Monthly Archives: February 2012

The Village of Rancho San Joaquin

zovall: The post below is written by Michelle Jones

The village of Rancho San Joaquin is a quiet community that provides a nice escape from the nearby commercial area. It is surrounded by Culver Drive, Michelson Drive, University Drive, and Harvard Avenue. It is right around the corner from the Culver/405 interchange.

Rancho San Joaquin offers a generous amount of trees that line the streets which is nice since it gives this neighborhood a rural feeling. Even though I personally don’t play golf, the golf course also adds to the visual appeal of the neighborhood. Condos and apartments are prevalent in the Rancho San Joaquin neighborhood, including the Rancho San Joaquin apartment homes. The overall curb appeal of the majority of the homes is mediocre. They definitely reflect the time frame which they were built; the 70’s and 80’s.

However, most of the landscapes are neat and well-kept, which at least heightens the overall appeal of the neighborhood. The prestigious University of California, Irvine is only a few miles away; as are many high ranked grammar and middle schools.

The Rancho San Joaquin Golf Course adds some nice scenery, as well as serving as a barrier from the nearby city.

And if you’re interested in history, the Irvine Historical Museum is directly to the left of the entrance of the golf course. What makes this museum interesting is that it was originally the first wooden house built between Anaheim and San Diego. Even if you don’t like history…at least the house adds a little character to the neighborhood.

There is a senior center, where they have educational classes throughout the week. Or, if you’re in need of a ballroom or multipurpose room for any particular reason, they’re available for rent. Not particularly useful on a regular basis, but at least its there if you need it. But, given the outdated architecture, I’m willing to bet the interior isn’t much better.

Right behind the senior center, is the Racquet Club of Irvine. They have tennis courts, tennis lessons, tournaments, a swimming pool, a restaurant, etc. If you enjoy tennis, and can spare the extra cash, it’s actually pretty nice.

Just on the other side of University Drive, is William R. Mason Regional Park, which has an endless amount of shade trees, a 9-acre lake, bike paths, and even model boat sailing. While it would be nice to have this so close to your house, the only downfall is that you actually have to pay in order to get in. And even though this is a very beautiful park, there are many free parks nearby.

All in all, this neighborhood isn’t too bad. It’s close to the freeway, there are nearby shops, and the prices of the houses are relatively decent, considering how expensive Orange County is. I think I would sacrifice the visual appeal of the architecture for a home in this neighborhood.

A Review of the San Marcos Tract at Stonegate

zovall: We still have a couple Stonegate tract reviews left to post.

I made the mistake of visiting San Marcos, the last tract in Stonegate, AFTER I reviewed Las Ventanas at Portola Springs. I think in comparison, the builder (Taylor Morrison) at Portola Springs got it right and Stonegate got it wrong. I’ve seen all of the other tracts at Stonegate, so San Marcos had relatively little to offer me. I wasn’t expecting any pleasant surprises, and indeed, San Marcos contained the recycled features from the rest of the Stonegate tracts. I think that San Marcos deserves a fair shake, so I don’t want to knock it off your radar completely. Residence 2 was unavailable for viewing, so I’ll only give you Residences 1 and 3. Something tells me that Residence 2 wouldn’t wow me, so I won’t lament not being able to see it.

Estimated Property Taxes and Special Assessments

Base Property Tax: 1.05% of sales price

AD Tax: $1,889 per year

CFD Tax: $1,700 per year

Other Taxes: $156 per year

Overall Effective Tax Rate: 1.6%

Community Overview

Pricing

Floorplans

Options

Residence 1

Price: From $626,500

Bedrooms: 3

Bathrooms: 2.5

Garage: 2 cars

Square Footage: 1,824 sq/ft

Despite my negative bias against Stonegate, I enjoyed the living space in Residence 1. The huge window overlooking the “California room” and backyard really made the space work for me. I like the open feeling, which is why the great room concept throughout the Stonegate tracts appeals to me. To clarify, the “California Room” is basically a section of the backyard with exposed rafters and a ceiling fan overhanging a cement patio. It’s a charming space and I think it adds a nice element of flair to the backyard.

I think after reviewing Las Ventanas at Portola Springs, I’ve finally pinpointed what I don’t like about the Stonegate kitchens: too much cabinetry. In San Marcos Residence 1, I felt like the cabinets swallowed up the entire kitchen. This was indeed the theme throughout all Stonegate tracts. However, there were a few unique features in the Residence 1 kitchen that I liked: the walk-in pantry and the optional wine refrigerator. The walk-in pantry is very nice. I think it appeals to me because I lack pantry space in my apartment, so anything is better than what I have. You could stock your pantry and bunker down for the Winter—it’s quite spacious. The wine refrigerator is a must for wine lovers. I don’t drink, but if I did I’d upgrade. I think it adds a touch of class and breaks up the white cabinetry.

