At a Glance
I have tracked the Palos Verdes and South Bay markets through the CRMLS every day for more than 45 years, and this report applies my Derivative Calculus Price Momentum Analysis™ to one tightly defined slice of the Peninsula: single-family homes under 1,500 square feet in MLS Area 177 (Eastview / Rancho Palos Verdes). The data set you supplied contains 269 closed sales from October 20, 2006 through September 10, 2026, and I used every one of them.
The bottom line: the 180-day moving average of price per square foot sits at $916.32. It has rebounded sharply from a spring 2026 trough of about $735/sf, so the first derivative (slope) is strongly positive at roughly +$35/sf per month. But the second derivative (acceleration) has already turned negative, at about −$10.7/sf per month², which tells me the rebound is losing force, not gaining it. The raw month-to-month change in September was only +$2.53/sf — essentially the long-run trend. My 24-month projection therefore lets the momentum fade quickly and rides the segment's 2.85%-per-year long-run trend to roughly $990/sf by September 2028, a gain of about +8.0% (about $+3.06/sf per month), kept inside the guardrails this market's own history sets (+31.8% / -27.0% year over year).
What This Market Is, and How It Has Behaved
Eastview is the eastern shoulder of Rancho Palos Verdes, bordering San Pedro, and its small post-war homes (mostly 1950s tract houses on roughly 5,000–7,000 sf lots, many with city-light, harbor and Vincent Thomas Bridge views) are the most affordable detached entry point onto the Peninsula. The under-1,500 sf segment is thin: it averaged about 13 closings a year over two decades and only 7–9 a year since 2024. That thinness matters for everything that follows — a single unusual sale can move a 180-day average.
The median home in this segment sold for roughly $705,000 in 2006, fell to about $550,000 in the 2011–2012 trough, and has risen to about $1.21 million in 2026. Price per square foot followed the same arc: a median of $562 in 2006, a low near $445 in 2011, a pandemic-era surge to $941 in 2022, a pullback in 2023–2024, and a return to the mid-$900s in 2025–2026. Of the twelve most recent sales, nine closed within ten days of listing and the median sale-to-list ratio is about 100.6% — demand for turnkey small homes here remains firm even as the broader market has cooled.
Year-by-Year Summary (all 269 sales)
| Year | Closed Sales | Median $/SF | Median Sale Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 4 | $562 | $705,000 |
| 2007 | 11 | $543 | $736,000 |
| 2008 | 11 | $517 | $612,000 |
| 2009 | 11 | $457 | $607,000 |
| 2010 | 13 | $482 | $630,000 |
| 2011 | 11 | $445 | $550,000 |
| 2012 | 11 | $469 | $551,000 |
| 2013 | 17 | $490 | $655,000 |
| 2014 | 8 | $526 | $693,500 |
| 2015 | 22 | $545 | $721,500 |
| 2016 | 24 | $578 | $745,000 |
| 2017 | 19 | $623 | $831,000 |
| 2018 | 10 | $633 | $762,000 |
| 2019 | 17 | $621 | $820,000 |
| 2020 | 13 | $674 | $905,000 |
| 2021 | 15 | $769 | $1,030,000 |
| 2022 | 13 | $941 | $1,245,000 |
| 2023 | 15 | $882 | $1,100,000 |
| 2024 | 9 | $863 | $1,125,000 |
| 2025 | 8 | $935 | $1,072,500 |
| 2026 (thru Sep 10) | 7 | $927 | $1,210,000 |
The Ten Most Recent Closings
| Closed | Address | Bd/Ba | Sq Ft | Sale Price | $/SF | Days Active |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2025 | 1908 Trudie | 2/1 | 1,036 | $1,100,000 | $1,061.78 | 10 |
| Oct 22, 2025 | 1980 Homeworth | 3/1 | 1,054 | $955,000 | $906.07 | 15 |
| Nov 19, 2025 | 1836 Jaybrook (pre-renovation) | 3/2 | 1,485 | $905,000 | $609.43 | 135 |
| Mar 4, 2026 | 2126 Fairhill | 3/2 | 1,298 | $1,310,000 | $1,009.24 | 1 |
| Mar 11, 2026 | 29541 Bernice | 3/2 | 1,280 | $1,149,000 | $897.66 | 0 |
| May 1, 2026 | 29016 S Highmore | 2/1 | 1,173 | $905,000 | $771.53 | 6 |
| May 19, 2026 | 2141 Ronsard | 3/2 | 1,470 | $1,306,700 | $888.91 | 9 |
| Jul 21, 2026 | 1836 Jaybrook (renovated resale) | 3/2 | 1,221 | $1,175,000 | $962.33 | 137 |
| Jul 22, 2026 | 1873 Homeworth | 3/2 | 1,187 | $1,210,000 | $1,019.38 | 7 |
| Sep 10, 2026 | 28708 Mount Lassen | 3/2 | 1,403 | $1,300,000 | $926.59 | 7 |
Note the two sales of 1836 Jaybrook: a tired 135-day sale at $609/sf in November 2025, then a renovated resale at $962/sf eight months later. That one low print held the daily series for 105 days and is the single biggest reason the 180-day average dipped to $735 in April 2026 and then snapped back. I discuss what that means for the projection in the Devil's Advocate section.
