Chronic Tacos is a Newport Beach gem. Great, inexpensive Mexican food. Started in 2001 in West Newport Beach, the original store often has a huge line stretching out the door. Now Chronic has the opportunity to expand — allowing places for people to actually sit down and eat — but the Newport Beach planning commission has rejected their application. Disagree? Time to show your support by attending the upcoming appeals hearing or sending a letter.
Local residents objected to the original plan which featured 15 flat-screen TVs, along with sit-down dining and alcohol service. A scaled back plan (and see here) cut the TVs back to 3 and the overall size of the restaurant by about 25%. Alcohol will still be available, but only bottled bear.
We’re regulars at Chronic. We ride our bikes there, just as many other locals do. When the line’s long, as it often is, the kids are dispatched to head inside first and grab a space while we lock up. Occasionally, it would be nice to actually sit there. It would certainly be nice to get good food without the giant lines (though part of me would be sad that this unique Newport experience would go away).
A public hearing happens this Tuesday at 7pm at Newport Beach City Hall. From the notice:
An appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a use permit for a full-service, high turnover eating and drinking establishment with beer and wine service and a parking waiver (Chronic Tacos).
The appeal was filed by the applicant/owner of Chronic Tacos, Dan Biello.
This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on September 22, 2009, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644-3200.
I’m disappointed to be away when the hearing is being held, but I plan to send a letter of support. These types of letters matter, trust me — I’ve seen in my own work on the Balboa Boardwalk safety committee. Email your city representative. They’re all listed here. If you’re a regular visitor to the city and want to voice your support, use the “Send a message to all Council Members” address listed on that page.
Postscript: Plans denied. And Chronic gets ripped on for among other things, having too many colorful stickers on its windows. You know, character.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
A bit of advice about having the greatest influence… For a number of years I’ve chaired a municipal Zoning Board of Appeals in Michigan. Statutes and case law differ in CA, but an appeal process still takes on a quasi-judicial character. See the wording of the notice: “If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.” In other words, you are beginning a judicial review, even though this hearing is held by an elected, legislative body. The decision on the appeal should be based solely on the record, and on documented policies of the municipality. Of course — perhaps to your benefit — some city council members may not grasp that, and may rule from their personal beliefs: judging without adjudicating. Others may be in the habit of reflecting constituents’ desires, so emotional appeals (or threats to their re-election) may be very effective. However, if the council has counsel (hehe…) they may be quite explicit in describing what may or may not be considered as justification for a reversal. I strongly suggest reading the relevant Newport Beach code, and addressing some points there as literally as possible. For example, “20.95.010 Purpose. To avoid results that are inconsistent with the purposes of this code…” Look elsewhere in the ordinance list, for such purposes — common purposes may include public health and safety, diversity, economic development, general welfare, and far more specific purposes in particular districts. If you can make a clear argument that, “The decision being appealed is in fact inconsistent with the purposes (intents, goals) of the code,” you may be able to get the most technical participants on your side, and perhaps win the day. Best of luck!
To avoid results that are inconsistent with the purposes of this code”