall- be designed and constructed : to include a separate water fine for the. use of reclaimed water subject to Water Department approval . C. A grading plan shall. be submitted to the Department of Public Works " for review and it must be approved (by issuance of a grading permit) . A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be :required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. d. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. e. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal drive- way and parking easement('s) between the subject, site and adjacent properties. A copy of the legal instrument shall: be approved by the Community Development Department and, the City Attorney as to form and content- and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. A copy shall be filed with the Department of i Community Development. Page 9 — Regular Council /Agency Minutes — 9/17/90 4. The Public Works Department requirements are as follows: a. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (27' ) in width and shall be of radius—type construction: b. Construct all right—of—way and street ' improvements pursuant to Public Works standards and specifications. C. The car wash shall design and use a recycled water system to the satisfaction o.f the Water Department and Public Works Department. d. The developer will be responsible for the payment of any additional fees adopted in the "upcoming" Water Division Financial Master Plan. 5. Fire Department Requirements are as follows : a. Service roads and fire lanes , as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. b. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. C. The applicant shall meet all applicable local , State and Federal Fire Codes , Ordinances , and standards . d. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks . 6. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code , Building Division, and Fire Department. 7. All building spoils , such as unusable lumber, wire; -pipe, and other surplus or unusable material , shall be disposed of at an off—site facility equipped to handle them. 8. Installation of r.equ.ired = landscaping and irrigation _ systems shall be completed prior to final inspection/within twelve (12) months. 9. During construction, the applicant shall : a.. Use water trucks or sprinkler .systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to ;prevent dust raised when leaving the site; b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day- C. Use low :sulfur. fuel ( .05% by weight) for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts) ; e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 10. The hours of operation for the proposed car wash shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM daily. } Page 10 - Regular Council /Agency Minutes - 9/17/90 11 . Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 12. Prior to final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: _ 1 a'. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from. the South. Coast Air. Quality Management District and submit a copy to Community Development Department. b. All signs shall ° be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (Article 961 ) C. All improvements (including landscaping) to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein. d. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. 13. Should a Traffic Impact Fee be adopted by the City Council , the appli- cant/property owner shall be responsible for paying such fee prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or final building permit approval . 14. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 15. Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 shall become null and void unless exer- cised within one (1 ) year of the date of final approval , or such exten- sion of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. The motion. carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Green, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister The Community Development Director stated that condition 2d pertains to off- sight light spillage. (City Council) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING RESOLUTION NO 6211 - ADOPTED ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN - RESOLUTION OF NEED AND NECESSITY ELLIS AVENUE WIDENING - MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY DISTRICT NO 1990-1 (650.50) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for an administrative; hearing to consider adoption of Resolution of Need and Necessity relative to acquisition of property for widening of . Ellis Avenue. (Seven lots on the south side of Ellis Avenue) Communications were received on the matter from Margaret Lindsey., Elmer Olson, Barbara Harmon, and Randi Fjaeran. Robert Franz, Deputy City Administrator/Administrative Services, presented a staff report. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Publish 9/6/90 APPEAL OF PLANNING 'COMMISSI.ON 'S'APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. .89-69 `(Construct new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and'. at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, September 17, 1990, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 89-69 APPELLANT: Mr . Choi Chong Soo APPLICANT: Ince & Associates LOCATION: 14972 Springdale Street (northeast corner of Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue) ZONE: C2 (Community Business District) REOUEST: To demolish an existing self service gas station and permit the construction of a new 1, 700 square foot self service gas station with convenience market and carwash. The proposal does not include the sale of alcoholic beverages . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section .— 15303 , Class 3 , of the California Environmental Quality Act . ON FILE : A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Herb Fauland, Assistant Planner, at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach (6203d-1) x xx I...ABE:I...S COMPLETED xx x 1.9 LABELS PRINTED i , i GBW PARTNERS - I BE.CKE:R NICK 520 I_.AFAYE:TTE: PART: PL_ #21.4 I 15495 GRAHAM ST ( I...OS ANGE:l_.E S,,C:A 90057 � H UNTI NGTCJN,CA 9 649 i x x x LABELS C06PL..ETE D x x x I 2 LABELS PRINTED I t 1.4 8641.:1. 1.45 641.2 i AhII:IERSON W:I:NN.T.E: R ,.JUE: ROGER 9 1.5081. APOL..L O I_.N 8881. CARNI::GI.E: AVE: i' L.UNT'NG BCH,CA 92647 WESTMINSTER,C:A 926I:3: i PI'ATT"E: I•IEL.TOW E SHOL.AR ME:RRI MAN S ° YVi: NN 6081 ATLAS DR 3996 MISTRAL DR VII.NT:I:NGTN B(:;H,CA 92647 HNT'GT'N BCH CA 92649 , f i 14586418 14536419 F'[::Ii1.".T.TA JAML:S A BUSH FREDE:RIC W:I:1_.I...:LAM ICI::: 6042 BOL_SA AVE: 15052 SPR:I:NGDAL.E: ST i FII. NTI:I`GTON BEACH, CA 92647 H UNTI:NGTON BEACH,CA 92649 t LABELS COMPLETED x•x.••x 8 LABELS PRINTED D i � I T'AMASH:I:RO LE:ROY I: � 607:1. ATLAS DR HUNT:I:L• GTN BCH, C:A 9 647 1.4 36417 .'::iEYI:::I:GAVADI AI...:I: & I'IAHI:;f:it.D 6002 I:+CJI_.SA AV[:: HNTGTN BC H CA 92647 -` 195112O4 ' .| . � ~ DOUGLAS REALTY CO INC P O BOX 516 ST LOUTS,MO 63166 ' | ` | ^ / . *** LABELS COMPLETED *** 1 LABELS PRINTED ' ) 19505167 ' 19505168 . CAMPBELL MARYANN DANIELS CHARLES DENNISKV 14892 VANGUARD LN 14891 SABRE LN ) HUNTINGTN BCH,CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 ) *** LABELS COMPLETED o** 2 LABELS PRINTED � ` ) i | ` . ) 19505301 . 19505302 | YBARRA SALVADOR SR O'BRIEN PATRICK J JR&SAN . . 6002 CORTEZ DR 1941 ELOISE WAY � \ HUNTINGTN BCH,CA 92647 UPLAND,CA 91786 ; . l - - - BCH,CA -- -� -'- ` -� - -- � | 19505304 19505305 ^ MITCHELL JAMES M&KAREN E GEISS ROBERT E 21731 SEASIDE LN 14881 VANGUARD LN � / ) HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646 HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92647 [ � ' ` ' ) 19505307 19505308 � ! LANZEL DAVID LEE PORTE-NEUVE AIDA . | ` ' 149O1 VANGUARD LN 14911 VANGUARD LN / | � . ' ) HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 �� � HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 ' . � ' 195O531 195O531O i 1 ' ! / THORNELL THOMAS H ET AL ' TURRILL CURTIS F JR , 6082. SHERMAN DR 6092 SHERMAN DR| i HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 / HUNTINGTN BCH,CA 92647 ' ./ � 19505313 | 19505314 | HARRIS RICHARD L PRABHU LIVIN D & ENID D 14921 SABRE LN / 14941 SABRE LN � HUNTINGTN BCH,CA 92647 ' HUNTNG BCH,CA 92647' . � - ---- ----- - - ( ' ` 19505316 / 19505317 | ^/ ' ROCHA DANIEL L HENDIFAR PAUL E&SHAHNAZ 14971 SABRE LN � 1423 REDONDOBEACH BLVD ' ~ HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 ' GARDENA CA 9O247, , ' 19505319 MEYER LAWRENCE J TR / 14025 FAUST AVE � BELLFi.OWER,CA 90706 :d LA BRIQUE INN SUBREME DONUT 14892 SPRINGDALE 6041 BGTON BEA�`fI# 10A.92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA. 92647 HUNT .1 KENNY'S BARBER 14900 SPRINGDALE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92647 ADMIRAL GOLF 14914 SPRINGDALE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92647 THE BIG 0 PIZZA 14916 SPRINGDALE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92647 3.9505::0:; - BFATY BY HITOMI F'RE:USS Ei08E:R7 hl TR _ 14924 SPRINGDALE =:092 C�UA7:1_ RUN RTt HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92647 L..OS AL.AI'!]:T-OS,cA 90720 19505 LIQUOR., DELI STORE SE 14928 SPRINGDALE F'E:T'E:fi`.3E:hl C;ARY A HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92647 :65c: RADNOR ST LONG IitE:AC'I-1,CA 90808 19505:--:09 CLASSIC BURGER F'lI7:LL.:I:F•'S GUI I!Ohl L_t?,E:L.STE 6041 BOLSA AVE. ,# 2 6072 SHE:RMAN DR HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92647 HUNTINGTON BE:ACH,M) 92647 19505:-:1.2 YAN LEE CHINESE FOOD VIART IN LAWRE.NCE. hl 6041 BOLSA_ AVE. ,# 3 ].49J.]. SAEsF:[: L.hl HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92647 1-II.1hITINGT'N BC',1-I,CA 92647 19505c:1 - -- ------` -`-- — 5 ANIMAL. KUNG-FU KARATE FIl.1DI}L.E:;:i1'I:)hl ROt:,E:R°AI-.7:(::I: 6041 BOLSA AVE. ,# 4 1.4951. SADF"'C: Lhl HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92647 I-IUNTINGTOhl I'iE:ACl-I,C:A 92647 1.950`;:D18 GALLERY CUSTOM FRAMING UNION OIL CCII*IF'r1hIY GF C:AL.:i:l-' 6041 BOLSA AVE. ,# 5 F' 0 BOX 7600 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92647 L..OS ANGE:L.E::S,CA 900'SJ. - - - - -- ---- -- ------ - RESTAURANT 6041 BOLSA AVE. ,# 7 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92647 so CHARLIES COCKTAILS OF YOUR CHOICE 6041 BOLSA AVE. ,# 8/9 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA,92647 I ' i': _ .[ .� i � !7, � fd y S_ x "--e -_ --.- : F _ -.?j, j.. -f -L _4 ] - :S! -• CITY: OF HUNTINGTONF'-BEACH "� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION y^ HUNTINGTON BEACH y-2- % ` From To Herb Fauland�,,Planning Department , Connie Brockway; City Clerk Subject Notification List - CUP 89-69 Date 9/12/90 Ihereading your RCA I notice there was discussion regarding notification. The title- company used 1989-90 parcel maps, as they do not have the new ones.yet. I believe the: AP's are OK however, because I have verification that the old` parcel maps were 'used - please check the -map against your/M upstairs. Connie ! f is E NORTH AMERICAN 6TITLE ❑COMPANY August 17,1990 RECEPD Vl"- AIJG 2 j 1990 City of Huntington Beach DEPART MEINT OF Dept of Commercial Development COMMUNITY DEVELCP,Vs_^JT PLANNING DIVISION Attn: Herb Fauland To whom it may concern: Please be advised that the assessors map and ownership records attached hereto, are the most recent records available from the Orange County Assessor's Office. The ownership labels cover all the properties within a 300 foot radius of the above mentioned parcel. A full map showing all surrounding parcels is also enclosed herewith. If you have any questions regarding this package, please feel free to contact the undersignes. Sincerely, i Teri L. Richardson, Customer Service Rep. ** Please. note that this is an update issue of a report already done in November of 1989. Labels were provided by customer. North American Title Company, Inc. 1120 West La Veto Avenue, Suite 605, Orange, CA 92668 (714) 556-6500 z A-00556 Two 0 act "wool n ...... mum, 1j J .. . Ems ........... .................... r7� �Asq4t AN I .0z ;As -4 if —W_Owl ........... -.v WENT 575YOUS yq- Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach TBOX79^7 CAUFORNIA9 3 19505204 MITCHELL JAMES M&KAREN E 217SI SEASIDE LN HUNTINUON BEKgq,CA 92646 NOTICE T0: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK THE AP LISTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR NOTIFICATION MAILINGS BY THE CITY CLERK MUST BE THE LATEST AVAILABLE Ito ACCORDANCE WITH DIVISION � HBOC REQUIREMMTS. ***PL.EASE REMEMBER THAT THE LIST MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE MAILING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WAS SENT. DATE SIGNATURE VERIFYING ADEQUACY OF LIST i Office of the City Clerk • City of Huntington Beach P ` S}'/Qp�['P��fl/) b" J, U 4 CG�I p 6'p I ` —V.Y'1 V J :'V.`.TA�c.�;•? V✓ �J SEP 1 •9 u s cia3=j•; �.2 0 ; P.O.BOX 290 CALIFORNIA 92648 CLASS � f?O4044.3 a n ko } ma's lJ nt, G^• 7 BEATY BY HITOMI W 14924 SPRINGDALE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA. 92647 Office of the City Clerk GTo _ �. ► City of Huntington Beach PRESORT C, ASS = SEP 7 ,9 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ___ b CAL M- T FR a ,( 8010443PET jp. rj o c ,NA��rU $UCIt 'urng� 19 05: 06 fxp��d haute(umber PETERSEN G A h Y A rah c:6 I"t A D 1-,I Cl h .i T' - l it 1 11 iA 11 1ti:1l:::i:iil::ili:i11:111ii::1: q a 7 0 72 NO So. % -Z� l MAR VISM DRIVE CORrEz DRIVE 0 705 71, 00 44 rRACr Qt 14jo, 20 '..1 . 6,0 di 14 Is 16 -' 41 --- — /3 1 � /00' 44 4.1 -d? 9 '0 1-3 21 23 /0 22 A Af. I-.0 4 95 -05 RO.Kj 6 '0 4 0 AC. r 38 a 0 v b."' ve 23 @ 0 ku Zj Ef?MAN ':Z H 1-X4 S. C3 1.19AC. 57 24 ct 4 @ /9 5 4M.994AC.IC) 0 3 25 pm. 1-5 60-13 ;IAN" L -J 26 26 IZZAC Of*OAC. & I " 10 @ .;, (�� # Norc: '0 ASSES-%WS BLOCA P.jW. J.4 PZ71 13 Cc PARCEL NUMBERS 03 R 'Z SHOWN N CIRCLES ? lkl 1.05 AC @ NO.3849 AO.4945 Af 257-4 NO�54; �U'- AO 245 PAR J wo 552 .,I..4�� - 0. C. F c D. jwl-5rA'1*srl-R CHAmml-L) 0 c F c 0 500 -1 6 9"Ar 4 PAR 8 srj AVENUE BOLIM -T- /0 A��UE + POL SA I nRSr sr) -36 145 CT I /.y 61'/Z 00, /0 Z. A 14 SL -11 PIA A9-9 cr kQ rml?A c r F,27 tE PAR A MIT.1 40 V% -4 *u 4 7ri 0 ob. A! DOVER DRI VEl cev P. 6Z-41 I are, PAR Z -j A '-' /00 Sir, sl* CIS � I A (�) - 6 30 %L r I 61.43,0 If A 4 5s ENGINEER DRIVE . 0 3 .0 . 07 3; 0 4,j 4. ko 0.4. 4 t 17.29 54 THOR DRIVE 'T a 18 27 it @ "'w Slo 171.?�rl It 4 N @ G) @ jmw- /4 26 4.0,321 5/ -10 29 2v V ?6 90 to N (D -.1.0 G� 0. C. Ir cl D. 2.47 AC. to Z5 it AV 5092 4 it Q44 tl At?50(23 orA 4% 37 WALKWAY —L - ASSESSOA OWARCH 1964 TR. W. 5002 N h( 178-38,39 N07F-ASSESSO?.�SLOOVS I(IMBERL Y BOOK 14 5 X. DRI VE (D TR A10 5003 M At 178-40,41 PARCEL cotmTr o N rR. No.5525 M.M 231-25.26 SA17AN IN CIRCLES PARCEL MAP PM. 49-9,62-41 cn SS/L J' ' Pursuant to Article 988, 5ecLiuii 9890, of this city's planning commission code, I and others are herewith appealing the issuance of a conditional use permit #89-69, for the site at 14972 Springdale Street, commercially known as. "Unocal Self Service Gasoline Station. " Let me add that Section 9B83 of the aforementioned Article was not followed, and that neither mail or personal service of the hearing was delivered to permit us the opportunity to appear before your commission at the public hearing which was .apparently held on the evening of July 10, 1990. Also appurtenant to Article 988, Section's 9882, 9884 and 9885, I wish to '.'receive a copy of the report as required by statute, be notified by certified mail of the appeal hearing, and to be notified by mail that all permits and entitlements to this conditional use permit have been recalled until this matter is unconditionally resolved. My name is Choi Chong Soo; I am a naturalized U.S. Citizen of Korean ancestry. I have owned and managed Low's Liquors for the past 8 months, a business which has existed in it's present location for over 20-years. My business license in. the City Of Huntington Beach is #A129572, and my California Sellers Permit is #SREA 24-904642. It is the sole and primary means of support for my family, with many family members earning their living working long and arduous hours to meet the needs .of- our Huntington Beach community. In addition to the usual expectations associated with the terms "liquor store, " we enjoy the neighborhood priviledge of stocking various "convenience type items" such as bread, milk, condiments and 'so on. Our clientele is very appreciative of this, and choose our small store as opposed to wasting fuel energy or time driving blocks to mega stores and paying high prices. The very thought that our fine City would entertain the idea "conditionally permitting" the opening of a 1007 competitor less than 100' from my front door `is ridiculous. I choose to not sell gasoline. Why would the City of Huntington Beach choose to permit .a seller of gasoline to compete with me in selling convenience foods? Especially just 100' from my front door. Page 1 July 12,• 1990 FILEDt 15A/800-A.PW r- -<cl m co n„ —p c_6 r'. s CHOI CHONO 800 dba LOW'S LIQUOR STORE & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 893-7757 The center in which I am located is not unusual . There are 3 restaurants, 2 full bars, 1 wine & beer bar, and numerous other establishments. Most of this center has existed for many years, and the restaurants, bars and myself have found a niche in the local community by offering polite, 'friendly and customized service to a clientele of neighborhood residents, local workers, .farm hands and the workforce of McDonnell Douglas (now our city's largest employer. ) It is ironic that the thought of Unocal Oil adding a market and car wash would even be considered in the light of the devasting .oil mess which occured at our beaches less than 3 months ago. Would ANYBODY trust them as good neighbors? But I have other, more factualistic concerns over the granting of a conditional use permit to Unocal for the expansion and conversion of their station at 14972 Springdale Street. 1. 1 Extreme traffic. There is NO southbound entrance to this proposed facility from Springdale Street. This includes the volumnous traffic of McDonnell Douglas as well as the general flow of homeowners and beach goers ofT the 405. freeway. The only way for these people to get into this property is to make a legal , but dangerous "U" turn at Balsa & Springdale. 2. 1 Parking. In this established center, there is no added room available to grant for required parking. Other merchants will have to give up their parking spaces if Unocal is permitted. 3. 1 Water shortage. Water is at a premium in California. How can the City entertain the idea of opening ANOTHER car wash less than blocks from the ones at Edwards/Bolsa, Balsa Chica/Edinger. 4. 1 Business infringement. Certainly no one opposes market competition, and that the market weeds out the uncompetitive. However our city government bears the burden of assuring that "established" business is not derided or driven out of the city by a posture of policy which encourages unfair invasion of markets developed through many years of "extremely fine tuning" by small businesses catering to the needs of our residents. Unocal doesn't need to sell "bread and milk" in my center to make a good annual report. - 5. 3 Parking lot congestation. Our parking lot had become such a "cut across" thoroughfare 'that in a recent repaving we installed severe speed bumps to discourage those who cut from Balsa to Springdale and visa-versa. Simply put we took the responsibility to prevent needless accidents . and possibly loss of life. Opening a gasoline-car wash-market in a restricted access will only recomplicate what we merchants Page 2 July 12, 1990 FILEDt 15A/S00-A.PW CHOI CHONO 800 dba LOWS LIQUOR STORE & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale. Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 893-7757 had hoped to eliminate. Because of the aforementioned, and the desire to be as brief as possible, I formally request a rehearing on this "conditional %dse -permit #89-69, " and that all actions Favorable to it' s continuance be recalled pending a further review and participation by all members of the shopping center located at Bolsa and Springdale. tArticle 988, Sections 9880, 98829 9803, 9884 & 9885. 3 Respectfully, CI-10I 0IONG SOD Owner & Operator Low's Liquor Store, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 cfe Ince & Associates 22601 E. La Palma Avenue, Yorba Linda, CA 92696 Unocal 17700 Castleton Street, Industry, CA 91748 CITY OF 'HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 25, 1990 Choi Chong Soo dba Low' s Liquor Store & Convenience Market 14928 Springdale Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 On Monday, September 17, 1990, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, denied your appeal and sustained the Planning Commission and staff decision of approval of Conditional Use Permit 89-69. If you have any questions regarding this action please call (714) 536-5227. Connie Brockway,. CMC �ZP City Clerk CB:ES: ln 0879I (Telephone:714-536.5227) CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOWS LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 3BA1—_ICC3ROUP4n AND I hIFORMAT I UM AF=*FPEAL_ nMn,I RIST C U - P 89—f�9 On July 12th of this year, Choi Chong Soo, a legal resident of Huntington Beach and owner and operator of Low's Liquor Store (at the above named address) learned that a Condi.tional.. Use Permit #89-69 had been granted to Ince & Associates, the development arm of UNOCAL (Union Oil Company Of Calif orn i a.=). ,The permit concerns-- property located -at the intersection of Springdale & Bolsa Avenues, (northeast quadrant, ) who's exact address:' 'is 14972 Springdale Street. The permit grants a conditional use variance against a C-2 zoning, wherein a self-serve UNOCAL gasoline station may be demolished so as to permit the building of a self-service UNOCAL gasoline station in same co-occupancy with a UNOCAL mini-market and, UNOCAL car-wash. ry �, This appeal is based upon several factors, not withstanding that the current land use has been a UNOCAL gasoline station for more than 20+ years and that it has hid r C� substantial remodelization in the last 5-years. Low's Liquor, (as the business license reads, ) is an efficiently run family business which retails not only the commodity of ..beverages, many of which contain NO alcohol , but also an extensive array . of convenience type foods including prepackaged sandwiches, lunches, and commonly available popular consumer goods and necessities. It's customer base is principally neighboring r.esidences:-:-and many hundreds of businesses.. in the industrial complex located South of Bolsa Page 1, September 12, 1990 Telephone: [7141 893-7757 FILED: 15A/SOO-F.PW CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 and falling between Springdate and Bolsa Chica streets. McDonnell Douglas employees have been constant patrons from just across the street for dozens of years, as have dozens of farm field workers who earn their gainful employment on property owned by MDAC. The location of Low's Liquor, as is clearly obvious from the plans provided to you by Planning, falls within 50-feet of the proposed remodification under Conditional Use Permit 89-69, and is only slightly less distant (less than 100' ) from the proposed Conditional Use Permit location of similar service businesses providing coffee, donuts, sandwiches, pizza, complete lunches and meals, beverages and the like. This is a center shaped like an "L" with the proposed Conditional Use Permit site in the bended corner, and TWO other strip centers radiating; one goes North and the other goes East. More than thirty businesses comprise this entire complex, many of them having been in their current locations and serving their clienteles far longer than UNOCAL at it's existing corner site. Sitting just across the street, in the South East quadrant of this intersection is an ARCO self- serve gasoline station. Two blocks to the East is a Shell self-service gasoline station with car wash, two-and-one-half blocks to the East is a Mobil self-service gasoline station. Within a radius of 1.7 miles are additional gasoline stations with car washes and internal "convenience" markets, including that at Bolsa Chica and Edinger, Edinger & Springdale, Edinger & Golden West, Westminster & Springdale (3) , Edwards Page 2, September 12, 1990 Telephone: [7141 893-7757 FILED: 15A/SOO-F.PW CHOI CHONG SOO dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 and Glenwood, and Metro Car Wash on Westminster Avenue. When this appeal was filed, via Certified mail return receipt requested, a delay on the part of the City ensued pressing the appeal close to the 10-day rule of Article 988. Only when the Apellant personally presented a copy of the appeal letter to Planning did Low's Liquor obtain the necessary proof of filing within required time frames. This was on July 16, 1990; the USPS return card was received in mail the same date. As required under Article 988, of the City Of Huntington Beach, an appeal hearing was to have been "slated" within 30 days of the appeal (payment of $200.00 fee being paid on July 16, 1990. ) As of the date shown below, the hearing is calendared for September 17, 1990, more than 60-days from the date of filing the appeal and placing it in the USPS. In addition, the applicant of the Conditional Use Permit is alledged (by HB city employees, ) of operating in "lack of good faith" in stalling the providing of required 300' address labels for the first hearing on a Conditional Use Permit consideration. With minor exception, this list should have been ALREADY ON FILE with the City of HB, and certainly in existence with the original applicant Ince and Associates. With the saturating number of gasoline stations falling in a small geographic radius, it probably seems that expanding an existing facility is wise. Adding a car wash with the saturating number of car-washes, both self-serve and Page 3, September 12, 1990 Telephone: [7143 893-7757 FILED: 15A/SOO-F.PW CHOI CHONG SOD dba LOW'S LIQUOR &CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 full-serve, in a small geographic radius is without cause. Adding a self-service mini-mart, albeit sans-ABC priviledges (at this time, pending the next Conditional Use Permit application by UNOCAL, ) located merely several dozen feet from an identical business is mockery of zoning. This is NO more or LESS ridiculous than converting a liquor store into a combination gas-market-car wash, nor would or should it fit into the touted city 10 year plan. As this project has gone forward, from proposal and initial presentation, through an "unpublicized" hearing at which many only received minutes of notice, a "guardian angel " has watched and moved the hands and lips of those granting approvals. Even in the appeal stage this project has gained momentum in being stalled; the laws of the city of Huntington Beach, perhaps those of California, have been systematically short circuited in an overwhelming effort to see "one of the big boys in town" get its way. The appeal against Conditional Use Permit 89-69 is based upon the following: 1. 1 Conditional use variances against long established zoning and city planning can be only used when a OVERWHELMING preponderance of need dictates that such zoning be overruled. 2. 3 There exists NO need for another car wash in this zone or city area. [There is a water SHORTAGE. ] 3. 3 There exists NO need for another mini-market within 50' of a longstanding, preexisting market. 4. 1 Imminent degrenation of current businesses would Page 4, September 12, 1990 Telephone: 17143 893-7757 FILED: 15A/SOO-F.PW CHOI CHONG SOD dba LOW'S LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 only be inevitable if this multi-use development continued. Paragraph 1.A of letter dated July 13, 1990, from HHPC to applicant requires "to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. . .cannot be detrimental . " Certainly opening a COMPETING business just 50' from the front door of a similar, small family, wholly owned business, and less than 100' from the doors of businesses providing like and similar services is clearly unwarranted. 5. 3 Rebuilding a "self-service gasoline station" on the site of an already existing "self-service gasoline station" is the equivalent of (as American expression goes, ) "like carrying coal to Newcastle. 6. 3 The files which exist at Planning do not show any sufficient data to indicate that major reconstructive work is unneeded at the proposed cite; this would only be a further impairment of business should the site and street be erupted for tank replacement and/or additional compliance with State and Federal EPA laws. 7. 