Monthly Archives: March 2012

A Review of the Casero Tract at Portola Springs

I knew from the moment I walked into the sales office and saw the floorplans, I wouldn’t like the Casero properties. The floorplans are rectangular, which created awkward angles and wasted space. The houses are geared towards children—young children, but even still I wouldn’t raise my family in any of the houses. As I was touring the properties I kept thinking about the prices. $600K+ for this? Tragic! Consider the hefty Mello Roos! You’re looking at well over $4K in taxes per year, which is tough for me to swallow. It wasn’t what I expected and I think if I had to choose between a house at Laguna Altura and Casero, I’d choose Laguna Altura. I think the builder (Standard Pacific Homes) got it wrong.

Floorplans

Pricing

Options

Estimated Property Taxes and Special Assessments:

Base Property Tax: 1.05% of sales price

CFD Tax: $4,103 per year

Other Taxes: $156 per year

Overall Effective Tax Rate: 1.74%

Homeowners Association: $153/month

Residence 1

Price: From $590,888

Bedrooms: 3 + loft option

Bathrooms: 2.5

Garage: 2 cars

Square Footage: 1,909 sq/ft

Upon entering the house, you’re immediately standing in the living room (AKA the great room). Your eyes are drawn towards the dining/kitchen area as a focal point, so it’s best to keep these areas clean if you have guests. The model features a built in media/wine center on the back wall of the living room. Because this is a high traffic area and you’re limited to what can be done with the space, I’d invest in the upgrade. The living room is a lot smaller than I thought it would be. I liked the fireplace, but noticed that there wasn’t space left over once you fit your furniture in the room. You are forced to mount your television over the fireplace because there is nowhere else to put it—or a t.v. console of any sort. Wall space is limited, so hanging pictures or artwork might be a challenge.

The kitchen and dining room blended together, but were distinctly separate from the living room by a wall. This space would’ve been a mess without the wall. At least wall gave it an appearance of space organization. I don’t have many complaints about the kitchen. The cabinets are white Thermofoil or a maple chestnut color. When you take a close look at the cabinets, they’re very nice and look pretty but I wonder about durability after 3 years. There’s tons of storage, all the amenities are there (upgraded of course!) and it’s functional. My recommendation for this space is that you invest in the recessed lighting. It creates consistency throughout the space.

Residence 1 has a very nice outdoor area referred to as the California Room. It’s spacious enough for seating, grilling and general lounging about. If you’re creative you might be able to have your child’s birthday party in the California Room, provided that the guest list is short and doesn’t include many adults.

Just before walking up the stairs is a powder room. It’s petite, but thankfully away from the kitchen.

The master bedroom is located just off the top of the stairs. The entry to the master bedroom felt like too much wall with weird angles. I didn’t like walking into the master bedroom. There was nothing special about the master. It was bland. There were a lot of windows, which brings in the much needed extra light. It had a good size walk in closet, but the bathroom was awkward. It’s set up like a long hallway with a small room housing the tub and shower. The vanity has ample counter space because of the hallway feel, but on the whole I’d pass over this bathroom. The tub had paneling and upgraded “surrounds” that reminded me of the kitchen cabinets. It wasn’t well done at all.

There is a common area between the master and remaining bedrooms. They refer to this space as the loft, but I think common area is a better description. This would be perfect for a play area for the kids (except watch out for the stairs!) or a game room. The living room isn’t large enough to provide an X-Box Kinect friendly play area, so this is where you’d have to hook it up. I like that there’s a space separating the master suite from the other bedrooms, but I still wasn’t partial to the layout.

The second bathroom is located just off the loft. It’s a nice dual sink vanity that the kids can share, but the layout is extremely narrow. I felt cramped. The tub is also very narrow. Your children can fit in the tub up until age 12—after that, it’s showers or really uncomfortable baths.

Bedrooms 2 and 3 share a wall. Both rooms are square. Both rooms are small. You can fit a twin bed and a couple pieces of furniture in these rooms. The closets are small and might be a bit rough during the teenage years.

