A contentious zoning dispute has erupted in Oakland, pitting a local improvement association against the city council over the classification of a commercial kitchen. On June 28, 2024, the San Pablo Avenue Golden Gate Improvement Association, Inc., and Oakland Neighborhoods For Equity filed an appeal in Alameda County Superior Court against the City Council of Oakland and several city officials, challenging the denial of their administrative complaint regarding CloudKitchens' zoning clearance.
The case centers around CloudKitchens' application in September 2020 to convert a wood shop into a commercial kitchen in an HBX-1 zone—a mix of housing and business. The Planning Department classified this use as "Light Manufacturing," which is permitted by right under Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) section 17.65.0030 for facilities exceeding 10,000 square feet. Despite receiving zoning clearance and a building permit by March 2021, Neighbors learned of the project in April and promptly requested reconsideration, citing potential nuisances like increased traffic and pollution.
In July 2021, Neighbors formally complained to the Planning Department, arguing that CloudKitchens' operations resembled a fast-food restaurant rather than light manufacturing. However, the department upheld its initial decision, noting that similar uses had been approved before and that no substantial evidence suggested any zoning violations or nuisances.
Neighbors escalated their grievance to an independent hearing officer who affirmed the Planning Department's decision. The officer found that chapter 17.152 of OMC did not provide grounds to challenge prior zoning determinations but was intended for addressing existing violations. He also supported the classification of CloudKitchens as light manufacturing despite some characteristics akin to fast-food operations.
Undeterred, Neighbors sought judicial intervention through a writ of mandate but faced another setback when the trial court sided with the city. The court emphasized that chapter 17.152 could not be used to contest previous zoning decisions and that any such challenges should have been made under chapter 17.132 within ten days of the initial decision—a deadline long past.
Neighbors argue that this interpretation upends their rights to ensure compliance with zoning regulations meant to protect community interests. They claim that sufficient evidence was presented to warrant a revocation hearing under chapter 17.152 but were improperly dismissed due to procedural technicalities.
Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed these rulings on June 28, stating that Neighbors failed to follow proper channels for their appeal and misinterpreted chapter 17.152's scope regarding enforcement versus classification disputes.
Representing Neighbors are attorneys Rachel S. Doughty and Ariel Strauss from Greenfire Law PC. Defending Oakland are City Attorney Barbara J. Parker along with her team including Maria Bee, Montana Baker, Allison L. Ehlert from Hanson Bridgett LLP represented by Andrew A. Bassak and Niran Somasundaram. The case was presided over by Judge Frank Roesch under Case ID A168039.