Legal Opinion

Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. Astoria Hotel, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 15, 2000No. A088494PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PARRILLI, J.

the San Francisco Planning Code, a property use that “lawfully existed” on the effective date of new zoning controls is deemed a permitted conditional use. Is the city’s certification of hotel rooms as tourist units enough to establish their lawful existence for this purpose, or is proof of actual tourist use required? We hold that certification is sufficient.

The Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc., (Clinic) sued the Astoria Hotel, Inc. The Clinic claimed the hotel was violating San Francisco’s Planning Code (Planning Code) and the city’s Residential Hotel Unit Conversion and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Southern California Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractor Inc. v. California Apprenticeship CouncilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  3. City & County of San Francisco v. Board of Permit AppealsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  4. San Remo v. City and County of San FraciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Farm Service, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  4. San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API