There is a laundry room with a full size washer and dryer. It’s small, but if you opt for the cabinet and counter upgrades you’ll be happy with it.

First impressions are important when purchasing a house. My first impression was that Residence 1 completely missed the mark.

Residence 2

Price: From $617,888

Bedrooms: 4 + loft option

Bathrooms: 3

Garage: 2 cars

Square Footage: 2,023 sq/ft

Residence 2 had a terrible entry. You enter into a narrow hallway with nothing gorgeous to look at. It was like an arcade of hallway doors, with nothing promising at the end. This was almost enough to make me turn around. I wasn’t off to a very good start.

The downstairs bedroom (bedroom 4) isn’t too bad. The size is ok, but the bed faces the closet and the cable was wired in the wall on the side of the bed. I’m not quite sure how that’s going to work—other than having to strategically place your television. I really expected better. The guest bath is a full bath and is typical to apartment living. The tub felt a little narrow, but this is a common theme to the Casero property. This is a good space for guests to stay. If I had a tween or teenage child I don’t think I’d feel comfortable putting them in this room since it’s so close to the front door.

The kitchen, dining and living rooms felt too small for me. The living room mirrored Residence 1 with the exception of the optional built in media cabinets. There is definitely more wall space in the living room at Residence 2, but I still think you’re forced to mount your flat screen over the fireplace. Mounting the television over the fireplace creates a crisp look, so it’s not a deal breaker. My furniture wouldn’t fit in this place, and I live in an 860 square foot apartment. If I’m paying $600K+ I want my furniture to fit.

The dining area is surrounded by windows, but it’s narrow. You’ll need to invest in a long rectangular table, because the space isn’t built for anything else. It’s also a high traffic area and there’s not much space in between the dining and living room.

The kitchen is just “alright.” There’s not a lot to say about it because nothing really stood out to me. There’s not a whole lot of space to move. In fact, if you open the dishwasher you almost block traffic! I liked that the cabinets didn’t extend to the ceiling so you can decorate on top. The kitchen gives you everything you need. It’s functional and I wouldn’t dismiss the house out of disappointment in the kitchen.

The backyard was lovely. It was big enough for someone like me, but I don’t have small children running around so it’s tough to gage exactly what is a comfortably sized space. The backyard extends along the side of the house, and the model features a really nice seating area. Let’s be practical. Usually trashcans are kept along the side of the house. I just don’t see this space used for entertaining.

At the top of the stairs is the “Sam & Kate” room. I call it the Sam & Kate room because of the big letters the designer choose to decorate the room with. Technically, it’s the loft. You can have an optional built in media center/desk built in. I’d turn this space into an entertainment room or an office. The designer chose to showcase it as a children’s play area. I’d be concerned as a parent if I had little kids because this space is just off the top of the stairs. I’d have to baby gate it.

The second bedroom is big enough to fit a full bed. Once again, the bed is facing the closet. This is the same problem I had with the downstairs bathroom. It’s not set up to fit my lifestyle. I don’t want to face my closet. The closets are adequate, but not ideal.

The second bathroom is unacceptable. There was little room to stand. The toilet is nearly flush against the tub. The tub was narrow and it sloped, which prevents you from stretching your legs. The sinks were small. I can’t understand why they can’t get these bathrooms right! Very disappointing.

Bedroom 3 can accommodate a full size bed. It had great closet space, but once again you’ll have to run the cable line to a more suitable position. I would’ve liked to have seen the builder extend bedroom 3 out a little further by shortening the Sam and Kate room. I’d rather have a larger bedroom and a smaller loft. The big thing that turned me off of bedroom 3 was that it shared a wall with the master. This nixed the floorplan for me.

The master bedroom is actually a decent size. I liked the lighting, and there was a great walk in closet. However, the master bathroom was too small. I was really surprised to find the master bathroom so petite. It was large enough to have a dual sink vanity and the tub separate from the shower, but I wasn’t satisfied with the space. It felt cramped like an apartment.

In general, I felt the upstairs of Residence 2 was too crowded. I can’t pinpoint why I’m so adverse to it, but it may have to do with the rectangular floorplan. It felt long and limiting. I’ll take Residence 2 off my list.