There’s a “Tech Space” at the top of the stairs with an optional built-in wrap around desk. You might as well spend the money to upgrade to the built-in desk because I’m not quite sure what else you’d do with the space. It is truly built to be a “Tech Space.” I think it could work as an office, but if you work from home and have kids, you’d better schedule your conference calls when the kids are at school. There is no door to shut for privacy.

The master bedroom is a fairly decent size, but I didn’t like that it’s located just off the top of the stairs. However, I did like that bedrooms 2 and 3 are located opposite of the master suite. You win some, you lose some. I actually liked the master bathroom. It didn’t feel like a hallway, it was a nice size, the walk-in shower wasn’t facing the vanity mirrors and the toilet was in a separate room. The walk in closet located in the bathroom is huge. It’s a very nice space and I could have a lot of fun finding clothes to fill the closet with!

Bedrooms 2 and 3 weren’t too bad size-wise. For the price, a small part of me would expect larger bedrooms. On the positive side, the third bedroom had a nice walk in closet. Bedroom two had a closet that seemed slightly bigger than those offered in the bedrooms in other Stonegate tracts. I’m still complaining about the closets, I know. But let’s get real Stonegate!

The second bathroom isn’t too small, but it’s also not big either. It’s a shower/tub combo with the toilet next to the tub. It’s exactly what I would’ve expected from Stonegate: dual sink vanity and mirror.

Overall, my impressions of Residence 1 basically made me yawn. I’d seen it all before, so there was nothing left for me to get excited about. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that San Marcos is overpriced, but it also seems to be the most popular. I think I would invest my money elsewhere.

Residence 3

Price: From $696,500

Bedrooms: 4

Bathrooms: 3

Garage: 2 cars

Square Footage: 2,077 sq/ft

I think I liked Residence 3 more than Residence 1, even though they are practically the same. I like having an optional loft (at the sacrifice of bedroom 3). Since the bedrooms tend to be small in the Stonegate tracts, I’d utilize a loft more than a tiny bedroom. Because of this option, I could imagine myself in Residence 3 as opposed to Residence 1.

When you enter Residence 3, the staircase is just off the right and you have a nice view of the living room. Being able to see your living room when you enter your house is comforting—at least for me. The kitchen and living room feed off of each other, and the dining “space” is set up right in front of the sliding glass door leading to the backyard. I felt like the table blocked the kitchen cabinets, and I wasn’t too keen on having to move a chair every time I needed to access the lower cupboards. The whole downstairs is nearly an exact replica of Residence 1 with an exception of a 4th bedroom downstairs. It’s unfortunate though, that the 4th bedroom shares a wall with the garage.

I’m neutral on the master bedroom. It didn’t wow me, but it was certainly big enough. However, I liked the master bath. The tub split the two “his and hers” vanities and there was a deep walk-in shower. The walk-in closet was wonderful.

Bedroom 3 is the optional loft. It’s big enough for a bed, but it would be a squeeze. Also, it shares a wall with the master. Our regular readers know just how much I hate that. It’s becoming a deal breaker for me. Bedroom 2 is typical of the rest of Stonegate. It’s not huge, but it’s workable with a nice walk-in closet.

The second bathroom is basically a rectangle. When you have a rectangle, you have a hallway. It’s no different than any of the other bathrooms in the Stonegate tracts. In retrospect, I’m not sure why I’m expecting the upstairs bathrooms to be more than functional. I guess they serve their purpose. The two elements that I’d like to see in the second bathrooms are a linen closet and to have the toilet separate from the shower/tub combo. I guess that’s the difference between a “want” and a “need.”

I would’ve liked to have seen a fireplace in Residence 3. I want more bang for my buck. That was disappointing.

If I had to choose between the neighborhoods of Portola Springs and Stonegate, I would probably go with Stonegate. I think it has a better proximity to the freeways and amenities. It’s not flush up against the 133. There are parks, a soccer field, and it’s a nice area to cycle or take walks. Despite the positives of the Stonegate neighborhood, it’s not the place for me. It’s very chic, but I can’t justify the purchase price. Goodbye Stonegate.

Discuss below or at Talk Irvine.

Irvine Council Members Differ on Inclusion of Set-Aside in Housing Element

My name is Sylvia Walker, and I am the writer and publisher of the Sweet Orange Housing blog. I grew up in Orange County; however, at the age of twenty I decided to venture out and see what the rest of the world looked like. Eventually, I ended up in the Silicon Valley area and spent many years there. While in the Silicon Valley, I worked as a freelance writer for high-tech companies such as Applied Materials, National Semiconductor, Applied Biosystems, and Oracle Corporation.

