- 28 -
did not adequately explain the adjustments he made under the
replacement-cost approach. Moreover, Aguilar did not make any
adjustments for zoning restrictions, flood zone designation, or
location. Aguilar claimed that flood zone classifications would
affect his estimate of value only if the properties in fact faced
a substantial flooding problem. However, we think that a buyer
would pay less per square foot for vacant land required to be
filled to a certain height before improvements could be
constructed, regardless of whether the land actually floods, than
for vacant land of similar appeal that does not need to be so
filled. In addition, we find it questionable that Aguilar made
no location adjustments for any of the 6 vacant land properties
despite the fact that the Property was located in a primary
commercial corridor, and the comparables were not so situated.
Finally, Aguilar included an entrepreneurial fee in his
replacement-cost approach which, for reasons discussed earlier,
we find inappropriate.
In addition to the above shortcomings, respondent contends
that Aguilar's deduction for the cost of removal of the two
underground storage tanks under both approaches is in error. We
agree with respondent on this point. In taking the deduction,
Aguilar (who is a registered environmental property assessor)
argued that the underground storage tanks represented a potential
risk for a prospective purchaser. Aguilar opined that a would-be
buyer would verify that the underground tanks necessary for his
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011