3 The traffic flow patterns which already exist cause HEAVY traffic flow through EXISTING parking lot areas, including a substantial amount of "cross cutting" to avoid traffic lights. Residents of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre streets are already besieged by neighborhood flyers. The continuance of this Conditional Use Permit would merely create a greater enforcement for HBPD, so as to pad UNOCAL. This Conditional Use Permit #89-69 is neither warranted or needed. The Conditional Use Permit apellant doesn't wish Page 5. September 12, 1990 Telephone: E7141 893-7757 FILED: 15A/SOO-F.PW CHOI CHONG SOD dba LOWS LIQUOR & CONVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 to sell gasoline, nor does the Conditional Use Permit apellant wish to have a competing business (nor do others in this business center, ) just a few short feet from the front door in a center which is decades old. It must be revoked and those in City government who failed to seek the facts rebuffed for ever considering applicants Conditional Use Permit with such a ludicrous presumption. CHOI CHONG SOO Owner Of Low's Liquor Store Page 6, September 12, 1990 Telephones E7141 893-7757 FILED: 15A/SOO-F.PW Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange ' County, California, Number A-6214, September 29, 1961, and .A-24M1 June 11, 1963 STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the Iy PUBLIC NOTICE k NOTICE OF J ' age of eighteen years, and not a party to or PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF " interested in the below entitled matter. I am a PLANNING rind al clerk of the ORANGE COAST DAILY c iPROVSLOF; APPROVMM'SAL OF ` P P CONDITIONAL USE, PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, PERMITNOA049 (Coneilruct new printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, i self-servleagas station with, County of Orange, State of California, and that convenience market and carwash) attached-Notice is a true and complete copy as GI NOTICE HEREBY P VEN .that the Huntington was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, BeachCiearingin:t a hold a public hearing mthe Coun-; Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain cil Chamber•at the_Hunt- ington Beach Crvlc Center,I 2000 Main Street,-Hunt. Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and ingfon Beach,California on1 the,date and at•the time in-i Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper to wit dlcatedbelo'wto receive and consider,the statements of; the issue(s) of. all persons who'wish to be heard yielative'to`the appli-. cation described.below. DATE/TIME: 'Monday;] Septe_mber:;17„1990;-700; PM, September 7, 1990 APPLICATION NUMBER:' p Appeal of Planning-Gom- mission's•approval of.,C6n-1 ditional Use.:Permits No:% 89-69--. w >-. .,-_.' .: . APPELLANT:" Mr.- Choil Chong Soo.: APPLICANT: Inca &'As- sociates i 1LOCATION 1'4972i Springdale Street(northeast' Corner of-Springdale Street) and Boise Avenue) - :ZONE:. C2 .(Community, Business District) ' REQUEST: To'-demolishl an.existing.self.service gas i station and,permit;the con- struction of a new .1,760 square foot self service gas station with convenience market and-.carwash. The proposal does. not:include the,-''sale of alcoholic beverages. ` I declare, under penalty ofperjury, that the STATUS: O N M E Ny ex- p y STATUS: cete9orlcally_ex- empt pursuant to Section foregoing is true and correct. 15303 Class of the.Cali- fornia Environmental Quality O . Act.. September 7, ON FILE: A copy of the Executed on , 199 proposed request is on file in at Costa Mesa, California. the >Co gpart,y .Dev2000 merit Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington -^-1 t^� Beach Californla 92648,for inspec NT, public. UX��1 ALL- INT.ERES9ESTED .PER-. SONS are invited,to-attend! Signature said hearingcand-express opinion or submit evidence! for or-against the application as outlined above.-if there are any Yuriher,questions; please. call"Herb.Fauland, Assistant Planner, at ` 536-5271. CONNIE BROCKWAY,i PROOF OF PUBLICATION CltyClerk, taly of Hunt - Published Beach; Published ;Orange_Coast Daily Pilot :September 7, 1990 F718 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION r" September 17, 1990 Date Honorable Mayor and City Council Memb Submitted to: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Submitted by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Developm nt Prepared by: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF Subject: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT_ NO. 89-69 Consistent with Council Policy? [4 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Mr. Choi Chong Soo, owner and operator of Low' s Liquor Store and Convenience Market, to the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69, a request to demolish an existing self-service gas station and permit the construction of a new 1,700 square foot self service gas station with convenience market and car wash without the sale of alcoholic beverages pursuant to Section 9220. 1(d) of Article 922 - Commercial District Standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. x cn � rn ;� RECOMMENDATION' -ti -_a n n Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: _ Motion to: "Uphold the Planning Commission' s approval of 2- Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 with findings and conditions";-o PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON JULY 10, 1990: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-69, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams (out of the room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED P10 5/85 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS ACTION BY ADDING THE CONDITION THAT APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH STAFF TO MITIGATE NOISE CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAR WASH, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams (out of the room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 : (Attachment No. 1) ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 is a request to demolish an existing self service gas station and permit the construction of a new 1, 700 square foot self service gas station with convenience market and car wash without the sale of alcoholic beverages pursuant to Section 9220. 1(d) of Article -922 - Commercial District Standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The construction of a new 1, 700 square foot Unocal self-service gas station with convenience market and self-serve car wash will significantly upgrade and improve the development site and the intersection of Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue. The proposed self-service gasoline station and convenience market will be open 24 hours, seven days a week with the self-serve car wash open from 7: 00 AM to 9 : 00 PM seven days a week. The 24-hour convenience market does not propose to sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to Unocal ' s policy to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages. Integration with adjoining parcels for vehicular access is required whenever improvements to property are made to increase circulation efficiency between parcels . This is to reduce ingress and egress onto Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue for service station sites . The applicant is proposing to consolidate two (2) existing drive approaches on Bolsa Avenue into one (1) and relocate the two (2) drive approaches on Springdale Street to reduce the number of ingress and egress points . In addition, based upon the high traffic volume and minimal street frontage (150 feet) , reciprocal access between the subject site and adjacent shopping centers (north, east) is recommended by staff and proposed by the applicant. At the July 10, 1990 meeting, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 with direction for a follow-up report to address public testimony and concern regarding the potential noise impacts of the car wash upon the adjacent residential property. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to mitigate the potential noise generated by the car wash. RCA 9/17/90 -2- (7042d) On July 17, 1990, the Planning staff met with the applicant to discuss the potential car wash noise and possible mitigation measures to reduce and or eliminate any noise impacts upon the adjacent residential property. The applicant submitted a letter which describes similar car wash developments and the noise generated by the operation. The noise study conducted for each location indicates that the noise levels did not exceed a maximum noise level of 60 dba. Pursuant to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8 .40 . 050 Exterior Noise Standards the maximum noise level for commercial properties shall not exceed 60 dba anytime at the residential property line. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, staff believes that the car wash as proposed will meet the exterior noise standards of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission on July 24, 1990, accepted the noise mitigation plan as submitted. ANALYSIS OF APPEAL: The appellant Mr. Choi Chong Soo, owner and operator of Low' s Liquor store and convenience market maintains the following procedures and issues were not properly addressed in the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69; 1) Improper public notification, 2) Parking, parking lot congestion, traffic, 3) Business infringement and, 4) Water shortage. A discussion of the appellant ' s concerns are discussed below. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The appellant states that proper notification of the public hearing was not followed pursuant to Article 988 Appeal . Pursuant to Article 987 Hearings, proper public notification procedures were followed and adhered to as required by law regarding the public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 10, 1990. All property owners within 300 feet of the project were notified ten (10) days before the public hearing. The appellant also states that he was not given the opportunity to appear before the Planning Commission regarding the public hearing. The draft Planning Commission minutes of July 10, 1990 indicate that Mr. Choi Chong Soo was present and spoke at the public hearing. Pursuant to Article 988 Appeal, the proper public hearing notification requirements will be followed regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 . PARKING/TRAFFIC The appellant states that; 1) no southbound traffic entrance is provided along Springdale St. , 2) no parking is available for the proposal and 3) the site has become a parking and traffic problem. As currently exist, a street median and left turn pocket are located on Springdale St. to provide southbound traffic with proper traffic flow and negate random left turns into the gas station site. The proposed project will provide two (2) points of access on Springdale St. and one (1) point of access on Bolsa Ave. The existing self-service gas RCA 9/17/90 -3- (7042d) ' ' station has no delineated parking spaces on site and no controlled on-site circulation pattern. As approved by the Planning Commission, the new site will provide nine (9) on-site parking spaces, reciprocal access with both commercial centers and landscaped planters which provide a controlled and improved on-site circulation pattern and negates the concerns regarding the "cut across" thoroughfare that the applicant states currently exists . BUSINESS INFRINGEMENT: The appellant states that the proposed self-serve gas station with a convenience market and car wash will be an infringement on his established business . This is not a planning and zoning issue. Pursuant to Section 9220. 1(d)5 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, a service station, convenience market and car wash are permitted in the C2 (Community Business District) pursuant to the discretionary review of a conditional use permit. The applicant has followed the requirements of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code in establishing the uses . WATER: The appellant states that the approval of a car wash at this location is an over concentration of car wash facilities in the general vicinity and that water is a valuable commodity and should not be carelessly abused. Staff does not believe this is an over concentration of a use (car wash) and as required by condition of approval no. 4C the applicant is required to design and use a recycled water system for the car wash to the satisfaction of the Water Department and Public Works Department. CONCLUSION• In response to the Letter of Appeal, the Planning Staff believes that all issues of agrievement have been addressed and that the proposed use will be aesthetic as well as a functional improvement of the site. FUNDING SOURCE: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may overturn the Planning Commission' s action of July 10, 1990 by approving the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings and Conditions of Approval 2 . Area Map 3 . Letter of Appeal dated July 12, 1990 4 . Draft minutes of the July 10 and July 24, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. 5 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 10, 1990 6 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 24, 1990 MTU:MA: : lp RCA 9/17/90 -4- (7042d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-69 : 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash without the sale of alcoholic beverages will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building . 2 . The proposed self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash without the sale of alcoholic beverages is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map. 3 . The location, site layout, and design of the proposed self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways and other adjacent structures and uses in a' harmonious manner. 4 . The combination and relationship of one proposed use to another on site are property integrated because adequate parking, reciprocal access and ingress and egress points are proposed. 5. The access to and parking for the proposed self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash does not create an undue traffic problem. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, ' floor plans and elevations received and dated June 4, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner , shall complete the following: a. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to backflow devices and Edison transformers, on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. b. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. c. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors . If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing screening and must be approved. RCA 9/17/90 (7042d) d. If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations . e. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations - regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, . retaining walls, streets, and utilities. f . The site plan shall include '(or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 3 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following:. a. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity) , an irrigation plan, . a .grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Section 9608 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. b. Landscape irrigation system shall be designed and constructed to include a separate water line for the use of reclaimed water subject to Water Department approval . c. A grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and it must be approved (by issuance of a grading permit) . A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works . d. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. e. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easement(s) between the subject site and adjacent properties . A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. A copy shall be filed with the Department of Community Development. RCA 9/17/90 (7042d) 4 . The Public Works Department requirements are as follows : a. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (27' ) in width and shall be of radius-type construction. b. Construct all right-of-way and street improvements pursuant to Public Works standards and specifications . c. The car wash shall design and use a recycled water system to the satisfaction of the Water Department and Public Works Department. d. The developer will be responsible for the payment of any additional fees adopted in the "upcoming" Water Division Financial Master Plan. 5 . Fire Department Requirements are as follows : a. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. b. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. c. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards . d. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. 6. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department . 7. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 8 . Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection/within twelve (12) months . 9 . During construction, the applicant shall : a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; RCA 9/17/90 (7042d) c. Use low sulfur fuel ( . 05% by weight) for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule, construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts) ; e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 10. The hours of operation for the proposed car wash. shall be limited to 7: 00 AM to 9 :00 PM daily. 11. Construction shall be limited 'to Monday - Saturday 7: 00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 12 . Prior to final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed:. a. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Community Development Department. b. All signs shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (Article 961) c. All improvements (including landscaping) to . the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein. d. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. 13 . Should a Traffic Impact Fee be adopted by the City Council, the applicant/property owner shall be responsible for paying such fee prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or final building permit approval . 14 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . 15. Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. RCA 9/17/90 (7042d) i i IVORY Y CR LARKSPUR :._=...a F_ CF_ JADE CR IRN (RI) VIKING CR=Rl i RI K£LSEY CR. HARMONY CIV CF-'R RI RI MI-A LARCHWOOD LARCHWOOD DR. MI-A-MS J RI J RI i. yj R I MAR VISTA OR. RI AV u 1� e RI RI W RI g RI u RI RI RI �RI a OR MI-A __—_--__ HoE_—__ __—i I o RI $J i AHe. I_ RI + y MI-A-10,000 o f i� I C 2L Ar J DOVER D J][R LRI C4 RI RI . J RI xH�ll 8 RI ArnoR R Ic RI t RI RI ALEXANDRIA DR ALEXANDRIA M f-A FP °N ENiWf CR RI ' R o ? .xRI RI RI a u RI KIMDER Y OR Y YALE CR ,OXFORD Y RI J RI a. CF-E RI RI - - - DUNOEE OR. NARVARD CR PARIS CR Ic F-R' MIA MIA MIA MIA . RI RI RI RI ' DR HOME CR 2 2 S R I RI RI RI a r, RUTGERRI CR S, pgEx�TO a TYNDALL OR. MdCMINEV �"AR RI RI RI RI R1 `S CUP89-69 HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION CHOI CHONG SOL1dba LOW'S LIQUOR STORE& :JVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 893-7757 July 12, 1990 Mr. Mike Adams CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 2.000 Main Street Huntington Peach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Adams, Pursuant to Article 988, Section 9880, of this city' s planning commission code. I and . others are herewith appealing the issuance of a conditional use permit #89-69, for the site at 14972 Springdale Street, commercially known as "Unocal Self Service Gasoline Station. " Let me add that Section 9883 of the aforementioned Article was not followed, and that neither mail or personal service of the hearing was delivered to permit us the opportunity to appear before your commission at the public hearing which was apparently held on the evening of July 10, 1990. Also appurtenant to Article 988, Section' s 9882, 9884 and 9885, I wish to receive a copy of the report as required by statute, be notified by certified mail of the appeal hearing, and to be notified by mail that all permits and entitlements to this conditional use permit have been retailed until this matter is !unconditionally resolved. My name is Choi Chong Soo; I am a naturalized U. S. Citizen of Korean ancestry. I have owned and managed Low' s Liquors for the past 8 months, a business which has existed in it' s present location for over 20-years. My business license in the City Of Huntington Beach is #A129572, and my California Sellers Permit is #SREA 24-904642. It is the sole and primary means of support for my family, with many family members earning their living working long and arduous hours to meet the needs of our Huntington Beach community. In addition to the usual expectations associated with the terms "liquor store, " we enjoy the neighborhood priviledge of stocking various "convenience type items" such as bread, milk:, condiments and so on. Our clientele is very appreciative of this, and choose our small store as opposed to wasting fuel energy or time driving blocks to mega stores and paying high prices. The very thought that our fine City would entertain the idea "conditionally permitting" the opening of a 100% competitor less than 100' from my front door is ridiculous. I choose to not sell gasoline. Why would the City of Huntington Beach choose to permit a seller of gasoline to compete with me in selling convenience foods? Especially just 100' from. my front door. Page 1 July .12, 1990 FILED: 15A/SOAAfP�W CHOI CHONG SOL dba LOW'S LIQUOR STORE & [.L`iVENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 893-7.757 The center in which I am located is not unusual . There are restaurants. 2" full bars, 1 wine R: beer bar, and numeroUs other establishments. Most of this center has existed for many years, and the restaurants, bars and myself have found a niche in the local community by offering polite, friendly and CUStofflized service to a clientele of neight-orhood residents, local workers, farm hands and the workforce of McDonnell Douala= (now our city' s largest -iE?mp'„Y er. ) It is ironic that the thought of Unocal Oil adding a market and car- !Nash would d even be considered in the light of the devasting oil ffiess which occured at our beaches less than months ago. Would�� ANYBODY trust the, as good neighbors? But I have other, more factualistic concerns over the grainti nag of a conditional use permit to Unocal for the e;;par�sion and conversion of their station at 14972 Springdale Street. 1 . � Extreme traffic. There is NO southbound entrance to this proposed facility from Springdale Street. This includes the volumnous traffic of McDonnell Douglas as well as the general flow of homeowners and beach goers off the 405 freeway. The only way for these people to gee_ into this property is to make a legal , but dangerous "U" turn at Bolsa & Springdale. 2. 1 Parking. In this established center, there is no added room available to grant for required parking. Other merchants will have to give sip their parking spaces if Unocal is permitted. =. 1 Water shortage. Water is at a premium in California. How can the City entertain the idea of opening ANOTHER car wash less than blocks from the ones at Edwards/Bolsa, Bolsa Chica/Edinger. 4. 1 Business infringement. Certainly no one opposes market competition. and that the market weeds out the uncompetitive. However our city government bears the burden of assuring that "established" business is not derided or driven out of the city by a posture of policy which encourages unfair invasion of markets developed through many years of "extremely fine tuning" by small businesses catering to the needs of our residents. Unocal doesn' t need to sell "bread and milk" in my center to make a good annual report. 5. 1 Parking lot congestation. Our parking lot had become such a "cut across" thoroughfare that in a recent repaving we installed severe speed bumps to discourage those who cut from Bolsa to Springdale and visa-versa. Simply put we took: the responsibility to prevent needless accidents and possibly loss of life. Opening a gasoline-car wash-market in a restricted access will only recomplicate what we merchants Page 2 July 12, 1990 FILED: 15A/SOO-A.PW CHOI CHONG SO dba LOWS LIQUOR STORE & ._,4VENIENCE MARKET 14928 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 893-7757 had hoped to eliminate. Because of the aforementioned, and the desire to be as brief as possible, I formally request a rehearing on this "conditional use permit ##89-69, " and that all actions favorable to it' s continuance be recalled pending a further review and participation by all members of the shopping center located at Bolsa and Springdale. [Article 988, Sections 988n, 988^, 988?, 9ee4 & 9885. 1 Raspec=f ul i Y: c CHOI CHONG1 SOO Owner & Operator Low' s Liquor Store, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 cf : Ince & Associates 22601 E. La Palma Avenue, Yorba Linda, CA 923686 Unocal 17700 Castle-ton Street, Industry, CA 91748 Mr. Lawrence J. Meyer 14026 Forest Avenue, Bell , CA 907/06 Page 3 July 12, 1990 FILED: 15A/S00-A.PW STAFF RECOMMENDATION: BRA F., T Staff recommends that the Planning Comm' on: A. Deny Use Permit -No. 90-24 and C tional Exception (Variance) No. 90-24 as submitted, with f ' ings; and B. Approve Use .Permit No. 90- s modified by staff ' s alternative site plan, with findings conditions of approval . A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZI SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO CONTINUE USE PERMIT NO. 90-24 AND COND NAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 90-24 TO THE JULY 17, 1990 PLANNI COMMISSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomak Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bour non, Leipzig NOES: No ABSENT: N ABSTAIN: e MOTION PA B-7 "CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 89-69 APPLICANT: Ince and Associates LOCATION: 14972 Springdale Street (northeast corner Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue) Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 is a request to demolish an existing self service gas station and permit the construction of a new 1, 700 square foot self service gas station with convenience market and car wash pursuant to Section 9220 . 1(d) of Article 922 - Commercial District Standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 , Clas 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 with findings and conditions of approval. PC Minutes - 7/10/90 -25- (6751d) ,, rrA[cAMSwTA+4 FDRArrl 7 A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO CONTINUE WITH ---- THE PUBLIC HEARING AFTER 11: 00 P.M. , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Leipzig NOES: Bourguignon ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tufan Ince, applicant, 5280 Stonehaven Avenue, Yorba Linda, CA, said he was available to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Gordan L. Phillips, 6702 Sherman Avenue, as a homeowner living 45 feet away from the proposed car wash, he expressed concern over the noise that will be created by the car wash. Choi Chong Soo, 14928 Springdale Street, owner of a nearby liquor store, questioned how the applicant was able to obtain a liquor license. Mr. Soo was told by the Commissiors that liquor would not be sold at this location. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commissioners had been under the impression that it was away from residential . After discussing this with the applicant they suggested the use of a sound wall . A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-59, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams (out of the room) ABSTAIN: None . MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 7/10/90 -26- (6751d) D nRn A FT A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY BOURGUId_96N"T0—AMEND—TH-E— PREVIOUS ACTION BY ADDING THE CONDITION THAT APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH STAFF TO MITIGATE NOISE CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAR WASH, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams (out of the room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-69 : 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation o self-service gas station with convenience market and car w without the sale of alcoholic beverages will not be detr' tat to: a. The general welfare of persons residin r working in the vicinity. b. Property and improvements in the_ vi ity of such use or building. 