The Trend Line and Where I Expect It to Go
Figure 1. Navy line: 180-day moving average of price per square foot, built on a daily series in which each closed sale stands as the market's price until the next closing (forward-filled), then averaged over a rolling 180-day window — so all 269 sales are used and weighted by the time they stood as the latest print. Light-blue dots: the individual sales. Orange dashed line: my 24-month projection. Thin orange dotted lines: the guardrail envelope — the maximum appreciation (+31.8%) and depreciation (-27.0%) this segment has ever recorded year over year, applied month by month against the level twelve months earlier. Green and red markers: where those two records were set.
How I built the projection
I used a damped-momentum model, which is standard practice for a smoothed series with a measurable slope and acceleration. The current slope (+$35.45/sf per month, three-month smoothed) is allowed to decay exponentially toward the series' long-run trend slope — the 2.85% compound annual growth rate the 180-day average has delivered over 19.8 years, which at today's level is about +$2.2/sf per month. I set the decay time constant at one month because two facts say the momentum is already spent: the second derivative is −$10.7/sf per month², and the raw September change was only +$2.53/sf. Each projected month is then checked against the guardrails (Step 4). The result is a path that rises to about $962/sf by September 2027 (+5.0% year over year) and $990/sf by September 2028 (+8.0% over the 24 months). Three-year and five-year ordinary-least-squares fits of the average are flat to slightly negative (−$0.49 and −$0.08/sf per month), and I treat those as the reason not to extrapolate the recent rebound any further than the long-run trend.
Largest Year-Over-Year Appreciation and Depreciation of the 180-Day Average
Using only the Closed Sale Date and Price Per Square Foot columns, I compared the 180-day moving average on every day with its value exactly 365 days earlier:
For context, the median year-over-year change across the whole history is +1.1%, the average is +2.3%, and the standard deviation is 11.8 percentage points. Today's reading is −4.8% ($916 vs. $963 a year ago) — negative only because last autumn's average was inflated by a cluster of $1,000+/sf sales.
The Limits I Imposed on the Forecast
I disregarded every boundary from my past analyses of other segments. For this report the only limits are the ones this data set itself produced: no projected month may stand more than +31.8% above, or more than -27.0% below, the average twelve months before it. The guardrail is applied against the actual historical average for the first twelve projected months and against the projected path thereafter.
The projection never touches either limit. Its tightest approach is in spring 2027, when the projected level of about $951/sf stands roughly 29% above the April 2026 trough of $734.66/sf — inside the +31.8% cap. That closeness is an artifact of how low the April 2026 average was, not a sign of frothy pricing; measured from today's level the projected path never exceeds +5.0% in any twelve-month span.
Slope: How Fast the Average Is Moving
Figure 2. The first derivative — the month-to-month change in the 180-day moving average, smoothed over three months so individual months do not whipsaw the reading. Green bars mark months in which the average was rising, red bars months in which it was falling. Orange dashed line: projected slope, decaying from today's +$35.5/sf per month toward the long-run trend of roughly +$2.3/sf per month. It never crosses zero, so there is no calculus inflection point in the projected price direction — the average keeps rising, just far more slowly.
