In Merced Irrigation District v. Woolstenhulme (1971) 4 Cal.3d 478, the plaintiff water district contended that sales of other properties are not admissible for valuation purposes if the appraiser must adjust for differences between the properties in order to make them comparable for valuation purposes. (Id. at p. 501.) In rejecting the water district's contention in Merced, which we consider identical to CRA's position herein, the Supreme Court stated in part: "The district apparently reads Evidence Code section 822, former subdivision (d) presently numbered as section 822, subdivision (a)(4), as precluding an appraiser, when referring to 'comparable sales,' from explaining any adjustments that must be made in the 'comparable sale' price in utilizing that sale as an indicant of the value of the property to be taken.Such an interpretation of section 822, subdivision (a)(4), however, goes considerably beyond the main purposes of that section and inevitably conflicts with the practical application of the entire 'comparable sale' approach of section 816. Under the comprehensive statutory scheme relating to the evidentiary procedure for eminent domain proceedings enacted in 1961 , appraisers, in relating their 'opinion' as to the value of the property, are permitted to utilize a wide variety of valuation techniques, including 'income capitalization' (Evid. Code, 819), 'reproduction' costs (Evid. Code, 820) and comparative sale data (Evid. Code, 816, 818). . . .Moreover, the procedure of which the district complains is a most natural and, indeed, necessary component of the entire 'comparable sales' approach sanctioned by section 816. It is a familiar statement that no two parcels of land are precisely equivalent; the property which is the subject of a 'comparable sale' will always differ in some particulars from the property being valued. Commonly a 'comparable sales price' will vary in some respect from an appraiser's opinion of the condemned land's 'value'; when this happens, the appraiser will most naturally want to explain the distinguishing features between the property sold and the property to be valued, which he has taken into account in inferring the value of the land under consideration from the 'comparable sale.' . . ." (Merced, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 502.)