2 . The proposed self-service gas statio ith convenience market and car wash without the sale of al olic beverages is consistent with the goals and obje ves of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map. The locat' site layout, and design of the proposed self-service gas ation with convenience market and car wash properly ad s the proposed structures to streets, driveways and other a cent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 4 . The combination and relatio ip of one proposed use to another on site are property integ ted because adequate parking, reciprocal access and in ss and egress points are proposed. 5 . The access to and park' for the proposed self-service gas station with convenie market and car wash does not create an undue traffic proble CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, f r plans and elevations received and dated June 4, 1990, sh 1 be the conceptually approved layout, with the exception that the applicant shall work with staff to mitigation noise concerns associated with the car wash. PC Minutes - 7/10/90 -27- (6751d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECO MOUNTFORD� TO E YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDI L USE PERMIT NO. 89-20/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-9, ALL PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO REMAIN IN EFFE THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker Mou d, Ortega, Kirkland Leipzig NOES: Williams ABSENT: Bourgui ABSTAIN None MOTION P D-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-69 : - Applicant: Ince and Associates STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the noise mitigation plan as submitted for Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 with all previous conditions of approval to remain in effect. No Action Required - Noise Mitigation Plan Accepted E. DISCUSSION ITEMS None F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES None G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Ortega requeste taff to report back on the status of the CEQA workshop to b Tanned for the Commissioners . Commissioner Kirkland nked staff for the dedicated work performed by staff . H. COMMUNITY DEVELOP ITEMS The Director of- mmunity Development reviewed the special Council meeti -' eld on July 23, 1990 regarding Central Park. U11 - PC Minutes - 7/24/90 -15- (6792d) huntington beach department of community development-..==ry`_ STA f f REPOR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: July 10, 1990 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-69 APPLICANT: Ince and Associates DATE ACCEPTED: 22601 E. La Palma Avenue June 25, 1990 Yorba Linda,. CA 92686 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: PROPERTY Unocal August 25, 1990 OWNER: 17700 Castleton St . #500 Industry, CA 91748 ZONE: C2 (Community Business District) REQUEST: To construct new self- service gas station with GENERAL PLAN: General convenience market and Commercial car wash. EXISTING USE: Self-service LOCATION: 14972 Springdale Street gas station (northeast corner Springdale Street and ACREAGE: . 52 (22, 500 sq. ft . ) Bolsa Avenue 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 with findings and conditions of approval . 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 is a request to demolish an existing self service gas station and permit the construction of a new 1, 700 square foot self service gas station with convenience market and car wash pursuant to Section 9220 . 1(d) of Article 922 - Commercial District Standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C2 (Community Business District) LAND USE: Self service gas station A-F M-23C NOO North, East and South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C2 (Commercial Business District) LAND USE: Commercial Center West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Industrial ZONE: Ml=A-MS (Limited Manufacture- Multi-story) LAND USE: Vacant 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 , Clas 3 , of the California Environmental Quality Act . 9 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. $ . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: The following is a zoning conformance matrix which compares the proposed project with the development standards of Article 922 - Commercial Business District and Article 960 - Parking and Landscaping: Section Issue Required Proposed 9220 . 7 Springdale Street 50 ft. to bldg . 50 ft . setback 15 ft. to pump 55 ft . island 9220 . 7 Bolsa Avenue 50 ft. to bldg . 99 ft . setback 15 ft . to pump 20 ft . island 9220 . 7 Interior setback (north) 0 ft . 0 ft . (east) 0 ft . 40 ft . 9220 . 14 Parcel size 22, 500 sq. ft. 22, 500 sq. ft . (b. 2) Staff Report - 7/10/90 -2- (6222d) Section Issue Required Proposed 9220 . 14 Site landscaping 10% of site 14 . 5% of site (f) (5) (2,250. sq_. ft . ) (3 ,225 sq. ft . ) 9220 . 14 Corner landscaping 600 sq. ft. 1, 000 sq. ft . (f) (5) (ii) 9220 . 14 (f) Landscaping adjacent 70 sq. ft . 364 sq. ft . (5) (iii) to building 9606 Parking 8 spaces 9 spaces The construction of a new 1, 700 square foot Unocal self-service gas station with convenience market and self-serve car wash will significantly upgrade and improve the development site and the intersection of Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue. The proposed self-service gasoline station and convenience market will be open 24 hours, seven days a week with the self-serve carwash open from 7 : 00 AM to 9 : 00 PM seven days a week. The 24-hour convenience market does not propose to sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to Unocal ' s policy to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages . Integration with adjoining parcels for vehicular access is required whenever improvements to property are made to increase circulation efficiency between parcels . This is to reduce ingress and egress onto Springdale Street and Bolsa Avenue for service station sites . The applicant is proposing to consolidate two (2) existing drive approaches on Bolsa Avenue into one (1) and relocating the two (2) drive approaches on Springdale Street to reduce the number of ingress and egress points . In addition, based upon the high traffic volume and minimal street frontage (150 feet) , reciprocal access between the subject site and adjacent shopping centers (north, east) is recommended by staff and proposed by the applicant . 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 with the following findings and conditions of approval : FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-69 : 1 . The establishment, maintenance and operation of a self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash without the sale of alcoholic beverages will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. Staff Report - 7/10/90 -3- (6222d) 2 . The proposed self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash without the sale of alcoholic beverages is . consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map. 3 . The location, site layout, and design of the proposed self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash properly adapts the proposed structures to streets , driveways and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 4 . The combination and relationship of one proposed use to another on site are property integrated because adequate parking, reciprocal access and ingress and egress points are proposed. 5 . The access to and parking for the proposed self-service gas station with convenience market and car wash does not create an undue traffic problem. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated June 4 , 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout . 2 . Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following : a. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to backflow devices and Edison transformers, on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. b. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. c. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors . If ' screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing screening and must be approved. d. If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations . e. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer . This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities . Staff Report - 7/10/90 -4- (6222d) f . The site plan shall include (or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 3 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following : a . A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials ( location, type, size, quantity) , an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval . The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Section 9608 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. b. Landscape irrigation system shall be designed and constructed to include a separate water line for the use of reclaimed water subject to Water Department approval . c. A grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and it must be approved (by issuance of a grading permit) . A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works . d. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. e. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easement(s) between the subject site and adjacent properties . A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder . A copy shall be filed with the Department of Community Development . 4 . The Public Works Department requirements are as follows : a . Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (27 ' ) in width and shall be of radius-type construction. b. Construct all right-of-way and street improvements pursuant to Public Works standards and specifications . c. The car wash shall design and use a recycled water system to the satisfaction of the Water Department and Public Works Department . Staff Report - 7/10/90 -5- (6222d) d. The developer will be responsible for the payment of any additional fees adopted in the "upcoming"' Water Division Financial Master Plan. 5 . Fire Department Requirements are as follows : a . Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. b. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. C. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards . d. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks . 6 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department . 7 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 8 . Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection/within twelve (12) months . 9 . During construction, the applicant shall : a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Use low sulfur fuel ( . 05% by weight) for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts) ; e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts . 10 . The hours of operation for the proposed car wash shall be limited to 7: 00 AM to 9 : 00 PM daily. Staff Report - 7/10/90 -6- (6222d) • f r _ 11 . Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7 : 00 AM to 8 : 00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays: 12 . Prior to :final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate-. of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Community Development Department . b. All signs shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (Article 961) C . All improvements (including landscaping) to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein. . d. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. 13 . Should a Traffic Impact Fee be adopted by the City Council, the applicant/property owner shall be responsible for paying such fee prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or final building permit approval . 14 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . 15 . Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 11 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may deny Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 with findings . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Area map 2 . Narrative dated February 13, 1990 3 ite plans, elevations, and floor plans dated June 4 , 1990 HS. F:kla Staff Report - 7/10/90 -7- (6222d) f :;I a �t. - i i - IVORY LARKSPUR CR 1 , --.__. -- --- RI C F E C F E [:R:l ^,, l ..... ______________ JADE CR. t ,4 VIKW IRO .. .. ..IRU aJ:..,...+ i RI =Rl :<c:;:; I f KELSEY CR. HARMONY CR. CF-R a QX,, RI M1—A MI—A—MS LARCHWOOO DR. LARCHWOOO DR. i R I R I RI '' MAR VISTA DR. RI y I IEa„ a�J RI o Rl Rl ; Rl u RI w RI RI RI �- R I i.;. 4rp,• ,i -zv i a i o rc a F MI-A s — — „AE — - —, I oRl 3 Avg. :I rn MI-A-IO,000 w ` C2 A °R DOVER D J u z se n FA �. o_cKixc.l�_ ux� Cq• r �w we RI � RI RI RI x-C4 C4 8 RI L� •i .... ._. TMOR o n' RI J ¢ a RI ,�'�_ti l:.: 'I•::f.j MIA 10,000 z,omc RI RIB zot o MI-A MI_A RI z RI ER I o ALEXANDRIA OR ALEXANDRW Ir'�jJ '•lJ;' -FP2 a RI R1 a ? RI RI Y KIMOF.R Y DR YALE Cfl =RI OXFORDIle -EIRI RI I1 DUNDEE °R• CF-R• HARV4R0 CR PARIS- CR MIA MIA MI-A MI—A RI RI RI RI h,j DR ROME CR i /. g = J s RI Rt RI RI ' RUTGERRf CR S�p •�� & TYNDALL DR. YKIWC ` In RI RI RI RI RI ^,,' .' � 1, :•fa.,11�1f�f SiF{;Yi'�i iM'*�.� i. CUP89-69 F HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ;'"a,,:LI"Ip�{{r��'I R E C E 1VE. February 13:; 19.90 t- - n b �99D UNOCAL SS 3'"' : NARRATIVE DEPARTMIE n OF. 14972 Sp, ?� gt�>l�� l'� i�r�T, Bo1sa Ave . , Huntington Beach, Ca.92647 Location : The site is lacated at northeast corner of Springdale Street and Bolsa Ave . , two well-traveled major thoroughfares . It is surrounded by other commercial development with residenchal uses to the east and north. The existing service station is developed with four driveways , two of each adjacent street . Upon renovation of the site one of the- driveways nearest the corner on Bolsa will' be eliminated. Thus providing access via one driveway off Bolsa Avenue and two driveways off_ Springdale Street . Project Description The subject . 51 acre site currently contains an older 2 bay service station from 1964. New underground storage tanks were installed in 1987 . Unocal proposes to redevelop the site and construct a 3 pump island, self-service stati_on, convenience store and a self-service car wash. No alcoholic beverages will be available on the site . The hours of operation for the fueling and convenience store will be 24 hours . The car wash will operate from 7 am to 9 pm. One cashier will operate the entire facility per shift : Self-serve fueling, car wash and the convenience store. A variety of soft drinks and snacks will be available from the walk-in cooler, along with snack items at the counter area. A limited amount of grocery and hardware items will be stocked at the customer area -:gondolas . The fuel system will operate on pre-pay basis , customers will pay for the amount of fuel at the cashier prior to fueling their cars . Multi-grade gasoline dispensers will be provided at the fuel islands . The car wash will be a chain driven self-serve operation. Customers will pay for their -wash at the entrance to the wash, the elaborate set of directions will instruct customer to turn the engine off and and place his/her car in neutral , with the chain mechanism guiding the automobile through the wash cycle . There will be an underground effluent collection tank for the car wash. The car wash. will utilize effluent and fresh water to provide a 100% water recycling. There will be no water discharge to the sewer system. 'Des i gn Building elevations indicate a single story structure with textured palomino ,unibrown facia trim and white soffits . Extensive glass/ glazing will be utilized.-,around the cashier and door entrance . The main building and canopy will feature a straight barrell, mission tile mansard. Slumstone veneer will be used around the canopy columns and building . The site will be landscaped on all perimeter property lines . Most of the parkin- (9) will be located on east side of. the lot . Unocal Corporation plans to develop__a first class facility in compliance with all zoning requirements . This facility will be an asset to the surrounding community. 1 p , n,orrlx uYc unm Palelve RAW" r r r PLAMTCR (L•Ti nwrre l`•J} �d 1 Qaq MY,mI wwro r/1a'1[,r YJLLL KJKAOW rAmm t �a 1W.1 IRT 9i[MG 22.309 f ft ® J J 4 S i ) i 0 L*ao~TOM 1,1PIa�1/Y Mo tgs.i •. ,� YMLT. WI Al dr. 6 WWI�rq,ovs anmY"ii AAFA ours iaY� l�.tr1 4 rcnr< pw,a ' z A� r r — r r ,Rd o JO fr,,SR11 i X)a YET W • — d $ `�.f• WILL `W' � Y� " �':. nwrr, '1 my W401W fy1♦f �Y �r COIICIQ NPRO/LN mo1Q % lV qIQ NPOM S101YL Oes®•ta Qe _ OMW 6'rl r �nr nmmiv_d nrr nuf PS4-IOSi g-- SPRINGDALE STREET °° ' t` i —_...--------------------------------_------------------ II I I I I 1 b I I it I i is I� CONVEYOR IL 22'-7 j, I I I _ SNACK COUNTER 21-0 e'-Y . W"NG COOLER I OOF' i 7'-11' 4•-6' �NE h b I _ I I N a•-ti 5'-fl a'THICK i (TYP.) C—STORE 20'—KY I 40 N I g•_7' STORAGE I j CUSTOMER AREA L' i 12'-S CAR—WASH Iq ST(NiAGE 1 J AREA 2'—T CASHIER M.h w H.C. 3'-Q' S'-0' 3'-ff 7'-W 2'-0' g.-0B•�RR. 12' 2 N Ile 4 9•-d ELECT. I a,-a' 1C:� PLANTER �- — ---3'PLANTER -------— ----- - --------- --- 3Y-5.g75•. t`"ts`.;�t,1•.ln`;t•i�;`:y'4g.q''It rJkrt ly4'{''. 7'-T 14'-10.4375 �i;.r�r:ir!!',>•=�T`,i. 3'-10.687S �,_0. 'i yi.�,d'•W.:I',`7i{r V 73•-0' 12'—d' 25'—T 25•_B' 10'—(f 2 1 1 1-6' S0. 2' MANSORY TOP CAP 4 4 2'-0' SQ. 5,-0' 661 —'l CANOPY ELEVATION 3a'—o• 15'—T 0-B" 2 3'�- 1 _4" 2 3 STRAIGHT BARREL ' MISSION TILE ' PAINT LEGEND 13'—G MIN. 4 Q1 TEXTURED PALOMINO 61_0 Q UNIBROWN TRIM 0 WHITE SOFFIT do CEILING f ® 4X4X16 SLUMP STONE VENEER END ELEVATION I yr„Y . 1 S r a� FRONT ELEVATION ? LEGEND o }} ®UMAROit17R11 u.aw+tt¢, VENEER(nP REAR ELEVATION ziMnxT�ewaa�nsw nc nrv) ,�';. , "I toms 0 r r O IkH j, va !f LEFT ELEVATION RIGHT LEVATION sm aou�ir 000a E +t •r i; huntington beach department of community development STA f f REPORT TO: ' Planning Commission - FROM: Community Development DATE: July 24, 1990 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-69 APPLICANT: Ince and Associates DATE ACCEPTED: 22601 E. La Palma Avenue June 25, 1990 Yorba Linda, CA 92686 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: PROPERTY Unocal August 25, 1990 OWNER: 17700 Castleton St . #500 Industry, CA 91748 ZONE: C2 (Community Business District) REQUEST: To construct new self- service gas station with GENERAL PLAN: General convenience market and Commercial car wash. EXISTING USE: Self-service LOCATION: 14972 Springdale Street gas station (northeast corner Springdale Street and ACREAGE: . 52 (22, 500 sq. ft . ) Bolsa Avenue 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Accept the noise mitigation plan as submitted for Conditional Use Permit No. 89-69 with all previous conditions of approval to remain in effect. 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: At the July 10, 1990 meeting, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No . 89-69 with direction for a follow-up report to address public testimony and concern regarding the potential noise impacts of the car wash upon the adjacent residential property. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to mitigate the potential noise generated by the car wash. D -�3 A-F M-23C On July 17, 1990, the Planning staff conducted a meeting with the applicant to discuss the potential car wash noise and possible mitigation measures to reduce and or eliminate any noise impacts upon the adjacent residential property. .. The applicant submitted a letter (see attached) which describes similar car wash proposals and the noise generated by the operation. - The-noise study conducted for each location indicates that the noise levels did not exceed a maximum noise level of 60 dba . Pursuant to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8 .40 . 050 Exterior Noise Standards the maximum noise level for commercial properties shall not exceed 60 dba anytime at the residential property line. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, staff feels that the car wash as proposed will meet the exterior noise standards of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Should the Planning Commission not accept the submitted noise information, additional measures to reduce the noise level of the car wash can be required as conditions of approval . These measures may include noise reflective strips at the car wash entrance and exit, a site specific noise study and a sound wall located at the rear of the car wash property line. 3 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the noise mitigation plan as submitted for Conditional Use Permit No : 89-69 with all previous conditions of approval to remain in effect . 4 . 0 ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Area map 2 . Noise mitigation plan 3 . Planning Commission Staff report dated July 10, 1990 HS:H •kjl Staff Report - 7/24/90 -2- (6473d) r I' i. I'. 1' : - IVORY CR LARKSPUR r LAR ;.nae aoao — — R - ... ------ ------------- :: RI CF E CF :JAE CR (RI) (fll) VINING CR., KELSEYYI CR. HARMONY CA. I, s CF—R I ' RI RI MI-A I LARCHWOOD OR. LARCHWOOD �R MI-A-MS I RI. RI yj RI MAR VISTA DR. RI u A a V w W RI RI u RI w RI W RI _Rl 1— RI g y = o o zxo z a 'o c i- _ 0.• J � L MI—A �ioE--._ __—i oRl z RI aR -A-IO,000 e� 2 oR J DOVER(^j� Jp m ^ 2 u • C'4 RI RI RI RI x00 RI J RI x zc THOR RI MI—A MI —A RI RI zo ALE%ANDRIA OR ALEXANDRIA Oa Ea,wr.Ea -FP2 n Rlo . a. 2 R I uo.x R I RI �y u NIMBERLY DRY YALE Cfl OXFORD RI RI . x„ CF-E RI =11 ' 1.1•�i,'ii•'!!`.ER C�'.::ei'1 HARVARD CR PARIS• CR DUNDEE DR' CF-R' U MI-A MI-A MI-A MI-A RI RI r RI R RI 0 ROME CR z z S RI RI RI RI 3 D .t DR RUTGERRI CR 5, OREE�TO . 4 TYNDALL PL RI RI RI Pi Z CUP89-69 HUNTINGTON BEACH 4Y, HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION �k JUL 18 '90 13: 50 INCE AND ASSOCIATES P. 02 INCE & ASSOCIATES -_ Engineering & Consulting Lic. no. A•494254 July. 17 , 1990 Mr.Herb Fauland Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , Ca . 92648 Re- Springdale/Bolsa Huntington Beach ,C a. Noise Study For CarWash Background Unocal is proposing to rebuild an existing service station site to a convenience store and fueling facility , including a exterior-conveyor car wash located at the southeast corner of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues within the City of Huntington Beach. Noise studies for the car wash equipment have been performed for similar installations and the following is presented in support of meeting Huntington Beach noise standards . The Project The development includes a multi-nozzle , 3 island fueling facility with adjacent convenience store . The proposed car wash is an 20 ' x60 ' steel structure with roll-up doors on either side .for security purposes . Approximately 40 ' separates the proposed car wash tunnel exit from the adjacent property immediately to the east . The set-back of equipment inside the tunnel add another. 10 ' to the distance . . The property immediately facing the end of the tunnel (west) is separated by Springdale Street and is approximately 50 .feet from the property line . This project will not have any outside clean- ing vacuums . Noise Standards A similar car wash equipment package as proposed for the Huntington Beach location and resulting; noise impact evaluation was recently developed for the cities of Sunnyvale , Whittier and Glendora , California for Car Wash iJSA, Inc . The noise study was prepared by Michael Brandman Associates , Inc . , 2530 Red Hill Ave . Santa Ana , California 92705 The City of Huntington Beach evaluates noise impacts to commer•T. cial and residential areas using a maximum noise 'level (j_imax) Page 1 of. 3 22601 E. La Palma Ave., Suite 101 Yorba Linda, CA 92686 Telephone (714) 692-9272 - FAX (714) 692-2127 criterion. Unocal has been advised that exterior noise levels guidelines developed by the City of Huntington Beach for residen- tial areas establish 60 dBA Lmax as the maximum acceptable limit at the residential property line . It is noted that .the property immediately around the Unocal site is commercially zoned . Noise Level Evaluation For comparative purposes , the existing Car ?dash USA facility located at the intersection of Alosta Avenue and Grand Avenue in Glendora, -Cdlifornia were conducted by Michael Brandman Associates on March 2 , 1989 . Proposed operating conditions at the Sunnyvale , Whittier and Huntington Beach facilities are similar to those at the existing Glendora car wash. The tunnel entrance and. exit of the Glendora facility stands 12 ' high . The tunnel entrance and exit of the proposed Sunnyvale structure is 9 ' high . The tunnel entrance and exit of the Whittier and Huntington Beach locations are 10 ' high. The existing Glendora facility entrance and exit tunnels are not enclosed within noise-absorptive cloth or noise reflective vinly doors , as proposed for the Sunnyvale location. The sound level moni- tor was palced behind a wall adjacent to the Glendora facility , approximately 10 feet from the car wash tunnel entrance . A major intersection exists approximately 300 feet from the Glendora car wash tunnel entrance . To ensure that the sound level represented maximum noise levels of the -wash machinery, measurements were conduc- ted during periods of minimum traffic noise . However, it is difficult to be %100 certain that traffic noise did not contribute to the noise levels presented below. Therefore , the results shown in Table 1 are assumed to represent worst case , conservative conditions for compa- rative purposes . Table 1 Maximum Noise Level Measurements Car Wash USA, Glendora,Ca . Measurement Maximum Noise Dominant Noise Number Level (dBA) Source. 1 59 .5 Car Wash System Intersection Traffic 2 58 . 5 Car Wash System Intersection Traffic Source : Michael Brandman Associates , March , 1989 Lower noise levels were projected for the Sunnyvale location due to the installation of noise reflective strips and consequently the City approved the proposed installation. Page 2 of 3 n'7-7 Q_nn n0 f 1 PTA Pi9 ,i► a __- � Since the Whittier and Huntington Beach installations will be aria-- . exterior car wash , traditional full serve car wash vacuuming equipment will not be used. Smaller, less powerfull self serve vacuums will be used and placed in such a manner as to provide an acceptable noise level at the property line. Noise levels from the proposed convenience .store and other. operations . are expected to pose no increase in existing noise levels . Conclusion Based on the assumptions and mitigation measures to be included as part of: the equipment package and overall construction of the facility , noise levels at the proposed Unocal Springdale and Bolsa Avenue site are not expected to exceed the City noise standard of 60 dBA Lmax at the adjacent property line . Tufan M . Ince cc . Hank Dickey , Unocal Page 3 of 3 _ . 07-18-90 02 : 11PM PO4 CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists . across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state document . Please respect my rig s . y r voking "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]' 9-69 and a gyring y/our continued faith in you as an el t Id of i 1 SIGNATURE:____ --------------- DATED: ------- --- -- J � 0 ADDRESS:_ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To. The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street,- -one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? - THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act. and section 15303, and no where. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent- reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elect d city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: /�� -------- --------- -------- -- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP 089-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit .#89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and. section 15303, and- no. where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of .Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #.89-69 continued as I -Feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood . and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and "ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE• ----1- --------------------------------------- DATED:------- - -�6--�9-�Q------------------------------- ADDRESS: 1-13 o` •c.Lc cv ��ir / ' efj �a 9d2 615/7 --------- --- -- --- -- ------ ----- --- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street,_ Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private .property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. . FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City 0+ Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded, through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: _-_1 = - ----------------------------------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned,--are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? . THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP] #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers - my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE:Z DATED: ADDRESS City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or- Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience--market and carwash . at .14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single--family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW I CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elec city of 1 . SIGNATURE• --------------------- DATED: _____ ------------------------ ADDRESS:-��--/- - -- - --�` L-- =------i City Of Huntington B ach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash.. at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #A9-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303,. Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: / �J--6 9� ----- - ------------ ----------------------------- ADDRESS:.6�_� _ _ _ __ ---------------------, City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SO0-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit COUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve^ _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have. seen this act and section 15303, and nowhere in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it- refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and . Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted,_ that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an ele;ed city official . C D SIGNATURE: DATED: ------------------------------ ADDRESS: �j �/ G'S _ /_!/�1 �Z� Zp City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit .CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303,. and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7"_ #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE• ��,,,,pp Q15 DATED: --------� � - �- �O L ---------------------- ADDRESS: toZ Lj)��b -Z>�Vc -- - - - - - -------------------- u -- ------ --- -- --- -- ---- City Of Hntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience -market and. car_wash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the. preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at -the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at. Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 .of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using. nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: ----------------- ADDRESS: �� _�c _ ✓E i City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOG-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, ' Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to -remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded . through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE:____ DATED: �l/ ------ -- - ------------------ ---------- -- ADDRESS:_JQ. j - - --- --y-V--- ---� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting - of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? -- THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section .15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural .time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit 'CUP 8 -69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an 1 ec d city of 'i c i a -••- SIGNATURE - - ------ ------------- --------------- DATED: ADDRESS: _46 ____ � City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this . Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of -Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". 1 The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across._ the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked .at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to =sel_{ serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and -cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected cit official . SIGNATURE- - - - -- ------------------------------- DATED: ADDRESS: L..LlC1__ U-----1� City Of Huntington Beach, County Orange, California. September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #69-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by i UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, . Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In .fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the .Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring y/our continued faith in you as an elected city ffi 1 . SIGNATUR __ _ �p ____ _ — - �------------------------------ DATED: - ------- ---- - ----- ADDRESS: �- 1___��G � ---�-��4 City Of Hiinti n ton Beach Count Of Orange, California Y 9 � Y 9 September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience mar-ket and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious Manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who -we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one. at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit, #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act, and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my ights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89=69 ensuring my/ou continued faith in you as an electe ty official . SIGNATURE: -- �------------------- ----------- DATED: ADDRESS:_Z_ _2 2 U O 5 City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us,- as hereafter undersigned, are categorically- _ _ opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #e9-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use. Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car. washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional . Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an e . cted city /►official .�,,� SIGNATURE: - - - ----- --------------- DATED:----�—� ------------------------------------ ADDRESS: l 1 "_LV=fit City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience- market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST,_. there exists no direct southbound Springdale access .to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW h CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied,- and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act- and section 15.303, and; no where. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPJ" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensurin my/our continued faith in you as an elecctee ity ici SIGNATURE: _ DATED:-- ----� -� ��------------------ - ADDRESS:_ ���3 4__ IY�C� _ ------- City Of Huntington Beach, County f Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69- Submitted To -The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale.Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, . traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family - -- dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or• some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to. homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected ity o-ffic' a1 . SIGNATURE: DATE .__,�6-'_,�7 ------------------------------------- ADDRESS: _�__ City Of Hun_ tington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page i FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE• , DATED:___9�L6�9O ADDRESS:_� 7 _ �_ !_ bc---OA41W _ ______ City Of Huntington Beach, CoU3 y Of Orange, alifornia September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale -Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP3" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of - Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal . 0ak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has -been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring .my/our continued faith in you as an elec ed city of ial . SIGNATURE•___ DATED:-------1-- — ------------------------------ ADDRESS: 12�L-�� f e Z --- 2 --- - L _��-_���P V City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange., California September 17, '1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUPJ" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1994 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at. Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. . Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but .not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" 1 As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUR]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood. and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our .contin d faith in you as an elect d city official . SIGNATURE: _e2_.-f I DATED: �� < ADDRESS: () __ Y � __ City Of Huntington Beach,`County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, .. _ Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites .Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: �'_ ---------------------- -- ------------------ DATED: �U ----- W ---------------------------------------- ADDRESS:__ _--- ----� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California a September 17. 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We- or -Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ens rin my/our continued faith in you as an elec city of ci SIGNATURE: DATED:--- --C�---------------------------------------- ADDRESS: __ � r �r_t_ Zje City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach,- .California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS%BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and . Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. .Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda far 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another . conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE• DATED: r ADDRESS: /_ dd City Of Huntington Beach,� County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and. certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood - over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council _ future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the. street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fa Ft it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically I ohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous subst nces, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elect d city official SIGNATURPaj - ---- � DATED: -- .- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, Ca f ornia September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAI T) CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beac C ty Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 SubmittL40 To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical' self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would. YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification -to. self serve? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and- no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of. UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional . Use Permit CCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an a cted city official . SIGNATURE: c____-- - ----------------------- DATED: C _& ADDRESS:I.a o _ City Of Huntington Beach;' County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well -being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard; Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and. installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion . of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at 'Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/909 Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City. Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: ADDRESS: �-3 � O�__�_� - ---------a (/7 ---- City Of Huntington Beach, County f Orange, aliforni September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through--the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit MUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification _ to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303,. and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPJ" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state- documents. Please respect my righ s by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#8 Vanden ring my/our continued faith in you as an electial . SIGNATURE: ------DATED: - - --------- ----------- ADDRESS:---- � -----��-� ----- City Of Huntington Beac , County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other farm of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future.. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? . THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to 'have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE• DATED: ADDRESS:Z,�fS/JCS _________, L� City Of Huntington each, County f Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council _ I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically_ opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at .1.4972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE &_ Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-6.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak. and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for. 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does _ specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and ;.. Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required�j in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city f ' i 1 . SIGNATURE• DATED: / ADDRESS: � a �_ �_ L11 W ------------------- City Of Huntington Beath, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash. at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends- that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit *89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP3"#89-69 and ensur ng my/our continued faith in you as an elect city off ' al . SIGNATURE• ----- - ---- - -- ------------------------- J DATED: -��-------------------------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal. Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this .act and' section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests .of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state -documents. Please respect my rights .by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elec city official.. SIGNATURE: DATED:--,.�� -------------------------------------- ADDRESS: /tea_�G-�_� �l�f�'�--`�1� !�� _ Gf S fe-,_5 City Of Huntington B ach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the- neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303,. and no where. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and. Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods- required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach,. I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUR]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elect city fficial . - a SIGNATURE:---- -- - v ------------------------ 11 DATED:.-- + -Q---------------- ADDRESS:_ C �-=- -- -- ��� City Of Huntington Beach,, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, . Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by .a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman 'and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers .who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/HUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council. future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one -at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles .apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? -- " THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit. #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and. section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on"-the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required . in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded. through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" 9-69 and ens ring my/our continued .faith in you as Teledcry _of_f ' i SIGNATURE DATED: �s - -------------------- ----------------- -- ADDRESS: /,OS 2 C���C�Z�(�/� - - - - - -- .................-1 -- ----- - - -- -- ---- - City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP 089-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale. Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of .this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation. by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the : rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL . arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303-, and no where in this. section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use .Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in 11 you as an elected city officiPL. SIGNATURE:_ ------- ------- DATED:------G ------------------------------ ADDRESS: �,'Si� lG'��/ 1--'- �-���-. City Of Huntington Beach, unty Of Orange, Calif orni a September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale- Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in .many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still . regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council `,future. An identical self-service type operation exists across -the- street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak apd Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOO really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to '\7 elf -.serve? -THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and- the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I f i rml y do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and uring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: c DATED: ADDRESS: ° 2" '� -----�----- - ------ - ------------------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of O ange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the I . I September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach. City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class .3, . of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and. section 15303,. and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " . of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and . Associates .-in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been -railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: � ADDRESS: City. Of Huntington Reach, County Of Orange, California r September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP 089-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service"gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is noner. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-6.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and nowhere in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much. as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and-repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: 8Z� / J, ----------------------- DATED: ADDRESS: Z Sy 6_l_� �_v_ a- � S � --------------------------' City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 "Springdale Street,_ Huntington Beach, California, 922647. We urgently request the withdrawal .and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single . business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 ` Submitted To The Huntington. Beach City. Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one. at Royal Oak and Edwards, . and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to .gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which .gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit LCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an electe city official . /01 SIGNATURE: _ - ---- Lt/1�1, �f1��Q _ DATED: __ ___ __ CH ADDRES _ City Of Hunt ngton Beach, County Of Orange, California. t September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 _ Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and--carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons,. and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family -— dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal . of. Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and. section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small . businesses seeking t❑ remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of_ Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable . sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: ---- -- ---------------------------------------- ADDRESS: 113 C' - - =-- �--l1'--=----�=--------------- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, Cal.ifornia September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe. and. highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part -of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for_ 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has. been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel - it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable_ sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . a SIGNATURE• DATED: _ C� ADDRESS: I �b1 _Tt� ��_QG.h City Of Huntington Beac y Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, • Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through-an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion--of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this .time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across. the street, one at Bolsa ..and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and .Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self, serve's THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act. and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely . hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing . "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the. procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded. through using nonexistent reasoning ,and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an e 1 ect e " y Hof f i c i 1 . SIGNATURE: -_-414 __ 70- A-- --------------- _�j DATED• _- -`-`��—L-�-------------------- - ----------- ---- ADDRESS:Z1-/>-1:2= City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #e9-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUPJ" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well. being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain. access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, + or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-6.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council -.- future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one .at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303,. and no where in this section does it refer to .gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the- City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit LCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit MUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights- by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE. --- 4q L� -------- �L�/=_L� �/✓� DATED: �JjL o------------------------- ADDRESS: �{ _2_ i -C'�-•J �� / l . City Of Huntington Bea h, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorical.ly __ opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster: All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the - California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" #89-69 continued' as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an el cted city official . SIGNATURE: ------------ ---- DATED:---_-__-- �- --9-v -------------- ADDRESS:_r"a'dJ-Z LAtQGNwo01> City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of. this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptd ous manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 _Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic ,flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve?. THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]"#89- and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elect- city officia . ��� SIGNATURE: ---------------- DATED: -- -------- ------- -- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #A9-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash...at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family -- - dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council • future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Polsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these, can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency .Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPJ" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Peach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPJ" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official , SIGNATURE: -- - DATED: - _ �_ __ L� ------ ----- �t---- - - ------------------- ADDRESS: �� -- � - =--- --"---� �`� City Of Huntington Peach, County Of Orange, California , 4(7 September 17, 1990 Paqe 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council AN I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972. Spr.ingdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved- and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: ##16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve's THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPJ" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Pleas espec m rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP] #89- 9 a d ensurfinc my/our continued faith in you as an el cted it fic 1 SIGNATU DATED: i ADDRESS:_ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange,. California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, _ Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council . future. An identical self-service type operation exists _ across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal _Oak 1 and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the ! California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and. no where l in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does - specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely _ hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in ArtiEle 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect fights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CC ]"#89- and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an a cted it cial . SIGNATURE: 4 -- -- ----------------------------- DATED: _ _ ---------- ---------- -z-- - - -------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation_, -__ ___ UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 1 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, 'Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through -an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the. already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982., there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW I CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak - and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the- California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elect city official . •l SIGNATURE: c DATED: __ ---- ------------------------------------ ADDRESS: IZ } �- I�� - V l� i City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-699 which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal -and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptd ous manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 ,Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: ##16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington. Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and 'Westminster. All of- these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in .complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it .totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE• a � - --------------- -- - --- - -------------------- DATED: ` ADDRESS: rV -CQL &Z b k_--jya-e& V7 A�rs 1 _ -----, City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington . Beach City Council Y. I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington beach Conditional Use Permit ##89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of 'this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express. disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas, station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private . property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved' and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut" . The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The _Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly . do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our con inued faith in you as an ele ted city ff ' ial . SIGNATURE: ---- --------- --- --- -- - - ---=------- DATED: ADDRESS: ( 7 City Of Huntington Beach, Cgunty Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound .Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: 416/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really. ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to-self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303., and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts .of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only. encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resi dent -of the City Of Huntington Beach, I -firm.l y do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city of cial . SIGNATURE: - --- --- --------------------- DATED:___ ADDRESS: - - -------------- ------------ ---- ----- -- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and -carwash at 14972 -Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a _single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have` repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting o+,,, ingle family dwellings on the streetsrof Cortez, . Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through-. an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved ,and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP)" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION. ABAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would . YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline -stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small. businesses. seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous- substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that. it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city offi 1 SIGNATURE: -- - ----- ----- - DATED: . ADDRESS: �6 �G�y-----G`S-A 8� ---------- ------------ - --------------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ifs/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" far the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound i Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other farm of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page i FILED: #ib/SOO-G.PW I CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #69-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an � cted city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: ADDRESS:_521 1--- - --- 2=----9-26 City Of Huntington Be h, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues? there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and. Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly .accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303,. and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does . specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED:-/ -----7 ------------------------------- ADDRESS: oq 02 l ��-GeJ/�'lie �S'% Jo2� 4& 91 City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 1 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" .turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists _across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak . and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept- another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section. 15303, and no. where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. . It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness- and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of cit and state documents. Please res y rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"# - 9 ensuri /our continued faith in you as an elect ci cial . SIGNATURE: ------ --- - ----------=------------------ DATED: __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _____ ADDRESS:__IJ���__ - ►�-'��l - = -="�-� -I-�-----� City Of Huntington Beath, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash. at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL . arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of si ng-1 e family dwellings on the streets of Cortez,. Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an'. already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking •lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-6.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification _ to self serve? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does _ specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is_ an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted. "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted,. that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected c' ty official . SIGNATURE:__ -------------- DATED:,.--- ?- -------------------------------- ADDRESS•_ _ _ __ City Of Huntington-B ach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP 089-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification _ to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Kermit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my right revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI' 89-69 and ens ring my/our continued faith in you as an el ted ci`t offic' al SIGNATURE• OMMAJ .�4 L --- W, a ------------ DATED: ily — ---- ------------I-------------- ADDRESS:_- � �----- �- - - --�� -�!1_-!,"- /`l City Of Huntington Beach, ( nty Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public. far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut"_. The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW I CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa .and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where- in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED:— -__\ ©------ ------ --------------- ADDRESS: k Z2----------- - ------------- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting' of singl,e family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from. southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, .or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted �n 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and. no. where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official. r' SIGNATURE:- - --- -- -- -- ---------------------- DATED:---� - �7-1 ------------------------------------ ADDRESS- �-So _�ti__� __ / _ ___�_ 6 4 City Of.Huntington l` ach, County Of Orange, California 8 September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW I CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: .Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I . firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE:_ D:DATE ADDRESS: I (Lc�. City Of Huntington Beach, ounty Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #lb/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically -increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. . FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification _ to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPJ" #89-69 continued as I feel it' totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our ontinued faith in you as an elec cit fficial . SIGNATURE- _ DATED:___________ - ---- - --- ---- -- ----- ADDRESS: -- ---- ---- ------- ------ --- City Of Huntington Beach, Co ty Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This-, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the ."short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues} there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve^ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section.. 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: 19- --------------------- DATED: ADDRESS: -( `� � . City Of Hunt ngtonie2c�h. County Of Orange, Cali orni� 44 ? September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it' s development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 1 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, -Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the .already persistent parking lot f,lvers who take the "short-cut" . The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: i#16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: in the Council/Agency Agenda for 9l17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it . ref ers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith." on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, .that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith pin you as an elect d city offi al . SIGNATURE: ---- -------------------------------- DATEE _ ADDRE � 1�1 �`_�.rf --------- SS: 2J L �-----------9 City Of Huntington Be ch, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntingtoh" Beach - 'Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial- of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps .to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues} there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/600-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak: and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clock:ed. at less than 1 .5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve's THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit COUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE• -------------------------- DATED: --_ % " 111I _ ADDRESS: Jl L YN_J 1Q.1-----------� City Of Huntington Beach, ounty Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently -request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning- for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any -close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt•ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over. three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps .to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #69-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical - self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster: All "of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for "9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit, #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 1,5303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time. periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel. it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an el cted city fficial . SIGNATURE: IJ DATED: ADDRESS: _� _�_ �J��__ ��1__ � • City Of Huntington Bach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street,• Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who .take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an .ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: oe- ti • ��/il-�� DATED: ---- ZY ----------------------------- ADDRESS: --��-�------- ------ ------- --='- - City Of Huntington Beach. County Of Orange, California I September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. _ We urgently . request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound. reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and . Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section . 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP] #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in . you as an elected city off' 'al . SIGNATURE: DATED: ADDRESS: �Trnia City Of Huntington Beac , Co my OfOrange, Ca September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW � CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We uegently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional - Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have , repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 i Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: -- ---------- ---------------- ADDRESS: .� �� sycl�_`�_�� _ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, Cal o m rnia September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family 'dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future.. An identical. self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to_ self. serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car. washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers, my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elect city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: ADDRESS: �� �Q6lL�_ U� p ---------------------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Paqe 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal acid denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain- access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, -Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 . continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my ur conti ued faith in you as an electe ty official . SIGNATURE: DATED:ADDRESS: -__ _�_ _ _ ___ _ - -- ---- ----� City Of Huntin n Beac Coun_ty Orange, California September 17. 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #69-69, which would permit - the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with . convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the-wthdrawal and denial--of this _ Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt•ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 .Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP 489-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future.. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89769 be denied, and cites Section 15303 Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: " J_Z,� - - ------------------------------- c2L�: Af, ADDRESS: �^%%G%�` (=�G_ City Of Huntington Be ch, County Of O7nge, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council i future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, . Class 3, of the- California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the. like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only. encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit tCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unappli.cable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89=69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in You as an ted ity official . S I GNATURE r DATED: ll�, ADDRESS: _,�LQQ_Vn �_eac - =City Of Hunting County Of Orange, Califor is September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the - -- reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt•ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps t❑ discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound. Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7"#89-69 nd ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an el ect --of i 1 . SIGNATURE: DATED: ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Peach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington beach - Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the - reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We Uegentl y--request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 1 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets_ of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent 'parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues;_ there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: }#16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1 .5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency. Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15343, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15363, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as. the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights -by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: C16 DATED: g 1 a 9Q__ ADDRESS: .V_ �-�-- - ------- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to---and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close . examination of the location in question, the business situation, and - the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it' s development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED; #16/SOO-B.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All .of these- can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an. ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: --------- -15- ------------------------------- ADDRESS: 6 l0 City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years -of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close . examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it' s development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent-- parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit LCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other farm of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: ##16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future.. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the' Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class Z, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach,. I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents; Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . S I GNATURE: �� O - ---------- ----=---------------------------- DATED: /.Sr --------------------------------- ADDRESS:_(90� u�od Q--��-' _ __ G1 Z�y� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the -withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years. of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of . this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it' s development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, .that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other farm of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED; #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1. 5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification _ to-se-1_ f serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal_ of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: _y1�-Ll- A DD : �A�°2 -j66�1 �22-6 C'Y------------------ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Paoe 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the Withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it' s development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt"ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut" . The last part of this portion of my petition still . regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation. exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued .as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it -endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city offici 1 . SIGNATURE: DATED. __ __ _ ~_ 0 _ __ _ ___ __ _ _ ADDRESS:--------_l�Z 7 L _ C. LLlf CAI %2 07 City Of Huntington Peach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional --Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut" . The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to. gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use .Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]"#89-69 and ensuri g my/our continued faith in you as an electe city offic- SIGNATURE: ---- --- - ----- ------------------------ 2 DATED: ----------ADDRESS: -/ jl-- ------- r ---' City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW ==."CITIZENS/HUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council - future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would - YOU really ask. me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends- that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where i.n this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required - in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in- you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE:____ DATED: <9hC 1 1 ------------------------------------- ADDRESS: /4$-7 _\1_ j o1UYavL 13e-------— City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #B9-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 _Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED; #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION .AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at- Balsa and Edwards;-- one• at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification _ to self serve? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of. Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and. no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing. interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and-repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . - SIGNATURE:/2 -------------- DATED: --------------------------------- ADDRESS: City Of-Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17. 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with , convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the "withdrawal and denial of- this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and. through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family - dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these .can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? - THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional•. Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP] #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elec ficial . SIGNATURE: DATED: -- �------------------------------------------ ADDRESS: Of2 t-74 - ----------------------------------------- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California- September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 .Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17./90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use "Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected y of cial . SIGNATURE: DATED: SE1✓��1_. - 0---------- ADDRESS:_����._,�f � --- /5------�Xd Z---------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89=69,- which would permit the' reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this - ` Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, ' and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City- to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who . we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, .Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED:- ##16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City .Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, . nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of- which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only , encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city off ' cial . SIGNATURE:____ /� -- -- -/---�------------------------ DATED: �l � FC-) ADDRESS:__--_ T`����--- �C�cal �.r--f cj, /�- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, - which would permit the' reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and- denial of this _. Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private . property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues? there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, _1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-sei-vice type operation exists across the street, one at Boisa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at ' Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor- car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith". on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official SIGNATURE: DATED: �l --- ---------------------------------------------- C / ADDRESS:_/ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this " Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest .Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & . Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private . property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted 'To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-ser-:vice. type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #99-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state -documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#8 -69 and nsuring my/our continued faith in you as an el d dit fficial . SIGNATURE- g DATED:-- - / v ---------------------------------------------- ADDRESS:_1J_! �2_!H �[���� *- - 1_ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September- 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years -of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts . which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private . property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale- and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking t❑ remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, .and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional. 'Use Permit [CUP]" #B9-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city- and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an el cted city, official . SIGNATURE: DATED: --------------- --� ---O---------------------- ADDRESS:_ ----- � _4411 City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 .Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other farm of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the. city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street. one at Bol-sa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and' Edwards, and three at Spr`j n g d a 1 a -and Westminster. Al 1 -of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve^ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the 1-ike. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances,." of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI " As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that- it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE:-------- --- ----- -- - - ------------ __ DATED- -- ---------- --------------------------- ___ __ ___ Y_J_�'"ADDRESS: 2 l C6r`-F2z _____ - - - - --------------------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP M99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently--protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of -citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the .express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through -the- neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues? there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED; #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303+, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section. 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In -fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the 1-ike. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please re ct my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" -69 a d ensuri g /our continued faith in you as an cted y c' SIGNATUR DATED: ---------- - --- - - �------------------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial- of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. ] _Based upon a review of the "plans" for the . rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #i6/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and .three at Springdale and Westminster: All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5. miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9l17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, ' Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ICUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city offici SIGNATURE:----- IGNATURE:---- Ir► - -------- - ---- -------------------- DATED: IADDRESS: f6 G �wr4 G.1/rt e-Am& �"0���'7� Cop* City Of Huntington Beach,-County Of Orange, Cari f orni a September 17 1990 Paqe 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal -and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale :to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 � Page 1 FILED; #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the . California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: - -r-�—��-------------------- ----------------- ADDRESS: ----- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of .Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or- Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and . denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound' Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of -my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, .one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of. Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington- Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69. continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE- DATED.. - --12 1 9"9U------------------------------- ADDRESS:_Zl�_/_�_�__ _I ___ _ ____ _ ____ ___ - - - ------ - - ---i City Of Huntington BeaA, County. Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP Ne9-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of .other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other farm of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: ##16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification _ to self serve? -. THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no. where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional. Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elec city officia . SIGNATURE: Jfy�.� DATED:------f--��- v---------/------------------------ ADDRESS:�S/a --, lf�l�ps 1_�ZI/ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP M89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the . September 17, 1990 Page i FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an ele d city official . SIGNATURE: Ra i--- - --- u - ------------------ DATED: / ADDRESS:--�--------- '�L= ---�-- ------------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the wit hdrawal . and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other i form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1..5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and nowhere. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my righ y revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI' b and a ri g my/o�r continued faith in you as an el r ted ci o ci 1 . SIGNATURE: DATED:____ ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the, Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through An already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" .just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 • Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. .Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident. of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: � " ` �'-" ��/•� VV�`J�-�o�+� ------------- ------ ------- 1---- J DATED: _I '�f C> ----- ----------------------------------------- ADDRESS:J C� z---`51'�'1� i-- =-- - ------------- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Paoe 2 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and- denial of this Conditional Use Permit which Changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of... this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it' s development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets'. of Cortez, Vanguard, . Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification -to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted . "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington beach, I firmly do not 'wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: - ----------------------- DATED: ------------------------------------- ADDRESS:&F-u_ U _�_ City Of Huntington ach, County Of Oran de*.- California September 17. 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #29-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this .location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an el I ci y ficial . SIGNATURE: pl%000r DATED:- �lfJ _ _ _ _ ___ __ ____ ____--____ ADDRESS: _ _ SAIMC 1AfJ C 9, _9,----------- ----� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and - denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it' s development arm puppet. INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ICUPI" #119-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city offi/gial . SIGNATURE:- - --- - -- - - ------------------- DATED• _ (!� ADDRESS:-Itt0 7 -__ " � _-- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California } September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional- -Use--Permit #89-69, - -which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request-"'the withdrawal aid "denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning fdr "many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: 1#16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and. no where, in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good- faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, .I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . 2 SIGNATURE: --- - ----- DATED:__'s 1 l - - ----- ------- ADDRESS:_(/_ _L_ J OCe(C.A City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-S.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to. sel f serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, _nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring-my/our continued faith in you as an elect d city Off i is . SIGNATURE: DATED: -------- -- _-__ ---------------- ADDRESS:--_6-2c�_- 6 City Of Huntington F h, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council - I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 � Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city ffici SIGNATURE- ---------- G -- ---- --- -------------7 ---- DATED: -------- �6�L- ADDRESS: Hof �, warvbwo (f 8-92-y --� City Of Huntington Reach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and ' Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the . September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: ------------------------------------ ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and -carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All - of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no.. where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit 'CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elect d city official . SIGNATURE• -------------------------- DATED: _ L1 _�� ----------------------------------------- ADDRESS:_�(��2 I alr� -- --- -------------------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and. Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected cit official . SIGNATURE: ---------- ----- - ---- -------------------- DATED: �L� _1_ D ADDRESS: City Of Hunting on Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *A9-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" .lust a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 19e2, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-6.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal' 0ak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . S I GNATURE: _ /L2 _ DATED; (77 101--f-0------------ --------- -------- ADDRESS: ---------- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to .gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues;_ there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at. Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? _ . THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In .fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: -------------- ADDRESS: ADDRESS:_��C �_Z2�L�IG1�1f1_fa_ZL ' _. _ --a City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, Califor ia- September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST--CUP #89-69 - Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14.972 .Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single f ami 1 y-.- -- dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? .. _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been -railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . ---- � SIGNATURE: 5 .c v _______________________ DATED: �°-�lo �,o ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beac County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash -at 14972 Springdale Street, _ Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: ------ -------------------------------- DATED: ---1�-�------------------------------------------- ADDRESS: _Z _ -- C-�=------------------------ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 . Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO.-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, . 92647. . We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation ,in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those. who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale -and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this. act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city offi ial . SIGNATURE: �....., DATED: I�lo�a U ADDRESS: =1 _1LC �L _C�� c �__k-�l�+.J���U��ZO►J gG City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter- undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit . [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, . Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed . severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the .Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking t to remodel their existing in riors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an .extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of .Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, . that it endangers my neighborhood and .-Family,, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an ele ed city fficial . SIGNATURE- DATED: '/4� ------------------------------------------ ADDRESS: - -- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience mar.ket. and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU .really ask me/us to tacitly accept •another modification _ to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous- substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous- substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . Ga SIGNATURE: - ----- - ---- -- DATED ADDRESS: _ City Of Huntington Beach, Count Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: ##16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP 099-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Bused upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation .of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access .as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at- less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: �1� q0 ,L ADDRESS: 9s� �� G,Y__ l -IZL ------------------- City Of Huntington Bea A, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and, no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: ------------------------- DATED: -- - �-1-�------------------------------------- ADDRESS:_ g� I _A u b�l/�L✓__�[Za--=-----------------------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: ##16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City 'Council ' I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/.my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal _Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? _ _THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for. 9/17/90, .Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and. no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances. " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it. totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: _®^r_�- ------- -------------------- ------------- DATED• I I a 0 ADDRESS:_ (Oa'?y VBeac�h�, City Of Huntington unty Of Orange, 111fornia, September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a .simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak _ and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really• ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification -- to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to .gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit . CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: -- ,,--S25 I - ------- ------------- DATED: ----------------------------- ADDRE5S: & 1_- - - ��/------------------- City Of Huntington Be 7C41 County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at -14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound .reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other farm of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the I September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-6.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no. where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elect-gezity officia . SIGNATURE: -- -- -- ------------------------ DATED: _ ADDRESS: -e City Of Huntington Be4ch, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1.990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an. already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW I CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an el cted city official . SIGNATURE• - ---------------------------------- DATED4 : _ ADDRESS:_ � IJ _Cl l�•-- - -------------a City Of Huntington Beach County 1/Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically. opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale-.S.treet, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason- for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future._ An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, . and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]"Ned 69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an el city fficial . SIGNATUR ------------------------------ r DATED: ---------- ---------------- -------------------- --� City Of Hunting on BeachW County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the -withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being . of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: ' In .the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been _an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use. will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE• DATED:---� 7 - ------------------------------------ ADDRESS N•_���/��}I.S// ' G City Of.Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 SpringdaLle Street,._ Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ICUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach -City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303,. and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted ".Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: ,-, DATED: __ 4 I 1 ------------------- ------------------- a ADDRESS: CD�'[ 1 CSt�af2N 1a�f City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BLESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council - I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial .of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in •question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Polsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMAN$ PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach .City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section -15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations,. nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly . do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensurin my/our continued faith in you as an elected off ' SIGNATURE• DATED:-- -� - ADDRESS: -- --- ------- ------------------------ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange_, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council -I/We- or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private . property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW I CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where- in this section does. it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely Hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of .Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my ur ntinued faith in you as an elec city fici , SIGNATURE•__ _ _ ___ _ ____ ___ ________________ DATED:- ---�—1 --1--------------------------------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California -: September 17, '1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and -carwash at -14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 922647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" constitutes the subservience .of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and , Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". . The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask .me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It- does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elec ity offi ial SIGNATURE: 1/1 ------------- DATED: � ADDRESS: O _�_�' L s✓_ / __ /��E!_y_LL.✓c iow_Q /�C/� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues_: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The "Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three .a.t_ Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and. section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the. procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" 9-69 n ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an a ec ed y off ' . SIGNATURE: DATED: ADDRESS:__-1 ---- ��----- --�---� City Of Huntington Beach, unt.y Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW - CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage .the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal_ Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it ,has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . t SIGNATURE• W --------- ---- __-------- DATED: -------— --------------- _ v` ADDRESS: _ __ ______________ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange,, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 .Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel_ their existing interiors, and the like. It_ does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that . it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoki "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-6 and ensuri /ou continued faith in you as an electe ity offici n SIGNATURE: DATED: - ADDRESS• City Of Huntington Beach ' C my Of Orange, Cal ornia September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other farm of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of . years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPJ" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our conti �ed faith in you as an elect ity o i SIGNATURE• Oil ,DATED:------ jd� --�- -�-- ----- ADDRESS:- City Of H ti Beach, County Of Orange, California_ September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP M89-69 _ Submitted To The Huntington Beach City-Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are -categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound. reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and i Bolsa Avenues;_ there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service ,station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the- Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . S I GNATURE:____ 4 _ DATED:----/�---� ® _ � lLA ------------- ADDRESS:--- _01'7A ___ City Of Huntington B h, County Of O nge, Cal i f oeh i a ' E F September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP3" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved . and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP3" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I. firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. . Please respect my rights ,by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE- -- - -------- -- i DATED: _�___,��C ------------- ADDRESS:-unt i ng o - _- ---- City Of Huntington ach, ounty Of Orang , California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it ref er. to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts- of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the. City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of . Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional .Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, -that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: Q_ - «- \_� _ _ ---------------------- ADDRESS: _j _!1_ _— �!� L"i"— -----------------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange., . Cal i f orni a September 17. 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, .Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-6.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, . one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It. does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is. an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly . do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city o i ci al SIGNATURE• t 1 v DATED: ------ ---- -------------------------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of range,. Cal i f orni a September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ICUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain .a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues_; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one. at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . S I GNATURE: 4: - ---------------------------------- DATED: ��1�1 �/ -- ---------------------------------------- ADDRESS:1106-Z -�oG &e 'v -----� - -----� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit "the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and deniAI"of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many -reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ICUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt,ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST,. there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: ##16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1 .5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve?. THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of -the California Environmental Quality Act. I-/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which. gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" . As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city offici . SIGNATURE:___ -------------- DATED: ADDRESS: -// ��� -- --- ----------------- City Of Huntington beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Paqe 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt,ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private . property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to -grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected y official . ���P�1 SIGNATURE:____ DATED: -- ----�- _/0 ----- --------------------- ADDRESS: /_,�'_7_3_2 __,_�__�__,_�_ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, -California -/ e:2,n� September 17. 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #A9-69. Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Reach Conditional Use Permit #89-69. which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: ##16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *e9-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional - Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far . ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can 'be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood 'consisting -of..,si ng 1 e family dwell i ngs on the streiqts:,°of; 'Cor, pz, , V,an,6u-A ;,:. Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through.,an already heavily used parking lot which recently repavedvand installed severe traffic speed bumps' .to discourage .-the Al,r..eady persistent parking lot ffslryers.,WK .atakif;%-the , "short`--cut" . The last part of this portion of !my petition 'still regards traffd-c•.control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues:"`there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and .two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to sel f serve? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an el ec d city of i al . SIGNATUR . DATED: ADDRESS: Bich, --------------------qCity Of Huntington County Of Orange, California V6Q7 September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Peach Conditional Use Permit- #89-69, which- would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial - of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single . business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being. of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family - dwellings on the streets of. Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition _still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted, "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3-, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an gler-ted cit official . S I G N A T U E DATED: �_�Q _ _ q - C- - --------- ADDRESS:1y� City Of Huntington Beach, Cjiunty Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to .self serve?- - THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith"' on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish. to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE• DATED: ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We- urgentl y request the withdrawal and denial of this=... Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years -of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other. private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice. of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: 1#16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation. exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three --at -Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1 .5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL. and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected cit official . SIGNATURE: �� DATED: ---- -r--------------------------------------- ADDRESS: --- ----- — �v — —=—�5---'-------------a City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it' s development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptd ous manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 .Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well. being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 .Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, . the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in t982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council ' future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit LCUPI" #89-69 . continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an electe city o ici'j SIGNATUR ------------------ DATED: --,,-91/( U ADDRESS: JZZ ----- --- -- --- --------- ----- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17. 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council 'k I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdeawal and "denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide. planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. .Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the. already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut"'. The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There -is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED; #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve's THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like.. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an electe city officia . SIGNATURE: DATED: ADDRESS:_1 �P - ZL��-------------------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17. 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification. to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince -and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, . and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: CL2.ti�� DATED: �,d -1_ Z 1 2±� ADDRESS:___I__41Z_7'_4_�_0_2__ -----------____- --------15 � City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street,` Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have . brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt,ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in . a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends -that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section. 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89 an Suring our continued faith in you as an ele it of ici 1 . SIGNATUR Ze_ Q DATED: - ---------------- ----------- ADDRESS:- L---- �� ---- =----- = =- -' 2 City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form ❑f access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that - the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP3" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood . and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state. documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you 'as an elected city ficial . , r SIGNATURE• DATED: ADDRESS:1 ���- _CJl/2�C C= }�T City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where= in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that .it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an electe ty off ' cial . SIGNATURE: DATED: --��f� ADDRESS: ----- ----------City Of Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale- Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take -the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the. September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, 'Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations,_ nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP] #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elect city offic' i . SIGNATURE: --�-- - ------------------------- DATED.