Residence 3

Price: From $661,888

Bedrooms: 4 + bonus room

Bathrooms: 3

Garage: 2 cars

Square Footage: 2,330 sq/ft

My feelings about Residence 3 are very similar to the previous properties. Long narrow hallways, crowded living/dining/kitchen areas and small bathrooms didn’t make this floorplan worth it. For the price I’d pay for Residence 3, I’d expect to have a house that utilizes the square footage better. I almost felt like the height of the interior increased the uncomfortable layout. “Third time is a charm” certainly didn’t apply here.

When you enter the house, I immediately felt the narrowness in the layout. The living room is a near replica of its sister properties. I don’t want to disparage the living room too much, or give the wrong impression. It’s an adequate space, but once the furniture fills up the room, you’re left with walking room only. For a housing tract that appeals to families, I would’ve thought that the builders would’ve considered little ones playing with big Tonka trucks in the living room. It’s not suitable for that. I honestly wouldn’t know where to put a Christmas tree in this house. If you rearrange furniture you could probably put it in the living room, but it defeats the purpose when you have to shove things around.

The dining room feeds into the kitchen. It’s situated in front of the sliding glass doors to the backyard. You can look at this two ways:

1. How nice to have sunlight while eating!

2. The dining room table blocks the entrance to the backyard.

Option 2 describes this space best.

The pantry is located in the dining room. I never understood why you’d build the pantry in the dining room and not the kitchen. Obviously I can walk to the pantry from the kitchen. It’s not that big of a deal, but it feels awkward. Pantries should be in the kitchen. End of story. Just so you get an idea of how much space you have to walk between the island and appliances, I snapped a photo with the oven door open. You can judge whether this is a wide enough space for you to work in.

The downstairs bedroom (bedroom 4) felt smaller than it actually is. A full bed would fit here, but I’m wondering where I’d put a dresser. I could barely squeeze in there to get a picture. You have the same situation with the bed facing the closets. This room was a buzz kill for me. The downstairs bathroom (bathroom 3) only has a shower and almost no counter space on the vanity. I can live without a tub in bathroom 3. It’s a nice to have, but not a must have.

The second floor has two bedrooms connected by a common bathroom. I liked this concept, particularly if you have children. This won’t prevent children from fighting over the bathroom, but at least it is easily accessible. It’s a shower/tub combo with a dual sink vanity. I think the bathroom serves its purpose and it would be acceptable to me.

The sizes of bedrooms 2 and 3 weren’t too bad. They do not share a wall, but they suffer from the same tragic disease of forcing the bed to face the closets.

The master bedroom has a huge walk in closet. It’s probably the biggest walk in closet that I’ve seen in all the properties I’ve toured. I somehow envision this becoming your children’s overflow closet. The master bedroom is a decent size. I was impressed compared to the other properties. The master bathroom, however, did not strike my fancy. It felt oddly shaped. The vanity formed a nearly 90 degree angle with the tub (or that’s how it appeared) and it looked smooshed together. The tub surrounds (AKA counter space) are an upgrade. I think you need them. That same hideous paneling is featured on the tub. I’d figure out how to get rid of that. I liked that the vanities faced each other. This allowed for a lot of counter space.

If you’re inclined to travel up one more flight of stairs, you’ll end up in the bonus room. This is a unique feature to Residence 3. The builder suggests that the homeowners use the space as a game room for watching movies or a retreat to spend time with family and friends. It’s featured as a lounge noir type of feel in the model with a full service wet bar. I personally would probably not use this space. It’s a nice feature, but I can watch television at an awkward angle from my bedroom. I like this space because you can make it your own and turn it into anything you want—except a bathroom. It might work well as an office if you don’t mind climbing two flights of stairs to get to it.

Casero was disappointing. I felt like the builders didn’t consider “practical living” in some circumstances. The bedrooms needed to have a different layout, the bathrooms needed larger tubs and more breathing room, and furniture has to fit in the rooms. In my opinion, the builder got it wrong.

Discuss below or at Talk Irvine.