I enjoyed my time in the San Francisco Bay Area and working in the high-tech industry; however, fate intervened, and I returned to Orange County. Currently, I am pursuing freelancing, but I am shifting my focus to public policy, sustainability, cleantech and land use issues.

There is this thing out there called the California housing element. This document plays a decisive role in determining what gets built in California cities and counties. Since this document is so influential in shaping local housing policies, understanding how the housing element works is worthwhile. Therefore, I will give a more in-depth description in an upcoming post. At this time, knowing it is out there is enough. Now on to Irvine’s latest encounter with the housing element.

Photo of Montecito Vista Apartments, an affordable housing development in Irvine, courtesy HUD.gov

As required by state law, the Irvine Planning Commission reviewed the housing element document prepared by Irvine city staff. The planning commission approved the document as written with one change. That change requires the city council to consider, sometime in the coming year, adding an additional low-income housing set-aside for new rental developments. (Some set-asides already exist.) Note that this does not mean that the city council would have to adopt this new housing set-aside, just discuss it sometime in the coming year. If the city council eventually adopts the set-aside, builders of new rental developments in Irvine would be required to reserve 3% of the housing units for very low-income households. Very low-income is defined as below 30% of the median income of an area.

At the January 24th council meeting, the city council’s responsibility was to accept or reject the housing element as approved by the planning commission. Rejection would delay the housing element document being sent to the state. This could have serious consequences. (Look for the upcoming housing element post for more on this.)

Here is how it played out at the January 24th city council meeting:

Councilmember Lalloway stated, “The process is a little troubling to me.” He stated that, due to possible serious consequences of not approving the document in the as-is form, this forces the city council to approve the document and, therefore, discuss the 3% very-low income housing set-aside in the coming year. He also said that it was not the planning commission’s place to put such language in the housing element document. Councilmember Agran countered that, in the coming year, any one of the council members could ask that this be put on the agenda and the same result would occur. Councilmember Agran and Mayor Pro Tem Krom also stated that this would not require the adoption of the 3% very low-income set-aside, just that the City Council consider it in the coming year.

Lalloway also stated the grounds on which he disagreed with this type of requirement. His reasoning is that developers will increase the price on the market-rate units to cover the cost of the low-income units, and this would defeat the overall affordability goal. Agran countered that remembering that human beings are behind the numbers is important and gave this example: An elderly widow with a Social Security income of $10,000 would be able to rent in Irvine for approximately $250 per month. Having this widow live in Irvine as well as a mix of people with different incomes, including those with low incomes that work in Irvine, would be desirable, said Agran. “This is an important item to discuss.”

Here is my take:

Developers don’t increase the cost on the market-rate units to make up the difference on the low-income housing units. Instead, they charge what the market will bear. If this means they can make 100% profit, they will charge the amount that will give them a 100% profit. If the market-rate price will only allow them a small profit, or even a loss, then the developer will charge that amount. In other words, developers don’t add up their costs then add on some amount for profit to determine what they will charge. Instead, they charge what the market will bear.

Of course, if the developer reviews the numbers and determines that some requirements would make the profit too small to justify the project, they will drop their plan to build. However, if they decide to go ahead with the project, I am sure they have done a careful review and have determined that even with the low-income requirements the possible profits make the deal worth pursuing.

However, this is not the only question on housing set-asides that is open to debate. Whether any housing set-asides, for any reason, are worthwhile is a different philosophical discussion and for another time.

What now?

If the council did not adopt the housing element as approved by the planning commission, the city council would have had to send the document back to the planning commission before it could be sent for final state approval. Therefore, due to possible serious consequences if the housing element was delayed, all five council members voted yes on adoption of the housing element as submitted by the planning commission.

The state has 60 days to review the housing element and send it back to the city. At that point, it’s back in the city’s jurisdiction. This means the city will discuss the 3% very-low income inclusionary rule sometime in the coming year. If this is an important issue to you, watch for this item being placed on an upcoming agenda and be prepared to make your comments.

“Irvine has one of the highest median rents in the nation. The average monthly rent is approximately $1,800. Its housing market is far beyond what is affordable for low- and middle-income families.” —Low-Income Families Make Irvine Their Home, HUD.GOV

Discuss below or at Talk Irvine.