Three things stand out. First, the amplitude of the swings has roughly doubled since 2024 (slopes of ±$45–65/sf per month versus ±$20–30 before), which is what a thin market does when transaction counts drop to seven or eight a year. Second, every one of the last four surges — mid-2024, mid-2025, and now — was followed within three to five months by a reversal of similar size. Third, the current reading of +$35.5 is the tail end of a surge that peaked near +$57 in August; the slope is still positive but already in retreat.
Acceleration: Is the Momentum Gaining or Losing Force?
Figure 3. The second derivative — the month-to-month change in the slope. Teal bars: the trend was gaining force; purple bars: losing force. Today's reading of −$10.7/sf per month² means the upswing is decelerating. The orange dashed line shows the projected acceleration: sharply negative for the first two to three months as the surge bleeds off, then settling near zero as the average locks onto its long-run trend.
Reading the two derivatives together: positive slope plus negative acceleration is the classic "late-stage rally" signature — the market is still rising but the force behind the rise is fading. In this series, that combination preceded a flat-to-lower average within one to two quarters in 2022, 2024 and 2025. I do not expect a repeat of the 2025–26 plunge (that was largely one distressed print), but I do expect the average to flatten in the $920–$960 range through the first half of 2027 before resuming a gentle climb.
What I Would Tell a Buyer, and What I Would Tell a Seller
If you are buying
- Do not chase the rebound. The slope is positive, but the acceleration is negative and the raw September change was only +$2.53/sf. The price surge of summer 2026 is finishing, not starting. You lose little by taking the time to find the right house.
- Benchmark against $890–$960/sf for a renovated 3/2, and $770–$800/sf for a clean-but-dated 2/1 — that is where the five most recent arm's-length sales actually cleared. Anything above $1,000/sf needs a six-figure permitted renovation and a real view to justify it (1873 Homeworth, 2126 Fairhill).
- Target the slow movers. Nine of the last twelve sales went in ten days or less at full price; the two that sat (1836 Jaybrook both times, 135–137 days) closed well under list. In a thin segment, the home with days on market is where the negotiating room is.
- Plan on a two-year horizon of roughly +8% in $/sf, not the +20–30% some will extrapolate from the spring-to-summer spike. At that pace, transaction costs eat the first year of appreciation; buy for the house and the location, not the flip.
If you are selling
- This is a good window, and it is closing gently. With the first derivative still positive you are selling into rising comps; with the second derivative negative, the comps six months from now are more likely to be flat than higher. If you were planning to list in spring 2027, I would move that forward.
- Condition is worth $150–$250/sf in this segment right now. The renovated resale of 1836 Jaybrook brought $353/sf more than its pre-renovation sale eight months earlier. If your home is dated, the arithmetic on a focused kitchen-bath-floors refresh before listing is favorable.
- Price to the comps, not to the trend. A list price at $890–$960/sf for a very-good-to-excellent 3/2 draws the 7-to-10-day, at-or-over-list result that eight of the last twelve sellers enjoyed. Over-reaching into the $1,000s without a view or a renovation produces the 135-day outcome.
- Views command a premium, but only visible ones. True city-light/harbor/bridge sightlines (Jaybrook, Homeworth) earned $960–$1,020/sf; a "peek-a-boo" (Highmore) did not. Photograph and stage the view, and price for what the buyer will actually see from the living room.
Why I Could Be Wrong — in Either Direction
The case that prices go meaningfully higher than +8%
- My "spent momentum" call rests on a single data point. The September slope of +$2.53/sf comes from one closing (28708 Mount Lassen at $927/sf, slightly below the three sales before it). If the next two or three closings print at $1,000+/sf like Homeworth and Fairhill did, the smoothed slope stays near +$35 for another quarter and the average runs to $1,000/sf by early 2027 — a year ahead of my path and still inside the +31.8% guardrail.
- Renovation flips are re-rating the whole segment. Two of the last three sales were professionally renovated 1950 tract homes at $960–$1,020/sf. If capital keeps flowing into Eastview flips, the share of renovated sales rises and the average $/sf rises with it — a mix effect my trend model does not capture.