What's Happening with Orangetree Estate?

Previously, I took a look at the condition of the real estate market in Irvine’s most expensive housing market, Shady Canyon. That was the highs; today it’s the lows. In other words, today I will write about one of Irvine’s most inexpensive housing markets, Orangetree.

Orangetree is in the 92618 ZIP code. This contains the Oak Creek, Stonegate, and Portola Springs neighborhoods as well as the planned Great Park neighborhoods. Therefore, the price of homes in this ZIP code varies greatly. Orangetree is the most affordable neighborhood in this ZIP as well as in much of Irvine. In spite of being one of Irvine’s most affordable communities, Irvine’s most recent housing element grades the condition of housing in this area with an A. The housing element concludes that this may be due to the existence of the homeowner’s association, which has fees range from approximately $200 to $350. Orangetree is located near Irvine Valley College, Irvine Spectrum, the Irvine Metro train station, and Oak Creek Golf Course as well as the Orange County Great Park.

According to Redin, 6 locations in Orange Tree currently have homes on the market. This is in addition to numerous sales that are pending. Orange Tree homes range in size from about 500 square feet to about 1200 square feet. The small number of square feet is a big contributor to the relatively small price. As the chart below shows, most Orange Tree homes are condos.

The median list price of Orange Tree homes is $216,000 or $252 per square foot. Redfin stats show that 5 homes sold in January 2012. The median selling price for these 5 homes was $205,000 or $249 per square foot. This median selling price per square foot is down 4.2% from the previous month and down 13.5% from the previous year.

An Orange Tree home listed near the median price per square is at 405 Tangelo. This 1983 condo has 2 beds and 1.75 baths with 1,051 square feet. It’s listed for $258,000 or $245 per square foot. The HOA fees are $298 and $19 per month.

The highest priced home in this market (excluding sales pending) is at 22 Tangerine. It’s a 2 bed and 1.75 bath single-family home with 1,202 square feet and an attached garage. The list price is $359,305 or $299 per square foot. The HOA fee is $186 per month. Redfin stats also show that this home was listed for $425,000 in September 2011. After this date, the list price went on a roller coaster ride with the price being lowered and raised various times until it was listed at the current price of $359,305. According to Zestimate, the value for this home has decreased by $12,000 during the last 30 days. The current Zestimate of this home is $346,100.

The Redin listing in Orangetree with the least expensive price tag (excluding sales pending) is 42 Orange Blossom. It’s a 1 bed and 1 bath condo with 717 square feet and a carport. The list price is $161,500 or $225 per square foot. The HOA fees are $280 and $20. This home sold for $201,000 on May 29, 2003, and according to Zestimate, the value of 42 Orange Tree has increase by $2,000 in the last 30 days. The current Zestimate is $168,900.

Now we’ve had a tour of the highs and low in Irvine real estate. Maybe next time I’ll write about the in-betweens. We’ll see.

Discuss below or at Talk Irvine.

API & Equity

The first formal education system was developed during 300 BC by Sumerians and Egyptians to serve as centers for teaching reading and writing. Later on, Confucius added music, literature and ethics to the learning list, and turned schools into enrichment centers. By the time we went to school, they served dual purpose of educating us, and setting the stage for our career choices. However, in the past decade education has evolved into a “race to the top” purely based on numbers. API ranking, API Growth Scores, Test Scores, SAT Scores, GPA – all these numbers have become vital in deciding a student’s future, and in controlling the real estate prices.

Whether we like it or not, for a large population that resides in Irvine, school district was the decisive factor. But even in the best school district, are some schools better than others? Does that affect the price for the particular neighborhood? Before we tell our children that our equity rests in their hands and ask them to bolster their test scores, let’s have a look at the Median Price/SF in the Irvine Villages and the percentage of price change in the last year (disregarding the age of the village, the ethnicity of the residents, the proximity to the freeway and other factors)

Village

School

Median Price/SF

Y-O-Y % change

Northwood

(Perfect 10)

Northwood Elementary School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 937

Santiago Hills Elementary

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 961

Brywood Elementary School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 926

