Two East Garrison sales can look closely matched while still leaving the reason for their price difference unresolved. The primary published records for 13102 Chamberlain Avenue and 18470 Mc Clellan Circle both describe 2015 single-family homes with three bedrooms, two bathrooms and two garage spaces. Their reported house sizes differ by only two square feet, yet their reported closed prices differ by $45,000. That makes them useful candidates for investigation, not an automatic proof of a lot-size or upgrade adjustment.
This article deepens the comparison guidance in the East Garrison guide with an original, limited public-source audit. Research was checked October 26, 2026. No complete permissioned MLS export, authenticated closing statements, inspected subject property or broker-authored adjustment was supplied. The calculations describe reported differences and expose the remaining research tasks. They do not provide an appraisal, a recommended list price or evidence that a named professional has reviewed the result.
Define the retained candidates and exclusions
Chamberlain’s record reports $920,000, 1714 square feet, a 4792-square-foot lot, three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a 2015 construction year. The 18470 Mc Clellan record reports $875,000, 1716 square feet, a 4000-square-foot lot, the same rooms and year and the same two garage spaces. Both carry 195 monthly association fields. These similarities make the pair a more focused starting point than combining every property returned by an East Garrison or 93933 search.
The sample contains only these two reported closed single-family candidates. The 18587 Mc Clellan reference is excluded from the closed arithmetic because the reviewed primary version describes an asking property with four bedrooms and three bathrooms. It can inform the competitive alternatives to investigate, but its asking figure is not a settled transaction price. A future professional search should disclose the full period, geographic boundary, ownership types and reasons for excluding other candidates.
The publication dates also need careful handling. The Chamberlain record’s modification date is June 13, 2026, while the 18470 Mc Clellan record’s is September 11, 2026. Those are publisher updates, not verified closing dates. This research therefore does not place the transactions into a precise date cohort or derive a market-time adjustment between them. Obtain actual dates and transaction terms before using the pair to support a current pricing conclusion.
Original near-matched sales evidence audit
Reported primary fields checked October 26, 2026; no actual condition, closing-date or term verification. Differences are descriptive only.
| Field | 13102 Chamberlain Avenue | 18470 Mc Clellan Circle | Original calculation / limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported closed price | $920,000 | $875,000 | $45,000 rawgap; cause not established |
| House size | 1714 sf | 1716 sf | Mc Clellan 2 sf larger; measurement evidence absent |
| Reported lot | 4792 sqft | 4000 sqft | Chamberlain 792 sqft larger using primary fields |
| Matched published fields | 2015;3 bed 2 bath; garage 2; HOA 195 monthly | 2015;3 bed 2 bath; garage 2; HOA 195 monthly | Similar fields do not establish matched condition, layout or ownership duties |
| Source issue | June 13, 2026 publisher update | September 11, 2026 publisher update; secondarylot 3920 | No verified closing-date interval; secondarylot would changegap to 872, so reconcile before adjustment |
| Excluded alternative | 18587 Mc Clellan: 1866 sf, 4 bed 3 bath, 2014; asking reference | Not a third closed sale or direct matched-room comparison | |
Explain what the $45,000 difference cannot establish
The raw price gap is $45,000. Using the retained primary lot fields, the Chamberlain reference has 792 more square feet of reported land while its house is two square feet smaller. The pair does not establish that buyers paid $45,000 for the additional lot area. Condition, site position, included equipment, sale timing, concessions and other terms remain unknown. A matched room count is helpful, but it does not control all those influences.
Dividing the price difference by the lot difference would create a precise-looking amount per additional squarefoot, but it would not isolate a land contribution. The analysis needs independent evidence that the other relevant differences have been understood. Similarly, a price-per-residential-square-foot comparison would place most of the entire-property difference into nearly identical denominators. It might summarize the reported prices, but it would not explain why one property sold for more.
Start a professional adjustment grid with evidence questions rather than predetermined dollar allowances. Identify the subject’s condition and layout, the candidate’s documented improvements and the particular site benefit a buyer values. Then seek additional transactions or other appropriate market evidence to support an adjustment. Where the evidence remains insufficient, leave the proposed dollar effect unresolved. A transparent gap in the grid is preferable to an unsupported adjustment that happens to balance the prices.
Reconcile the lot data before valuing outdoor utility
The 18470 Mc Clellan primary record reports 4000 square feet of land, while a secondary assessor display reports 3920. If the latter were substituted, the comparison gap would become 872 rather than 792 square feet. This audit retains the primary published field and records the discrepancy. It does not decide which measure governs the legal parcel or the usable private outdoor area. Obtain the assessor, recorded parcel and appropriate survey information before relying on a precise site adjustment.
Area alone does not describe the site’s usefulness. A buyer may care about the shape, access, privacy, permitted improvements or practical maintenance of a particular outdoor space. Those subjects require actual inspection and documents, not inference from the total lot field. If a broker identifies a material advantage, the file should explain what it is, how it was verified and which market evidence supports its contribution for the selected subject.
Investigate upgrades independently of their marketing label
A secondary permit-history display provides a later solar-and-storage lead for 18470 Mc Clellan. Obtain the original County record, current equipment inspection, ownership agreement and actual service information before assigning a benefit. The presence of a permit-status label does not establish current operation, paid-off equipment or a transferable warranty. A system can also introduce maintenance or contractual obligations that a generic upgrade premium would overlook.
For other improvements, distinguish original construction features from later work. Ask for dated invoices, plans, permits where applicable and any private architectural approval. Keep the current physical condition and functional usefulness in the comparison, rather than assuming the amount originally spent equals buyer-recognized value. No private improvement cost, inspection result or exact upgrade adjustment is established for either retained candidate in this research.
Compare ownership and competition on the right basis
The same 195 monthly association field does not prove identical current obligations or insurance coverage. Review the governing documents, public district charges and utility accounts separately. An actual facilities prepayment, special assessment or differing maintenance boundary could affect a buyer’s comparison, but the selected properties’ files were not supplied. Do not attach a community-wide tax or utility assumption to the pair as though it were verified transaction evidence.
The larger-room asking alternative at 18587 Mc Clellan may compete for some buyers while serving a different accommodation need. Confirm its current status and actual features before treating it as competition. Keep asking figures, price changes and closed outcomes in separate columns. The County’s evolving master-project records likewise provide location context, but they do not prove that a planned amenity is complete or that the same expectation affected both historical transactions.
Keep source updates separate from market evidence
The difference between the two publisher modification dates cannot show how prices changed during that interval. Either record may have been updated after the underlying transaction, and the actual closing documents were not obtained. Before a professional analyzes timing, identify the event date being measured and its source. A database update is evidence about the publication, not automatically evidence about the market on that day.
Use the same care when refreshing the candidate set. A status change, corrected lot field or newly available document may improve the analysis, but retain a note explaining what changed. That allows a reviewer to follow both the original calculation and the revised conclusion. It also prevents a later data correction from appearing to be a property-value movement when it actually concerns the source record.
Prepare a pricing file another reviewer can follow
A complete assignment should identify the actual subject, verified sale dates and terms, candidate selection rules, current condition, documented improvements and unresolved data conflicts. Retain the reason for each exclusion and the source behind every adjustment. Ask a named broker or appraiser to review the comparison and explain the evidence supporting any final pricing recommendation. A complete file makes professional judgment visible instead of disguising it as simple arithmetic.
The Monterey County guide supplies broader location orientation, while the selling-process guide explains preparation and transaction stages. For East Garrison, this near-matched pair is valuable because it narrows the unanswered question: which verified differences explain the reported gap? Further property and transaction evidence is required before that question can support a subject-specific price.
