- 32 - properties for grazing. Under cross-examination, Mr. Hamel admitted that the Nipomo and Santa Maria properties had not achieved the cachet of the Santa Ynez River Valley. Inclusion of these properties, without location adjustment, leaves us with serious concerns as to Mr. Hamel's conclusions regarding market value. Similarly, Mr. Hamel did not make any adjustment for the presence of irrigated cropland in at least one of his comparable sales,14 nor did he make any adjustment for water supply, zoning, or topography. Other than a downward adjustment to smaller parcels, the only adjustment Mr. Hamel made to the comparables was a market timing adjustment. Although Mr. Hamel stated under cross-examination that he gave the sale containing irrigated row crops less weight in his overall analysis, his report does not so state. Respondent explains the absence of adjustments for zoning, water supply, and location by asserting that no adjustment was necessary because all the comparable properties were cattle ranches. We reject respondent’s explanation because it ignores the increased value that agricultural property may derive from proximity to a metropolitan or resort area. See, e.g., Estate of 14Interestingly, Mr. Hamel had adjusted for the presence of the irrigated cropland in a sales data sheet prepared in 1991 while he was employed by Reeder, Gilman & Associates.Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011