- The affordability floor of the Peninsula. With median prices in Lunada Bay, Valmonte and the Hill well above $2 million, Eastview is where buyers who want PV schools (or the PV address) land when rates fall. A 100-basis-point drop in mortgage rates expands this segment's buyer pool more than any other on the Peninsula.
- Supply here can only shrink. There is no new construction under 1,500 sf, and every scrape-and-rebuild removes a small home from the pool permanently — so the long-run 2.85% trend may understate scarcity value.
The case that prices go lower
- The rebound is largely mechanical. The April 2026 trough was created by a single $609/sf distressed sale holding the daily series for 105 days. When that print aged out of the 180-day window in May, the average was always going to spring back — which means much of the +$35/sf slope is the artifact unwinding, not fresh demand. Strip it out and the underlying trend since 2022 is flat to slightly down (three-year OLS slope −$0.49/sf per month), and the average is −4.8% year over year today.
- My own daily South Bay tracking shows a supply-heavy autumn. The In-Escrow-to-New-Listing ratio I compute every day has run below 1.0 for seven straight weeks, and my fall-out index has breached 25% four times in October. If that broad softness reaches Eastview, the next few prints come in below the comps and the slope goes negative, as it did in late 2022, mid-2024 and late 2025.
- Geology and insurance. Rancho Palos Verdes is a city where land-movement risk is now priced by buyers and insurers in a way it was not three years ago. Any widening of concern about slope stability or insurability in Eastview — even by association — would hit the lowest-priced, most-leveraged segment first.
- Thin markets exaggerate. With seven to nine sales a year, two dated estate sales in a row could pull the average down $100/sf within a quarter regardless of fundamentals — exactly what happened from October 2025 to April 2026. My -27.0% guardrail is a historical fact, not a theoretical floor.
What Is a 741 SF, 2-Bedroom / 1-Bath View Home Worth When the City Says the Lot and Foundation Need $500,000–$1,000,000 of Stabilization?
The subject: a 2-bedroom, 1-bath, 741 sf single-family home in Eastview with city-light views, in horrible condition, where Rancho Palos Verdes city officials have indicated that lot and house-foundation stabilization could cost $500,000 to $1,000,000. I valued it using only the five competitive sales in the attached package, all of which are in very good to excellent condition, and then explained the parameters that produce the range.
The competitive sales
| Address | Closed | Bd/Ba | Sq Ft | Lot SF | Built | Sale Price | $/SF | Days | View | Condition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29016 S Highmore | May 1, 2026 | 2 / 1 | 1,173 | 5,508 | 1950 | $905,000 | $771.53 | 6 | Peek-a-boo city lights, harbor, bridge | Good — updated granite kitchen, wood floors, newer roof, A/C; original footprint, dated baths; trust sale |
| 1836 Jaybrook Dr | Jul 21, 2026 | 3 / 2 | 1,221 | 5,815 | 1950 | $1,175,000 | $962.33 | 137 | City lights, harbor, ocean (corner lot) | Excellent — newly reimagined, designer kitchen, new appliances, primary suite, sundeck |
| 1873 Homeworth Dr | Jul 22, 2026 | 3 / 2 | 1,187 | 6,297 | 1950 | $1,210,000 | $1,019.38 | 7 | City lights (cul-de-sac) | Excellent — six-figure permitted renovation: dual-pane windows, zoned HVAC, new kitchen & baths, 2-car garage |
| 28708 Mount Lassen Ln | Sep 10, 2026 | 3 / 2 | 1,403 | 5,302 | 1973 | $1,300,000 | $926.59 | 7 | Neighborhood (no view) | Very good — clean and updated, pool & spa, central HVAC, plantation shutters, native landscaping |
| 2141 Ronsard Rd | May 19, 2026 | 3 / 2 | 1,470 | 19,582 | 1957 | $1,306,700 | $888.91 | 9 | Canyon, city lights, neighborhood | Very good — character ranch, updated baths, dual-pane, central HVAC; kitchen original-style tile; ~19,600 sf lot; trust sale |
Range of the five: $905,000–$1,306,700; $771.53–$1,019.38 per sf; 1,173–1,470 sf. The subject is 37% smaller than the smallest comp and in dramatically worse condition than any of them.
