Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board keeps open hearing on 639 Peralta tentative map after ownership dispute; matter continued to Dec. 16
Summary
A public hearing over a two-unit tentative parcel map at 639 Peralta stalled after the property owner filed a court action alleging an erroneous foreclosure; the Board kept the hearing open and continued the matter to Dec. 16, requesting written briefings from parties.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Board of Supervisors on Oct. 28 held, but did not close, a public hearing on the tentative parcel map for a two‑unit condominium project at 639 Peralta Avenue after an ownership dispute surfaced in a pending court case.
Appellant William Bradley, represented by attorney Alex Wyand, told the board that a foreclosure proceeding mistakenly affected his lot and that the dispute is the subject of a verified quiet‑title complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court. Bradley said a deed of trust and subsequent foreclosure paperwork show the wrong parcel description and that the developer and trustee ignored his written notices.
Public Works staff and the project applicant, Doleman Properties, told the board the parcel‑map application had been reviewed and approved administratively following standard referrals and that Doleman spent significant funds improving the site. Doleman’s representative asked the board to allow the subdivision to proceed and said the dispute should be resolved in court.
Supervisor David Campos moved to keep the hearing open and continue the matter to Dec. 16, requesting that the parties submit written briefing materials to help the board determine whether the tentative map is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and local code. Deputy City Attorney John Givner advised that the Superior Court case management conference is scheduled months away but said the Board could request written submissions by the December date to inform its land‑use review.
Why it matters: The Board’s role is limited to land‑use and procedural consistency with the Subdivision Map Act; ownership disputes are classically decided in court. The board paused action to avoid prejudicing parallel litigation while preserving public‑hearing rights.
What’s next: The hearing remains open; the Board asked for written briefs from parties and continued the item to Dec. 16.