Sierra Vista Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 948

$292/SF

-7.6%

Northwood Point

(Perfect 10)

Canyon View Elementary

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 966

Sierra Vista Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 948

Northwood High School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 908

$328/SF

-7.1%

Lower Peter’s Canyon

(Biggest Y-o-Y percentage drop)

Hicks Canyon Elementary

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 942

Myford Elementary

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 951

Pioneer Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 939

Orchard Hills Middle School

API Rank: Not ranked yet

API Growth: 952

Arnold Beckman Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 866

$275/SF

-21.9%

Portola Springs

(Perfect 10)

Stonegate Elementary Schoo

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 954

Sierra Vista Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 948

Northwood High School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 908

$293/ SF

1.4%

Woodbury

Woodbury Elementary School

API Rank: 9

API Growth: 918

Sierra Vista Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 948

Irvine High School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 881

$292

-16.8%

Woodbridge

Springbrook Elementary

API Rank: 9

API Growth: 897

Meadow Park Elementary

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 947

Stonecreek Elementary School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 958

Eastshore Elementary School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 940

Lakeside Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 933

Southlake Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 916

Woodbridge High School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 877

$273

-6.2%

Oak Creek

(Perfect 10)

Oak Creek Elementary

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 925

Lakeside Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 933

Woodbridge high School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 877

$261/SF

-20.4%

Quail Hill

(Perfect 10)

Alderwood Elementary School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 961

Rancho San Joaquin Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 954

University High School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 908

$326/SF

-13.3%

Turtle Rock

(Perfect 10)

Turtle Rock Elementary School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 978

Bonita Canyon Elementary School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 965

Rancho San Joaquin Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 954

University High School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 908

$295/SF

-14.2%

West Park

(Highest Price/SF)

Culverdale Elementary School

API Rank: 8

API Growth: 857

Southlake Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 916

University High School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 908

$356

-11.2%

West Park II

(Perfect 10)

Stone Creek Elementary School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 958

Plaza Vista Elementary School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 958

Lakeside Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 933

Woodbridge High School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 877

$305

-14.8%

University Park

University Park Elementary

API Rank: 9

API Growth: 909

Rancho San Joaquin Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 954

University High School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 908

$281

-10.8%

Walnut Village

(Perfect 10)

(Lowest Price/SF)

Deerfield Elementary School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 937

College Park Elementary School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 927

Venado Middle School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 927

Irvine High School

API Rank: 10

API Growth: 881

$259

-12.8%

Observations:

Walnut village has the lowest price/ sf in the Irvine villages listed about, and has three schools with a perfect 10 API Score. The API Growth Score is good too, but still it ended up at the bottom of the list.

West Park has the highest price/sf in the list, but the elementary school has API rank of 8, and the API Growth Score is not above the desirable 900.

The year-over-year percentage drop was the biggest in Lowers Peters Canyon (West Irvine and North park, North park Square) area, and it has Tustin Unified School District schools with a perfect 10 API, and high API Growth Scores.

Portola Springs saw a percentage hike over last year’s median price/sf, and the schools have a perfect ten API rank and good API growth score. But many other villages are on par with those numbers.

Even though the boundaries of the City of Irvine command better prices in Orange County because of their schools, school boundaries within Irvine aren’t dictating the prices yet.

Would you choose one Irvine village over another based only on the schools? Do you think it is the schools that help Irvine hold the premium over other cities?

Discuss below or at Talk Irvine.

