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

Good Law
83 Cal. App. 4th 139·98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 924
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 15, 2000A088494California2,285 words

Opinion

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 Demolition Ordinance by renting residential units to tourists. In 1981 the city had designated 79 of the Astoria’s rooms as residential units and 13 rooms as tourist units. The Clinic sought injunctive relief and attorney fees, and damages for unfair business practice under Business and Professions Code section 17200. Trial before the court was bifurcated. After the first phase, the court resolved a number of issues. The Astoria contends the court erred by (1) refusing to refer the Clinic’s claims to the San Francisco Planning Department under the primary jurisdiction doctrine; and (2) ruling that the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.