- 48 -
tentative map. We note Mr. Dotson's testimony that submitting a
tentative map is not required to determine costs and the
project's profitability. However, using the process of tentative
maps is one means to determine costs and conditions for
development.
In this case, the tentative map for the Exchange Property
was approved in June 1986. Afterwards from 1986 to 1989,
petitioner spent 3 years to process the tentative map to the
point the final map was ready to be recorded in 1988. Petitioner
states that this process indicated that the development would not
be profitable. In attempting to establish its intent to not
develop the property, petitioner stresses the fact that the final
map was not recorded by petitioner, and that the final map would
have expired in June 1989. Mr. Garner testified that Mr. Baker
"did not feel that he wanted to go ahead with the recording of
the map. So we were never given instructions to finish
processing the final map and the street plans." However, we
agree with Mr. Dotson's statement that he did not assign any
significance to petitioner's waiting to record the final map.
In our view petitioner went further than merely determining
the feasibility of developing the Exchange Property. Whether
petitioner would have let the tentative map on the Exchange
Property expire is subject to speculation. However, we know that
petitioner's actions on the Exchange Property made the property
more marketable. By 1988, the final map was ready to be
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011