page revised: June 22, 2009
© 2007-2009 Aquatic Park Neighbors
 |
869 North Point Street
Summary: In May 2007, the property owner sued the City of San
Francisco to reverse the Board of Supervisor's decision requiring an
environment review to consider the impact on a potential historic district of
his proposed demolition. The original lawsuit was dismissed by the State
District Court.
As of May 2008, the property owner has filed an appeal to the State
Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the lower (State District) Court
dismissing his original lawsuit against the City of San Francisco.
Pending the resolution of the lawsuit and appeal, the property must
undergo a broader environmental impact evaluation. Neighbors argued
that this property, while in itself not architecturally significant, is historically
significant due to its former inhabitants and its historic neighborhood
context.
Summary: In May 2007, the property owner sued the City of San
Francisco to reverse the Board of Supervisor's decision requiring an
environment review to consider the impact on a potential historic district of
his proposed demolition. The original lawsuit was dismissed by the State
District Court.
As of May 2008, the property owner has filed an appeal to the State
Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the lower (State District) Court
dismissing his original lawsuit against the City of San Francisco.
Pending the resolution of the lawsuit and appeal, the property must
undergo a broader environmental impact evaluation. Neighbors argued
that this property, while in itself not architecturally significant, is historically
significant due to its former inhabitants and its historic neighborhood
context.
Detail: The single-family home at 869 North Point was purchased by a
developer from Marin County in 2005. He petitioned to demolish the house
and replace it with a four-story, multi-unit apartment building that extended
into the existing back yard.
developer from Marin County in 2005. He petitioned to demolish the house
and replace it with a four-story, multi-unit apartment building that extended
into the existing back yard.
The Planning Department issued a permit allowing the building to be demolished, based in part on a “Categorical
Exemption from Environmental Review” stating the building’s removal would not pose any significant negative
impact to the neighborhood.
The neighbors fought the demolition based on the home’s importance as part of the historic context of the Aquatic
Park Neighborhood. The neighbors also believed his building plans were inappropriate, given the large size and
bulk of the proposed building. In principal, also, the demolition would be removing a typical single-family home
from the available neighborhood stock.
In the course of the discussions with the developer and the Planning Department, it was discovered that the
developer, Vincent Tomera, had misrepresented facts on his demolition permit application, including the age of
the building and the assessed value of the property. These egregious “errors” in his representations were
brought to the attention of the Planning Department and the Board of Supervisors.
The neighbors’ appeal of the Categorical Exemption from Environmental Review granted by the Planning
Department was heard by the Board of Supervisors in April, 2006. The Board supported the neighbors and sent
the project back to the Planning Department for environmental review.
Following his loss before the Board of Supervisors, the developer sued the City of San Francisco, saying the
Board of Supervisors had unlawfully remanded the demolition permit. The case was dismissed by the State
district court and is now on appeal by the developer to the State Court of Appeals
Exemption from Environmental Review” stating the building’s removal would not pose any significant negative
impact to the neighborhood.
The neighbors fought the demolition based on the home’s importance as part of the historic context of the Aquatic
Park Neighborhood. The neighbors also believed his building plans were inappropriate, given the large size and
bulk of the proposed building. In principal, also, the demolition would be removing a typical single-family home
from the available neighborhood stock.
In the course of the discussions with the developer and the Planning Department, it was discovered that the
developer, Vincent Tomera, had misrepresented facts on his demolition permit application, including the age of
the building and the assessed value of the property. These egregious “errors” in his representations were
brought to the attention of the Planning Department and the Board of Supervisors.
The neighbors’ appeal of the Categorical Exemption from Environmental Review granted by the Planning
Department was heard by the Board of Supervisors in April, 2006. The Board supported the neighbors and sent
the project back to the Planning Department for environmental review.
Following his loss before the Board of Supervisors, the developer sued the City of San Francisco, saying the
Board of Supervisors had unlawfully remanded the demolition permit. The case was dismissed by the State
district court and is now on appeal by the developer to the State Court of Appeals
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |
 |