Closed Sales from 2/23/2012 to 2/29/2012

Date Sold Address Zip Tract Sold Price Beds Sq Ft
Airport Area
2/23/12 5144 Scholarship 92612 The Plaza $900,000 2 1930
2/24/12 2220 Watermarke 92612 Watermarke $195,000 1 635
2/27/12 2243 Martin #121 92612 Metropolitan $260,000 1 808
2/27/12 2282 Scholarship 92612 Avenue One $210,000 1 725
2/29/12 2243 Martin #311 92612 Metropolitan $215,000 1 941
2/29/12 1380 Scholarship 92612 Avenue One $330,000 2 1037
Columbus Grove
2/23/12 42 Honey Locust 92606 Kensington Court $450,000 3 2125
2/27/12 54 Fringe Tree 92606 Kensington Court $515,000 3 2125
El Camino Real
2/27/12 36 Goldenbush 92604 Deerfield Townhomes $340,000 3 1550
2/28/12 17 Snowberry 92604 Deerfield Townhomes $300,000 2 1150
Northpark
2/29/12 42 Idyllwild 92602 Monticello $345,000 2 1500
Northwood
2/23/12 224 Pineview 92620 The Lakes $260,000 2 1204
2/23/12 4 Hudson 92620 Oakleaf $695,000 4 2145
2/23/12 941 Somerville 92620 Greystone Villas $335,000 2 1260
2/24/12 2012 Timberwood 92620 Collage $390,000 2 1267
2/28/12 159 Pineview 92620 The Lakes $184,900 1 932
2/28/12 20 Grape Arbor 92620 Camellia $843,000 4 2460
Oak Creek
2/29/12 81 Eaglecreek 92618 Kenwood $978,000 5 3123
Orangetree
2/23/12 81 Tarocco 92618 Orchard Glen $267,000 2 995
2/24/12 2310 Apricot Dr 92618 Terrace $270,000 3 1350
Portola Springs
2/28/12 54 White Sage 92618 Bougainvillea $510,000 3 2050
Quail Hill
2/27/12 83 Reunion 92603 Ambridge $433,000 2 1656
2/29/12 46 Reunion 92603 Sage $465,000 2 1145
Rancho San Joaquin
2/28/12 11 Morena 92612 RSJ Villas $360,000 2 1145
Shady Canyon
2/23/12 23 Cactus 92603 Custom $6,500,000 8 12016
2/29/12 33 Prairie Grass 92603 Villas of Shady Canyon $2,800,000 4 4215
Turtle Ridge
2/24/12 34 Rose Trellis 92603 Ledges $1,400,000 3 3186
Turtle Rock
2/24/12 6 Brigadier 92603 Summit Regency $1,850,000 5 3336
2/27/12 8 Nidden 92603 Summit Regency $1,839,000 5 3259
Walnut
2/24/12 14592 Oak Ave 92606 College Park $611,000 4 1873
2/28/12 475 Deerfield Ave 92606 Windwood Townhomes $325,000 2 1239
West Irvine
2/24/12 18 Hidden Brook 92602 Amberwood $695,000 4 2478
Westpark
2/28/12 46 Festivo 92606 Cortina $914,000 4 2450
2/29/12 3742 Claremont 92614 Culverdale $542,000 5 2754
2/29/12 12 Cigliano Aisle 92606 Corte Bella $465,000 3 1614
Woodbridge
2/23/12 23 Lakeside 92604 Crossing $400,000 2 1477
2/23/12 2 Rosemary 92604 Villager $335,000 3 1123
2/23/12 3 Halfmoon 92614 Summerfield $670,000 4 1887
2/23/12 64 Greenfield 92614 Alders $285,000 2 1060
2/28/12 3 Perch 92604 Townhomes $377,000 2 1120
2/28/12 53 Pinewood 92604 Crossing $675,000 3 1910
2/29/12 20 Cedarglen 92604 Villager $255,000 3 1123
2/29/12 12 Hollowglen 92604 Glen $350,000 3 1220
Woodbury
2/28/12 32 Herringbone 92620 Cortile $350,000 2 1148
2/28/12 138 Vintage 92620 Lombard Court $320,000 2 1205

Discuss below or on Talk Irvine.

What is the Condition of Irvine's Housing Stock?

In a previous post, I wrote about the Irvine city council’s most recent encounter with the California Housing Element. Since the housing element will be fundamental in determining what is built or not built in Irvine, I thought I would review the document. Following is part of what I found.

Irvine’s housing element has many aspects, and one of these is a survey of the condition of Irvine’s housing stock. That is what I’ll look at today. The following information, which can be found in Irvine’s most recent housing element (2008-2014 Irvine Housing Element), is based on the 2008 Housing Conditions Survey. This survey focuses on seven areas in Irvine with high levels of older homes that were built before 1990. Therefore, not all Irvine neighborhoods are listed below. Note that much of the text found below is taken directly from the 2008-2014 Irvine Housing Element.

