Ching

Ching v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 17·60 Cal. App. 2d 888·60 Cal. App. 4th 888·70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 700·98 Daily Journal DAR 325
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 9, 1998A074816California3,472 words

Opinion

Opinion

Phelan, J.

Harsch Investment Corporation (Harsch) appeals from a judgment granting the petition of Alice Ching, Bai Sung Ho, Kam O. Lau and Ke Qin Shen (collectively referred to as Ching) for a peremptory writ of mandate vacating a decision of the San Francisco Board of Permit Appeals (the Board). Harsch contends the judgment must be reversed because Ching’s petition was untimely filed under the 90-day limitation period set by Government Code former section 65907. We agree with appellant, and therefore reverse the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Harsch is an owner and developer of commercial property. Since 1963, it has been the owner of a commercially zoned hotel at 417 Stockton Street in San Francisco (the Hotel). In 1990, Harsch commenced formal legal steps to obtain permission to rent all the rooms of the Hotel to tourists. In September 1990, Harsch filed an application with the San Francisco Department of City Planning (the Department) for a conditional use permit to convert residential units in the Hotel to tourist use.

Harsch waited more than two years for the Department to act on its application. In December 1992, Harsch notified the City of San Francisco (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.