Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Fillmore topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board decides mixed outcomes on Fillmore Center subdivision appeals; majority backs staff decisions in part
Summary
After extended testimony and legal argument on redevelopment-era land‑disposition agreements and condominium maps, the Board of Supervisors voted to approve certain tentative maps and to table others in a disputed Fillmore Center conversion matter. The motion carried with a majority recorded, and appellants signaled potential litigation.
After a prolonged hearing that reviewed the Fillmore Center’s redevelopment history and a 1985 land‑disposition agreement (LDA), the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Aug. 12 took a mixed set of actions on appeals over tentative subdivision maps for blocks in the Fillmore Center redevelopment area.
Appellants’ counsel Tim Tosta, representing Fillmore Center Associates, argued that the original redevelopment deal and subsequent agency practice anticipated conversion of rental units to condominiums and that approvals and expectations established at the time should be honored. City planning and public‑works staff, represented in part by Anne Marie Rogers and city surveyor Bruce Storrs, disputed the appellant’s view that the agency’s actions absolved later map approvals from contemporary subdivision, planning and priority‑policy review.
Supervisor Mercarimi moved to approve a subset of the contested items and to table others pending further review. The motion passed on the floor by roll call; the clerk recorded the motion as approved with a majority (the record shows seven ayes and two noes on the motion as read into the record). Counsel for the appellant said he expected further litigation if the board did not adopt his position in full.
Why it matters: The Fillmore Center matter raises contract‑and‑redevelopment law questions about whether redevelopment agreements can limit application of the city’s subdivision and conversion controls and affects more than 1,100 residential units in a historically sensitive redevelopment area. Appellants argued that a failure to honor the long‑standing redevelopment deal would undercut investor confidence; city staff and supporters cited the need to apply current subdivision and general‑plan protections where occupancy occurred prior to final maps.
What the board did: The board’s action approved certain tentative map decisions of the director of public works while tabling the remaining disputed motions, leaving the contested legal issues potentially headed for the courts. The clerk recorded the motion as carried and the matter will continue through administrative or judicial channels.
Speakers and positions reflected at the hearing included the appellant’s attorney Tim Tosta; city planning and survey staff; agency counsel Jim Morales and John Malamet from the city attorney’s office; and supervisors who made and seconded floor motions.