Step A — What the subject would be worth renovated to the comps' standard (hypothetical)
Small homes carry a higher price per foot than larger ones because land, kitchen, bath and systems are not proportional to size, so I did not simply multiply 741 sf by a comp's $/sf. Instead I sized down from the two most relevant comps using a marginal value of roughly $500 per square foot for the floor area the subject lacks (about half the comps' average $/sf, which is the typical relationship for homes of this type):
- From 29016 S Highmore (the only 2/1 in the set; good but dated; peek-a-boo view; $905,000): less 432 sf × $500 = −$216,000; plus roughly +$35,000 for a true city-light view versus a peek-a-boo → about $725,000 for the subject in good condition.
- From 1873 Homeworth (fully renovated 3/2, city-light view, $1,210,000): less 446 sf × $500 = −$223,000; less roughly $90,000 for one fewer bedroom and bath → about $895,000 for the subject in excellent condition.
- Cross-check against 1836 Jaybrook (renovated 3/2 with city/harbor/ocean view, $1,175,000): less 480 sf × $500 = −$240,000; less $90,000 for 2/1 vs 3/2; less $25,000 for ocean-view superiority → about $820,000.
So a 741 sf, 2/1 city-view home in Eastview, renovated to the standard of these comps and sitting on a stable lot, would most likely sell for $775,000–$875,000 (about $1,045–$1,180 per sf). I use $825,000 as the point estimate.
Step B — Working back to today's as-is value
| Item | Low cost | High cost |
|---|---|---|
| Hypothetical renovated value (Step A) | $825,000 | $825,000 |
| Less: renovation of a 741 sf home in horrible condition to comp standard (kitchen, bath, roof, electrical, plumbing, windows, floors, exterior — about $200–$275/sf) | −$150,000 | −$200,000 |
| Less: lot and foundation stabilization per the City's range | −$500,000 | −$1,000,000 |
| Less: geotechnical engineering, permits, 12–18 months of carrying costs, insurance and financing | −$60,000 | −$100,000 |
| Less: entrepreneurial profit and risk premium for geologic uncertainty (15–25% of finished value) | −$125,000 | −$200,000 |
| Residual value on the "fix it and live in it / resell it" math | about −$10,000 | about −$675,000 |
The arithmetic is blunt: at any point in the City's cost range, the cost to make this house comparable to the comps exceeds what the finished house would sell for. The structure itself contributes nothing to value; what remains is the land, and the land is impaired by the very stabilization requirement. I also tested a scrape-and-rebuild to a 1,400 sf 3/2 (finished value about $1.3 million, like Mount Lassen or Ronsard): construction of roughly $630,000 plus $500,000–$1,000,000 of stabilization plus soft costs and profit comes to $1.5–$2.1 million — it does not pencil either, even at the low end of the City's range.
Step C — My estimate of the probable selling price
When a property's economics are negative, the price is set not by the comps but by the small pool of buyers with non-standard motives or capabilities: an adjacent owner protecting a view or assembling lots; a contractor or engineer who believes the stabilization scope can be reduced; a long-horizon land-banker; or a cash buyer willing to occupy the house as-is for years while deferring the work. In my experience those buyers pay roughly 25–45% of what an unencumbered lot would bring. The comps imply an unencumbered Eastview lot is worth on the order of $500,000–$600,000 (note that 2141 Ronsard's 19,582 sf lot sold for only $6,700 more than 28708 Mount Lassen's 5,302 sf lot — buyers here pay for the house and the view, not for land area). Apply that 25–45% to a $500,000–$600,000 lot, discount further for a 2/1 footprint and the stigma of a City-flagged stabilization issue, and the $150,000–$350,000 range is where I would expect a competently marketed sale to close.