Closed Sales from 1/26/2012 to 2/01/2012

Date Sold Address Zip Tract Sold Price Beds SqFt
Airport Area
1/31/2012 8059 Scholarship 92612 The Plaza $850,000 2 1790
Columbus Grove
1/26/2012 22 Sweet Shade 92606 Lantana $801,000 4 2719
El Camino Real
1/31/2012 6 Butterfly 92604 Irvine Groves $407,400 3 1950
Northpark
1/26/2012 16 New Season 92602 Tamarisk $326,000 2 1187
1/30/2012 9 Cabazon 92602 Monticello $412,500 3 1826
Northwood
1/26/2012 4 Woodlawn 92620 Greenfield $700,000 4 2411
1/27/2012 6 Ultimo Dr 92620 Sundance $370,000 2 1432
1/31/2012 42 Clear Creek 92620 Cristal $1,260,000 5 3700
Oak Creek
1/26/2012 2 Foxchase St 92618 Ashford Place $830,000 4 2750
Orangetree
1/27/2012 289 Tangelo 92618 Lake Condos $134,000 1 639
1/31/2012 200 Tangelo 92618 Lake Condos $257,500 2 1000
Portola Springs
1/27/2012 47 Wild Trails 92618 Ironwood $485,031 3 1953
Quail Hill
1/27/2012 29 Stepping Stone 92603 Casalon $515,000 3 1723
Turtle Ridge
1/27/2012 65 Grandview 92603 La Cima $2,595,000 6 5600
Turtle Rock
1/26/2012 5342 Blinn Ln 92603 Broadmoor $905,000 4 2405
1/31/2012 10 Evening Shadow 92603 Ridge Townhomes $410,500 2 1525
1/31/2012 51 Canyon Rdg 92603 Glen Garden Homes $570,000 3 2100
University Park
1/26/2012 26 Iron Bark Way 92612 Village I $420,000 3 1493
1/30/2012 7 Iron Bark Way 92612 OTHER $516,000 4 1900
West Irvine
1/26/2012 55 Freeland 92602 Barrington $650,000 4 2188
Westpark
1/27/2012 111 Alberti Aisle 92614 Tiempo $240,000 2 840
1/28/2012 10 Posada 92614 Promenade $545,000 3 1361
1/30/2012 116 Costero Aisle 92614 Tiempo $305,000 2 850
1/31/2012 21 Del Carlo 92606 Positano $693,000 3 1920
Woodbridge
1/27/2012 28 Havenwood 92614 Parkview $402,000 3 1520
1/27/2012 79 Rockwood 92614 Park Vista $171,000 1 750
1/28/2012 4 Pinewood 92604 Crossing $390,000 2 1600
1/31/2012 415 E Yale Loop 92614 Garden Estates $486,635 3 2150
1/31/2012 23 Cedarspring 92604 Gables $1,157,000 5 3000
2/1/2012 25 Whistling Isle 92614 Summerfield $660,000 4 1838
Woodbury
1/27/2012 192 Guinevere 92620 Garland Park $450,000 3 1950

To Catch a Falling Knife

January 1, 2008

The race to the bottom had begun, and house prices were dropping in thousands every week, even in Irvine. On one side, there was Irvine Renter writing blogs with titles like “Speculation or Investment”, profiling the properties with an asking price totally out of tune with the market, and graphs that showed the shadow inventory as well as the current REOs with no sign of bottoming till 2012. It was doom’s day. Great Housing Bubble was bursting. On the other side, there were Realtors, convincing you that this was the bottom, and Irvine will never see these prices again. Opportunity was knocking, according to them, and you would be a fool not to pick up the keys to open that door.

Amidst all this certainty, an impending recession and growing unemployment, there were a lot of houses on the market, and there were buyers and sellers, including us. We decided to catch the falling knife, and buy a house.

All we wanted was a small three bedroom/ two bathroom house with an attached garage in an excellent school district. We saw a lot of houses, and wrote a lot of offers. Most of them were rejected. Some got better offers than what we quoted, and some just waited for the right price. Some were short sales that took forever to materialize. Today I will profile a few houses that we had put offers on, with the price that we had offered.

1. 256 Monroe #50

Irvine CA 92602

Listing Price: $599,000

Our offer: $474,000

Community: Northwood

Area: 1411 SF

This house fit our criteria, and it was the first one that we saw. When our Realtor sensed that we had liked the house, she told us to put in an offer fast, because the house already had multiple offers. We ran a few calculations using Irvine Renter’s blogs, and decided to offer $474,000. She was miffed at us, and told us that she could not submit any offer below $500,000 since the house already had two offers above $500,000.

Public records show that the house was foreclosed at $417,600 by the Bank in July 2008, and resold at $448,000. Two days after our Realtor told us about the outstanding offers above $500,000, the listing price dropped to $480,000 proving that there weren’t any other offers.

