- 20 -
thereafter at the time of the exchange held the property for
investment.
In an attempt to show its later intent, petitioner points
out that only after purchasing the Beaumont Property did its
broker Mr. Mellor inform petitioner that it would not be able to
get the Beaumont Property rezoned. It is argued that at this
point petitioner decided not to subdivide the Beaumont Property,
but instead, decided merely to process a tentative map to
determine conditions for development of the property. After
determining the conditions, petitioner would be able to analyze
the costs and feasibility of development.
According to petitioner, after obtaining approval of the
1980 tentative map (which contained conditions for development of
the property), it was decided that development of the Beaumont
Property was not feasible because the cost of off-site
improvements was too high for the construction of entry-level
homes. Petitioner asserts at this point it held "the property
without any specific plan of action."
Other evidence indicates that petitioner had an intent to
subdivide the property (such as the discussion with C.H. J.
Materials Laboratory, Inc., regarding a soil investigation
report). On April 23, 1979, petitioner's Board of Directors
authorized the preparation and filing of an application to the
Real Estate Commissioner of the State of California for a Public
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011