- 29 -
less valuable than larger ones. In addition, respondent contends
that the growth management policies of Pleasanton might make
approval more easily obtainable for a smaller parcel. Respondent
also maintains that the Busch property was homogeneous, and,
physically, it could be easily divided or partitioned.
Respondent also contends that it is not axiomatic, as petitioner
seems to argue, that any partial interest must be discounted.
Finally, respondent contends that petitioner has not met the
burden of showing the need for a discount and/or the size of any
such discount.
The circumstances of this case call for some discount
attributable to the fact that decedent held a partial interest.
In that regard, decedent’s one-half interest was an equal
interest with that of his coowner, and the property owned was
capable of development for residential purposes as two separate
45-acre parcels. Petitioner points out that during 1982 the
coowners were not permitted to divide the property into two
separate farms, but it was the county’s 100-acre minimum
agricultural use limitation that was the reason for the county’s
denial. No such acre limitation has been shown to exist for
residential property. We agree with respondent’s analysis that
the proposed comparables reflect little premium or discount for
the size of the parcel to be developed and that it might have
been beneficial to have a relatively smaller parcel, considering
Pleasanton’s growth management policies.
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