Step D — The parameters that move the number within (and beyond) the range
| Parameter | Pushes value toward the LOW end (≈ $150,000 or below) | Pushes value toward the HIGH end (≈ $350,000 or above) |
|---|---|---|
| Stabilization cost (the dominant variable) | A geotechnical report confirming the $1,000,000 end, caissons/grade beams and lot-wide work, or any indication that the issue extends beyond the parcel. At $1,000,000 the house is worth less than $150,000 to almost every buyer. | A licensed geotechnical engineer scoping the fix at or below $500,000, a repair that can be phased, or evidence the City's figure is a conservative outer bound. At $500,000 confirmed, the ceiling rises toward $400,000. |
| Condition | Structural cracking tied to the lot movement, red-tag or unpermitted additions, unsafe systems — anything that prevents occupancy or financing (which forces an all-cash buyer pool). | A house that, however ugly, is safely habitable today — allowing an owner-user or landlord to collect rent or live in it while deferring the work. Habitability alone is worth $50,000–$75,000 in this scenario. |
| View | A city-light view that is partial, obstructed by trees or neighboring roofs, or only from the rear yard. The comps show a peek-a-boo view earned no premium (Highmore). | An unobstructed panoramic city-light/harbor/bridge sightline from the main living areas — the feature that lifted Jaybrook and Homeworth to $960–$1,020/sf and the reason a neighbor or builder would pay to control the parcel. |
| Upgrades and systems | Original 1950s electrical and galvanized plumbing, failed roof, single-pane windows — all of which push the renovation line toward $200,000+. | Any surviving upgrades (newer roof, panel, sewer line, windows) that reduce the renovation line toward $150,000 or less. |
| Lot, footprint and buildability | A small or steep lot where the stabilization work consumes the yard, or where setbacks and slope rules limit any future expansion. | A lot that, once stabilized, could support a 1,400–1,500 sf 3/2 — the product that sold at $1,300,000+ in this comp set — which is what a builder or neighbor would underwrite. |
| Buyer pool and terms | Marketing only to conventional buyers, who cannot finance it; a seller unwilling to provide the geotechnical report and City correspondence up front. | Direct outreach to adjacent owners, local contractors, and land investors; full disclosure package in hand so buyers can price certainty instead of fear; seller flexibility on close timing. |
| Insurance and financing climate | Carriers declining coverage or lenders declining the parcel outright — increasingly common for RPV properties with documented land-movement issues. | A written path to insurability after stabilization, or a buyer who does not require either. |
For perspective: if the stabilization requirement did not exist, the same house in horrible condition would be worth roughly $575,000–$625,000 as-is ($825,000 renovated, less $150,000–$200,000 of renovation and a $50,000–$75,000 profit-and-risk margin). The City's finding, in other words, removes somewhere between $250,000 and $450,000 of value from the property — and that is why I would urge the owner to commission an independent geotechnical report before listing: every dollar the engineer can trim from the stabilization scope is close to a dollar of sale price.
I am a real estate broker, not a geotechnical or structural engineer, and nothing here is an engineering opinion. All renovation and stabilization figures are estimates for valuation purposes. A seller must disclose the City's findings and any known land-movement history to all prospective buyers.
Data Notes and Methodology
- Source: CRMLS closed sales, MLS Area 177 (Eastview / RPV), single-family residences, living area under 1,500 sf, as exported on October 17, 2026. 269 transactions, October 20, 2006 – September 10, 2026, all with status Closed. The file was read twice with independent tools and the two reads reconciled exactly; one $/sf cell (1858 Jaybrook, 2007) was stored as a formula and evaluated to $890.69.
- Moving average: daily series (each closed sale carried forward until the next closing), 180-day rolling mean, 7,237 daily points — about 27 per transaction, confirming no gaps were skipped. The current average date equals the last sale date.
- Derivatives: computed on month-end values of the 180-day average; first derivative smoothed with a 3-month centered mean; second derivative is the smoothed month-to-month change in the first.
- Projection: damped momentum (τ = 1 month) converging to the long-run CAGR of the average (2.85%/yr), bounded month-by-month by the dataset's own YoY extremes (+31.8% / -27.0%). The projected first and second derivatives are the exact slope and change-in-slope of the projected price path, so all three charts are mathematically consistent.
- Thin-market caution: with 7–9 sales a year, the 180-day average can move $50–$100/sf on a single unusual print (see 1836 Jaybrook, November 2025). The 2026 figures reflect seven closings.
- This report is market analysis, not an appraisal and not a guarantee of future value. Past performance of this or any segment does not assure future results.
(424) 722-9136 · PalosVerdesHomesBest.com