------------g�/1- -��--------------------------- ADDRESS:- City Of Huntington Beach, my Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council - I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved. and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one _at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where i-n this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please re ct .my ri t by evoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUP #8 -69 and rin my/our c tinued faith in you as an lec ed city of i i SIGNATU E• DATED: - --- ----------- ---- -- -- --- ---�-'-- ___ •_ C�i ADDRESS: CityOf untington Beach, C nt Of Orange, California _ Y 9 r September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale- Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has .occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot. -Flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion- of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at . Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach., I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected ' ty official . SIGNATURE: / 4 DATED: --- . < --! d ADDRESS: 10 - City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial -of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit LCUPI" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt,ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on .the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an al-ready heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago.. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would. YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to-self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89=69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no- where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/ tr continued faith in you as an elected city ffi i SIGNATURE: -- -= - Z4 -------------------- DATED:___:�� --------------------------------- J ADDRESS: _ _ ___, City Of Huntington Beach, Coun y f Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page ? FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request-the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established.- zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many: reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use, Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of . nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the. surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through ,an already heavily used parking lot which recently eepaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the '"short',-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All- of these can be clocked at' less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional .Use permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit C CUP I As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our co inued faith in you as an elected city official . ; SIGNATURE: DATED: ADDRESS:---- -- � - � /S- -- - --�-=---� ------ -------------- - City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, al1fornia September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this - Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the .business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have .brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut" . The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and. Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles. apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and .no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. . In fact it refers to homes, small businesses. seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the. like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" . #89-69 continued as' I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected�c* ficial . SIGNATURE: _ _ ��.►G _ �__-�_ _ _ _ _________ DATED- �fiy�,�. �--_� _ L�C-1 --------- ri ADDRESS:__(0_O_44__L___-Q� it Of Huntington Beach, Count Of Oran a Cali C y Hunt g n B c , y g , September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the . rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station; traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic- through an already heavily used parking lot which recently. repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". • The •last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council ,.+uture. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/1.7/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much .as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ICUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please. respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE• W� , DATED: __-- 1 --------------------------------------- ADDRESS:--,, - __� G__C __�____ ____________� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange,Ialifornia September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, .and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the. "plans"_ for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already . heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUR #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington. Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit LCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected c. ty ffici SIGNATURE: - -------------------- DATED: ` - --1----�-L-------------- ------------------- ADDRESS: __ gz6 City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: ##16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach- City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, -are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable _manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. Ail of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and ,cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince . and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED:__�-/ 7- 9 6--------------------------------------- ADDRESS: a2_2 G Y City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972_ Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the . rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve?_ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied; and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the .California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act. and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, . that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and witing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city off ' c' al SIGNATURE: -- -- - -------------------------------------- fj DATED: .�......... ADDRESS: _� Z --J ----------------} Citj �Of Huntington Bea h, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through .it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an ' already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the' only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An/ identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal. Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of . these can be clocked at less than - 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self ser_ve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: C� ADDRESS:� _7_ _ _�//�_�t�_ --r---- -`� U 7, /� Z City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the -City to a single _ business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" - location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at. Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. 'All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of . Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 31: of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988, of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been . railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE:___) DATED: -- ---- -------------------------------------- ADDRESS: LD��---� ----"=(/�? tt.- j,� City Of Huntington Beach-; County Of Orange, Cal i f orni a September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues? there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-S.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality 'Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303' and no where. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but. not least, there has .been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit COUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, . that it. endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use. Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE:-- ----- --------------------------------- DATED: "' ADDRESS: City Of Hunti ton Beach County Of Orange, California September 17, '1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street.- Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUPJ" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not .considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, . traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, .can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of. Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal -Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of .good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it_ endangers my neighborhood .and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elec d city ff ' ial . SIGNATURE: - - ------------------------------------ DATED:____ ADDRESS: �__�- --�� ------------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, .Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor .in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale..and Westminster., All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask .me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the. California Environmental Quality -Act. I/we have seen this act and section 1,5303, and. no. where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use .Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers_ my neighborhood and family, that .it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by r voking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensurin /our continued faith in you as an el a cit offici SIGNATURE: DATED: --- -- - ------ ADDRESS:_� Z 2 City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California . September 17, 1990 _ Page 2 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at - 14972 Springdale. Street,. Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, . traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family ---- dwellings on the streets of - Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City -Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1..5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use. -Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303', and no. where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it -endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and. citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city offic' 1 . SIGNATURE- IL-4 -- --- ---------------- DATED: Z?o / / �[/ / �/ ADDRESS:�Q�1 � ( S _�T �_ 4_ __� 7_ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ICUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it- s development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious° manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa. and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would. YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality - Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no- where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact .it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an -ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly. do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and -citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking- "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city o ficia . SIGNATURE- �' DATED: ---/,-�-,-,-------------------------------------------- ADDRESS: _ ___ _ __•_ ___ ___ ___ __ - - -- - --- ------- --- ----� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and- carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner i.n which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues! there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the. California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and. no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is .an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack .of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, -and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an. unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded . through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE:,. ---------------------------------- ADDRESS: -- - �'=��- ---�-�-- ,d1�`1_61����.,L City Of Hunti gton Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Paae 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short=cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and- Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/.17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and- no where.. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington_ Beach, I firmly do not wish to have :'Conditional Use Permit ICUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city cia . SIGNATURE• ------------ DATED:__Zl_�7 �'�_ __ __ _ - ADDRESS: �—J/l< � � � ��_ 2 City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California . September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as- hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in i the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting .of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council f future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1 .5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this sectiori' does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE:. �� - ----- -- ------------------- DATED: L1 d----------------------------------------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, Califo nia September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 • Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categoril ally opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 922647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit. which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning: There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW � CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89 69 t Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak �w and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All . of �r these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would 61 YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an Zeleced city off ' ial . S SIGNATURE: --- DATED: ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-64 t, Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council : ' I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional - Use -Permit -#89-69,- -which would permit the reconstruction. of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning- for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 -Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family - dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All ' of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of . the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car , washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in. as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city offi ial . SIGNATURE: DATED:---�1 =��---------------------------------------- ADDRESS:_ /_1J1S �tc� _a¢. GF�r�_ �_yi.l�ITjarET i /Sc City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman . and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot. flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues;_ there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at1 Spring dale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? _...__. THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and. section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural. time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City .has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-6 a ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an e 1 f ed i -- SIGNATURE: _7_�_ _ -- ----- DATED: ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. 'We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 .Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3,. of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the .part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an ele city offic" SIGNATURE: ----1'- � ------------------------------- DATED: ADDRESS: 3 3 G5 l2 - --------------------- City Of Huntington Beaeih, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: rt16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION_ AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established toning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it' s development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over . three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and . Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There- is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of . hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: . Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUF]". As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUF]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rig h 's by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUF]"#89-69 and a Uri my/our continued faith in you as an elected ty SIGNATURE• ---- --- ---- ------------------------------- DATED:---- -� !--------- ---------------------- ADDRESS: ��_�/2�' CityOf Huntington Beach Count Of Orange, California 9 Y 9 � September 17. 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOD-G.FW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 ,Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, . nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: ##16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Boisa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit . #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL. and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you .as an elected cit off ' cia . SIGNATURE: DATED: -------- - ------------------------------------- ADDRESS: -1 _1���� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California r September 17, 1�996 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning- for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt"ions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. -All of - - these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to-self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303; Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts -of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please resp t my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#8 - 9 and ensuri my/our continued faith in you as an elec ci offici SIGNATURE• DATED:__-�- 15- Yo ------------------------------------------ ADDRESS: 702 2 ✓l2�//f% �� l�j/��✓ T�i✓ City Of Huntington Bea h, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denier of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE . & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved And installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking l.ot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED; #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional- Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUPI " As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: 1 �------------------------------------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the . reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should. have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE _& Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self- serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15!03, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does. specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit SCUP']" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected ity official SIGNATURE:___ ----- - - -- -- ---- ------------- DATED:J - - - -- - -L - -------- --��� �---- 1 ADDRESS: -- - --- --- -- --- --- -- - City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. - We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED; ##16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #69-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All. of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, .nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack. of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and. Ince and. Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . S I GNATURE: 1 L DATED: --- ==�5��-�------------------------------------ ADDRESS:__(201L_C-L_f,iJ L.7 City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: ##16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer tolgasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit LCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89 9 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elect city offi 1 . SIGNATURE: -t�J�r'-v�� DATED: --�1-,L�°�9 ------------------------`-=---------- / ADDRESS: _ �0 ��7�- -�:'L�. ��-�- City Of Huntington Reach, County Of Oran , California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUR]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elecaed city off ' iaL SIGNATURE: -------- ------------ ------------------- DATED: �S �6, ADDRESS: V ___ -- ----- - -------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, alifornia September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically _ ._ . _.. opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in; as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing .unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an electe city o. fi i 1 . SIGNATURE: DATED.-------=P�=- ---------=--------------- a ADDRESS:_ _64o_OF=---_L->I 1--JC� 1 / ���_--��' =C-F----�zC�-�-1 #�-Z City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through •an already heavily used parking lot which recently .rep-ave.d and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already -persi_stent ­parki n,g'J of flyers who. take the "short-cut". The last part of this' por`ti•on of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound ' Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP_ #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3. of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City. has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89- 9 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elect city of 1 SIGNATURE:____ _ DATED. ice ------- ------ -��O------------------------ ADDRESS: ------ -------------- ---------- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established. zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons,. and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination- of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can,'argue, that cutting through the nei ghborhood, consi st i ng Hof ;si'ng,l e family dwellings on the streets--of Cortez, •Vanguar'd:,�Sherman and Sabre would not require the tr-affic -.through an already heavily used parking lot whi-eti' ecent=l y,. repayed c nd installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers-\who take\, they,'4hort-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will .ultimately establish. - SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, .nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the .Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 153.03, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only . encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in - you as an l ected city official . S I GNATURE: _U V- _ 1 DATED:----- -ur— ----------------------------- ADDRESS:k �___ �_ )a _ __�____ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California. September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale_ Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ICUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at-Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . S I GNATURE: jI _L_J -- _ _ ---- -- -- --- ---- DATED:_� __� ---------------------------------------- ADDRESS:----- --L - - --L�1 ------- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with - convenience market and carwash at 14972_Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes .the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff. recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit_ #99-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in -Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use- will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing..unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: -- --- ---------- --------------------------- DATED:--------�CJ�---- ----- -----��-,�------------- ADDRESS. 1� _0 City Of Hunti ngitori" Beach, C6unty Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request. the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby -residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting . through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit COUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1 .5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in 'Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit 1CUP3" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit LCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elee�d city icial . SIGNATURE: DATED: ��5 ADDRESS: - L&�4,a_ _- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of O ang-e, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, --as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take ,the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other farm of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW t r CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at 'Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an electj cit official . SIGNATURE: ------------------------------------ DATED:1 10------------------------------- ADDRESS: _--- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of � these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal -of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be- denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where- in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP] #89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elec ed city offic' al . . SIGNATURE: C ` -- --- --------------------- DATED: ADDRESS: 00U C �Cl City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California .z. September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW 9, 4 , CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council ' - I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience. mar-ket and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood -consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of j Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster: All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff . recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in required- in with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional . Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an ele to ct officia SIGNATURE:DATED: ---------- ------------------------ ADDRESS: $i Zl C,- one lhb J-/n-t, Aj4 , P- 7 - ------- - ----a City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Reach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Reach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet. INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and ' Rolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1962, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted .To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. A11 of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to._self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89769 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes.. