Suprema Meats v. City of Oakland CA1/4

Filed 12/28/22 Suprema Meats v. City of Oakland CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

SUPREMA MEATS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. A163448 CITY OF OAKLAND, Defendant and (Alameda County Respondent. Super. Ct. No. RG20058895)

Suprema Meats, Inc. (Suprema) appeals from the trial court’s denial of its petition for writ of administrative mandate. Suprema had challenged the decision by the City of Oakland’s (Oakland) planning commission to reverse a zoning manager’s grant of Suprema’s application for a conditional use permit. Suprema contends the planning commission first voted to affirm the grant of the permit before improperly voting to reverse it. Suprema has failed to demonstrate any error in the commission’s procedures, so we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Suprema applied for a conditional use permit and variance to legalize various improvements it had made to its building in Oakland. Oakland’s zoning manager approved the application in part, declared the project exempt from the California

1

Environmental Quality Act, and imposed conditions of approval. Suprema appealed this decision to the planning commission, as did the Golden Gate Community Association (Golden Gate), a group of residents in the neighborhood near Suprema’s building who were opposed to Suprema’s application. Oakland’s planning commission considered the appeals at a public hearing. The commission heard from Suprema, representatives of Golden Gate, and the public. The commission then considered a motion to affirm the environmental determination, deny Suprema’s appeal, and uphold the zoning manager’s decision. The commission’s secretary explained that the vote was not to take action on the conditional use permit, but merely to take action on Suprema’s appeal, and that the commission could later uphold or deny the conditional use permit when it ruled on the second appeal. The commission then voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The commission next considered a motion to deny the environmental determination and uphold Golden Gate’s appeal, which would have the effect of reversing the approval of the conditional use permit. That motion failed. The commission secretary explained that the commission could still consider a motion to affirm the environmental determination and deny Golden Gate’s appeal, or it could continue the item to another date. After additional discussion on the merits of the appeal, the commission secretary advised the commission it could consider a new motion that was substantially the same or the same as the previous motion, or it could consider an entirely new motion. The