Currently, 72 Monroe from the same neighborhood is on the market for $349,000.

446 Monroe was sold at $401,000 in September 2011.

Verdict: Falling knife.

2. 59 Bellevue

Irvine CA 92602

Listing Price: $564,900

Our offer: $525,000

Community: West Irvine

Area: 1600 SF

Our offer was rejected and public records show that the house was taken off the market.

Currently, 17 Bradford from the same neighborhood is on the market for $479,000.

9 Bellevue was sold at $465,000 in September 2011.

In the same neighborhood, 1 Bradford was in the market at $589,900 in 2008. We offered $525,000 and we were counter offered at $585,000. Eventually the house was sold at $570,000 in May 2008. The house was listed at $540,000 in June 2011 and sold at $495,000 in August 2011.

Verdict: Falling knife wrapped in silk

3. 10 Wedgewood

Irvine, CA 92620

Listing Price: $525,000

Our offer: $525,000

Community: Northwood

Area: 1561 SF

This was a lovely single family home with a “teaser price” of $525,000 to lure the buyers. It was everything that we looking in a house, but we were outbid as expected. It was a single family home. There was another house on Grape Arbor with a teaser price of $525,000 and people were faxing in their offers even before the house was opened for showing.

Public records show that the house was sold for $660,000 in June 2010.

Currently, the same house is listed in the market for $698,000.

Verdict: Would have, should have!

4. 11 Sagamore

Irvine CA 92602

Listing Price: ??

Our offer: $525,000

Community: West Irvine

Area: 1500 SF

I lost the MLS listing sheet for this one, and couldn’t trace the listing price online either. But I did find an email stating that we were counter offered at $545,000. I am assuming this was on the market for $550,000. I had also written a letter to the seller, asking him to reduce the price to $525,000 quoting Irvine Renter’s speculations about Irvine market. Looking back, I am thinking that the whole house hunting process must have been so frustrating that I wanted a house to move into, rather than this house. It can happen to any buyer- after you look for a few months, and find nothing worth your attention and money, frustration sets in and you start making mistakes.

Public records show that the house was sold for $491,104 in April 2009.

Currently, the 97 Sapphire with the same floor plan in the same neighborhood listed at $385,000.

Verdict: Phew! That was close. It was probably the sharpest knife that we were going to catch.

5. 801 Yorkshire

Irvine, CA 92620

Listing Price: $505,000

Our offer: $475,000

Community: Northwood

Area: 1481 SF

Public records show that the house was sold for $515,000 in December 2008.

Currently, the 135 Islington with the same floor plan in the same neighborhood sold at $489,000.

We had offered $475,000 for a similar condominium in the same neighborhood. Our offer wasn’t accepted then. The house was foreclosed at $495,000 in October 2009, and it was again relisted in 2011. The last sale was for $485,000 in August 2011.

Verdict: Blunt knife

6. 171 Lockford

Irvine CA 92602

Listing Price: (Feb 2008) $558,800

Our offer: $525,000

Community: Northpark

Area: 1752 SF

This house was a perfect size, and a perfect location- we were taken by the guard gated community. Every room was well laid out, and except for the fact that the entrance was through a flight of stairs, there was nothing to really point out to. But around the same time we found out about the lies our Realtor was feeding us, and decided to stop working with her. By the time we found a new Realtor and re-entered the market, this house was sold at $540,000 in August 2008.

117 Talmadge in the same neighborhood was sold at $450,000. It was a short sale.

3 bedroom/ 2.5 bath detached condos are on the market in the same community for around $535,000 now.

Verdict: Kool-aid happens, even from those who read IHB.

7. 9 Hollyhock

Irvine CA 92602

Listing Price: I lost the MLS sheet, but this was listed around $600,000.

Community: West Irvine

Area: 1700 SF

This was a short sale, and we offered $545,000 to the bank. The offer was rejected, and the house was foreclosed at $600,555 in July 2008. It was sold again in November 2008 at $569,000.

Verdict: Knife in a box.

After spending so much time touring at least a hundred houses in Irvine, we finally bought in November 2008. It was a short sale that took four months to get the bank approval. When it materialized, we had almost forgotten about the offer and moved on. It is not the perfect house, but so far, our house is the “bottom” for our neighborhood. In the little improvement that the market saw in 2010, one of our neighbors sold their house (same plan) for $65,000 more than the sold price of our house, and another short sale in 2011 dragged the appreciation by $30,000.

So do you maintain a list of homes that you put an offer on?

Did you buy or sell a house during 2008/2009?

Did you speculate, or did you invest?

Discuss below or at Talk Irvine.