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elec city of - cial . SIGNATURE: DATED:_q _ =_ � ---------------- --------------- ADDRESS: � a-� C '_�____ City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to- and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgentl-y request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements -and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought -the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting -- through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected cit fficial . SIGNATURE: -------- �--------------------------- DATED: q / I� �i ADDRESS:--�_ 11�%� _ CA City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #k16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would perrtlit' the - reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington 'Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1 .5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification . to self serve^ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, 'small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city off, " al . 49 SIGNATURE: DATED: ----L�L1Z1 -------------------------------------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Paqe 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at_ Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and . three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of. the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an -ongoing "lack of good faith"_ on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of. Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have . "Conditional Use Permit 1CUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city officjz� al . SIGNATURE:- --- l: � ------------------------ DATED: --- ADDRESS:-". �od�_�A--��---{�j-(-�------------ ----- City . Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7 constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private _ property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses; or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303. and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP] " As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you- as an el ted city offici 1 . SIGNATURE: --- -- ----- q� / DATED: --1/=-,1-16----------------------------------------- ADDRESS:-�o21z -SSA&MAw 'br.-I!/G - --- - --- ------ ----- City Of Huntington Beach County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Paoe 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington beach Conditional Use Permit- #89-69, "which would -permit the ' reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently "request the withdrawal and---denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many- reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 based upon a review of the "plans." for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of, single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of. Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional• Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #G9-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster'. All of these. can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends. that the Appeal of .Conditional Use- Permit #89-69 be denied, and .cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no. where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking . to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: -----Lb! ------------- ���� DATED:--- -1 - -+�--- ----------------------------------- ADDRESS: l Ld - -- GY1t'�-----L�= q. -6 �V i City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywi-de planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest . Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it' s development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 ,Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and . Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUR]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other i Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve_? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends. that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: , -- ---� --------------- - --- ADDRESS: -- ----------------- ------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, Cali rnia September 17, '1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP N99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit_ ECUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/909 Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elec d i of al . J SIGNATURE: DATED: --9- -7-_.t->---=-----------,-Z--------------- --- ADDRESS: ----1� =--� --� City Of Huntington Beach, C ` my Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington. Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE $c Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. j SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would - YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and "the like. It does" specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an a cted city official . SIGNATURE: _ DATED: l ------------ --- ADDRESS:-- ._ 1 � �__ __ _ City Of Hun ington Beach, County Of Orange, Ga ifornia September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW - CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal"and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, . UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting - through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another- modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303,. and no- where. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED:___ // - --L --/� �---------------------------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of range,_ California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council - - I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically. opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, _ and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious Manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach .City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale -and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/909 Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit " CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been .railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: -------- _ -----�- - -------- ----------------- ADDRESS:- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange,. California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #ib/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an _already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP7" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW I CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? _ THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act. and section 15303, and. no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the .procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use .will only encourage abuse of. an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ens ring my/our continued faith in 4 you as an ele ted cityWFial .SIGNATURE: 4 . �-- 1= ------- - ---------- DATED:-----T=-� 6 -r----- - ADDRESS:__ l'- ��-- � -C-��-z-�----------------a City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *A9-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We. urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of .zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council _ future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where. in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 989 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City _ has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of .Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuing my/our continued faith in you as an ct d city o,ficial . SIGNATURE: DATED:---------- 12-Z 1 d------------------------------- ADDRESS: C� ------- ------ - ----- -------------------------� City Of Hunting on Beach., County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council -- I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, - are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect 'to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 1 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and- highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues? there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other farm of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? . THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an lected city, o icial . SIGNATURE: DATED:------------------f-`-=1- - ---------------------- ADDRESS:_1 ffg, auk-e-.5 /- ' City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST 'CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market - and carwash. at 14972 .Springdale Street, _ Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements `-and years of citywide planning .-For many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW i CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council 4 h� future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at. less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and. section 15303, and nowhere in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is. an extremely hazardous substance. . FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: 41&"a DATED: ADDRESS: ,�46 ---`� L C -- ff ----------' City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.RW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #t16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster.. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of . the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does _ specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an. extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you Ias an elected city official . SIGNATURE: = DATED: ---------------------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September_ 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many. dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection _ of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other farm of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED; #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? .THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #99-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" #89-69 continued as I feel it .totally .unwarranted, that it endangers my. neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elect c' ty officia . SIGNATURE: DATED: _ ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, . Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional . Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have . repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect . to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other farm of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the. city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa .and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really- ask -me/us to tacitly accept another modification -- to self serve? THIRD: -In. the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #99-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. . I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 982 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, . that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: ---�- /---- - -------------------------------- DATED: _1 ,1�L ----------------=-------------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California. 7 September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CU. . M99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City C until I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITI �E b/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Sumtted To The Huntington Beach City Council s future. An identical self-service type operation exists IM/" across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak U and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would `AI YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and nowhere in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of 'UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit COUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" -69 an ensurin /our continued faith in you as an el t city o ficia . SIGNATURE: X7 1 ' ZZ DATED: -- -- - -1 ------------------------------- ADDRESS: �D l r---2zc- L ----------------I City Of Huntington-Beach, County Of Orange, California 23 l3 . Z �3 s� )Y September 17, 1990 'age 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW e - CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently .protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street,. Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumptious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station. traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, . small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated. requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit LCUPI" As a resident of the City 04 Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an electe ity official . SIGNATURE: /�- DATED: ---- --- - -------- --- ------------------- ADDRESS: City Of H tington Beach, Cou Of Orange, Ca ifor is September 17, 1990 Paqe 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private . property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class. 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act, I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights -by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE- r DATED: ADDRESS:-_?/ G P14 - --- -------`-� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California I September 17, 1990 Pane 2 FILED: x16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach - ConditionaI- Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of "a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. ---'We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of- citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a. simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single -family dwellings on the` streets• of Cortez, Vanguard; Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through ,an already heavily used parking lot which recently rdpaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent park-t ng_,-1 of flyers who take the "short=cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these: can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section" 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and, no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of .which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the ,procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington .Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an electe city official . SIGNATURE: DATED:_ _��___ �_ ---__---I--n^--------- ------------ ADDRESS:1 � J� r CCity Of Huntington Beach, County Of range, al � September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/S00-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional ' Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business .entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has .occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private . property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already "persistent parking lot flyers who take thel. 'short=cut". The last part of this portion of my pet-i t i-on' still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and ' generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other farm of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact -it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors. - and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected ci ty/ o�f� f)icial . SIGNATURE: (�2Z- -------------------- DATED: ADDRESS:�fO�_ �Z�1C:_-a— �_----- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Paoe 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of 'this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982., there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS -PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1 .5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses. seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit LCUP7" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that i as been railroaded through using nonexistent reason g and citing unapplicable sections of city and state do cu a S. Please res ect y .rights y evoking "Conditional Use Permit LCUP7"#8 - d ensur n my/our continued faith in you as an elec i y o ic" f SIGNATURE- DATED: 1 ADDRESS:_____ _ ---- - --------------- -----, City Of Huntington Beach, aunty Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ions manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the 'street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. . All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act- and. section. 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUPJ" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#89- a ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an a ct d cit offici . SIGNATURE: DATED:____ . __________ - --=---------/-j ADDRESS:-- -� - --- - ----------� City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this -- Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt-ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private . property to gain access. Then; UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, - Vanguard,, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers 'who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of .zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask. me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied-, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have .seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations,_ nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH% Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUP3"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city offi ial . SIGNATURE: DATED: G ADDRESS: ---- City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST. CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehementl-y protest the Huntington Beach - Conditional -,Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal`"and denial of--this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning- for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP7" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it' s development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 1 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last pact of this portion of my petition still regards traffic -control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California .Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303; and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with- timeliness -and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE• ------------ DATED: ----------------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington B ch, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which -would permit the" -_.._---- reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We urgently request the withdrawal and denial ' of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional ,Use Permit [CUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City t6 a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the ,�business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood ,should have brought the focus of our City government to 'place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious . manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1 . 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for _the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that .cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station' was "remodeled"- just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street_ , one at Boisa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? T HIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303*, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303. and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing - "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit CCUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elec,t.fd city official . SIGNATURE: �1�_ - DATED: ---------------------------------------- ADDRESS: City Of Huntington Beach, County Oran California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. -'We urgently request the withdrawal and denial of - this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place -the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting - of -single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Balsa Avenues: there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Balsa and. Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303,' Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have .seen this act and section 15303, and no. where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded . through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: DATED: Q�Q �� 1 7 7C� --------------------------- kew. City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach "-Conditional Use Permit #89-691 which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. - We urgently request the withdrawal "and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through .it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" .for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private , property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the I September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOD-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask: me/us to tacitly accept another modification _ . to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section . 15303,_ and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances; " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit SCUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elect city offi ial . SIGNATURE: - - - --=--------------------- DATED: -- -- -1�- } -1-------- ------------------- ADDRESS: _ _ _ , - ----- -- - - ----- City Of Huntington, ach. County Of Orang California I September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP #99-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned, are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69; which -W-bUl d permit -the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market. and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. We__urgently request the withdrawal and denial-of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit CCUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, .the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop .and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic .through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUR #89-69 SubmiAtted To The Huntington Beach City Council 4 future. An identical self-service type operation exists across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1 .5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to self serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and -cites -Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations, nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and. state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: ---� -- - - -------------- DATED: ------------------------------------- ADDRESS:_1��0_v l Gi / Ile vim- _ I��i �i i; 11)YL.,Bela—c_G!D,r'-/,t, City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Or ge, California I September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G. PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST C R #89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City puncil I/We or Us, as hereafter undersigned,- are categorically opposed to and vehemently protest the Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit #89-69, which would permit the reconstruction of a new self-service gas station with convenience market and carwash at 14972 Springdale Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92647. isle urgently request the withdrawal and denial of this Conditional Use Permit which changes long established zoning requirements and years of citywide planning for many reasons, and feel that the approval of this "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" constitutes the subservience of the City to a single business entity at the express disservice to many dozens of nearby residences and long established businesses. Any close examination of the location in question, the business situation, and the surrounding neighborhood should have brought the focus of our City government to place the well being of the public far ahead of a simple profit manipulation by a multimillion dollar, multinational interest Corporation, UNOCAL, and through it's development arm puppet INCE & Associates. While our/my outrage at the very presumpt.ious manner in which this has occurred, my participation in this petition is founded on sound reasoning and facts which have repeatedly been overlooked by those paid "professionals" in the City, and certainly not considered by those who we elect to develop and maintain a community in a neighborhood over three decades in age. 1. 3 Based upon a review of the "plans" for the rebuilding of the preexisting self-service gas station, traffic flow would dramatically increase in many unsafe and highly undesirable manners. 1 ' FIRST, there exists no direct southbound Springdale access to this location. This, of course, can be countered by UNOCAL arguing that they can cut across other private property to gain access. Then, UNOCAL can argue, that cutting through the neighborhood consisting of single family dwellings on the streets of Cortez, .Vanguard, Sherman and Sabre would not require the traffic through an already heavily used parking lot which recently repaved and installed severe traffic speed bumps to discourage the already persistent parking lot flyers who take the "short-cut". The last part of this portion of my petition still regards traffic control at the intersection of Springdale and Bolsa Avenues; there is none. With no access from southbound Springdale to the "Conditional Use Permit [CUP]" location, the only access comes from the sacrifice of other businesses, or the violation of neighborhoods nearby, or risky and generally dangerous and unwarranted "U" turns, or some other form of access as drivers will ultimately establish. SECOND. This self-service station was "remodeled" just a couple of years ago. In fact since the Certificate Of Occupancy was granted in 1982, there have been two other Conditional Use Permits granted to this site, and two changes of zoning. There is no reason for the city to grant "another" remodeling and purpose modification at this time, nor in the September 17, 1990 Page 1 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW CITIZENS/BUSINESSMANS PETITION AGAINST CUP *89-69 Submitted To The Huntington Beach City Council future. An identical self-service type operation exists .across the street, one at Bolsa and Edwards, one at Royal Oak and Edwards, and three at Springdale and Westminster. All of these can be clocked at less than 1.5 miles apart. Why would YOU really ask me/us to tacitly accept another modification to- self- serve? THIRD: In the Council/Agency Agenda for 9/17/90, Staff recommends that . the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #89-69 be denied, and cites Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. I/we have seen this act and section 15303, and no where in this section does it refer to gasoline stations,. nor car washes. In fact it refers to homes, small businesses seeking to remodel their existing interiors, and the like. It does specifically prohibit maintaining "significant amounts of hazardous substances, " of which gasoline is an extremely hazardous substance. FOURTH: Last, but not least, there has been an ongoing "lack of good faith" on the part of UNOCAL and Ince and Associates in as much as the procedural time periods required in Article 988 of the City Of Huntington Beach, and in complying with timeliness and repeated requests of the City has demonstrated that another conditional use will only encourage abuse of an unwanted "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" As a resident of the City Of Huntington Beach, I firmly do not wish to have "Conditional Use Permit ECUP]" #89-69 continued as I feel it totally unwarranted, that it endangers my neighborhood and family, that it has been railroaded through using nonexistent reasoning and citing unapplicable sections of city and state documents. Please respect my rights by revoking "Conditional Use Permit ECUPI"#89-69 and ensuring my/our continued faith in you as an elected city official . SIGNATURE: P ---------------------- DATED: - 1- ADDRESS: 212 -,a a .1 _►`�7j_!s_ /S C�c C► _C City Of Huntington Beach, County Of Orange, California September 17, 1990 Page 2 FILED: #16/SOO-G.PW