Ruling by
Christopher C. HiteLower Court
Alameda County Superior CourtLower Court Judge
Frank RoeschMunicipal enforcement regulations providing for public challenges to violative uses and existing nuisances did not provide a legal basis for challenging city planning department's prior zoning determination.
Court
California Courts of Appeal 1DCA/4Cite as
2024 DJDAR 7177Published
Jul. 31, 2024Filing Date
Jul. 29, 2024Opinion Type
ModificationDisposition Type
AffirmedCase Fully Briefed
Apr. 2, 2024Oral Argument
Jun. 25, 2024SAN PABLO AVENUE GOLDEN GATE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
Petitioners and Appellants,
v.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
No. A168039
(Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 22CV005451)
California Court of Appeal
First Appellate District
Division Four
Filed July 29, 2024
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 28, 2024, be modified as follows:
1. On page 8, footnote 5, the number "60" has been changed to "90," the reference to Government Code section 65009 has been clarified by adding "subdivision (c)(1)," and the number in "60-day" has been changed to "90-day" so the sentence reads:
Although that window remains open for 90 days under Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1), the 90-day time frame seems meaningless in circumstances where there is no notice of the granting of the clearance.
The modification does not change the judgment.
Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.
BROWN, P. J.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