Here is a map of the areas that are the focus of the survey:

The grading system is as follows:

A – Good: No visible factors of deterioration evident

B – Fair: 1-2 actors of visible deterioration evident

C – Poor: 3-5 factors of visible deterioration evident

Area 1 – University Park, University Terrace, Parkside, Parkwood Apartments

  • Number of Homes Surveyed: 2,753

  • Type of Units:

    • University Park—single-family detached homes and condos

    • University Terrace and Parkside—single-family attached condos and townhomes

    • Parkwood Apartments—apartments

    • Condition of Homes:

  • Condition of Homes

    • University Park—Grade A

      • A few homes required minor roof repairs.

      • Six homes in the area received an A- due to missing/damaged roof shingles.

    • University Terrace and Parkside—Grade A (maintenance provided by HOA)

    • Parkwood Apartments—Grade A

Area 2 – Culverdale/Westpark

  • Number of Homes Surveyed: 3,112

  • Type of Units: predominately single-family detached homes

  • Condition of Homes: Grade A-

    • A small number of visible factors of deterioration evident existed.

    • Most of the houses needed numbers re-painted on the curbsides.

    • Some of the older houses had splintering support beams and sagging garage doors.

Area 3 – Orange Tree

  • Number of Homes Surveyed: 412

  • Type of Units: single-family (Although these homes are listed as single-family in the housing element, many of these homes would be considered as condos by some.)

  • Condition of Homes: Grade A

    • When compared to other neighborhoods in Irvine, Orange Tree consists of many older homes.

    • However, in spite of the large number of older homes, the quality of maintenance was high.

    • The high quality may be due to the existence of HOAs.

Area 4 – Deerfield Apartments, Deerfield Park, The Ranch, California Homes, The Willows

  • Number of Homes Surveyed: 2,573

  • Type of Units:

    • Deerfield Apartments—apartment

    • Deerfield Park–single family detached dwellings

    • The Ranch—older development

    • El Camino Glen development (formerly known as California Homes)— older development

    • The Willows—not listed in the housing element

  • Condition of Homes:

    • Deerfield—Grade A

      • The homes were in good condition considering this is an older multiple-family development.

      • No visual signs of deterioration existed.

      • The structures are sound.

    • Deerfield Park—Grade A

      • These homes were found to be in generally good condition.

      • A few homes required minor paint and roof repairs.

      • Nine homes in the area were identified as having cracked/peeling paint.

    • The Ranch—Grade B-

      • Many homes were undergoing roof repair or replacement.

      • Some homes had sub-par landscaping as well as poorly irrigated front lawns.

      • Most of the single-family homes were well kept.

    • El Camino Glen development (Formerly entitled California Homes) – Grade B-

      • One potential deferred maintenance condition is the need for garage repair or replacement.

      • Five homes on Yearling St. had warped, sagging, or missing garage doors.

      • A total of 16 homes within El Camino Glen were in need of garage replacement.

    • The Willows – Grade C+

      • Several homes were in need of roof repair, fresh paint, garage door replacement, window repair, and landscape up-keeping.

      • Many homes had chipped, weathered or damaged wooden fences across their front lawns.

      • Damaged front porch beams and unpaved driveways were other deferred maintenance conditions that were abundant across the neighborhood.

      • The Willows has no HOA.

Area 5 – Irvine Groves, College Park, Green Tree Park, The Colony, The Racquet Club

  • Number of Homes Surveyed: 2,461

  • Type of Units:

    • Irvine Groves—condominium style units (These are listed as condominium style units in the Irvine Housing Element; however, many of us would refer to these as mobile homes. Also, this is a 55+ community.)

    • College Park—detached homes

    • Green Tree Park—not identified in the housing element

    • The Colony—single-family homes

    • Racquet Club—not listed in the housing element but this is a detached single-family community

  • Condition of Homes:

    • Irvine Groves—Grade A

      • These homes were in good condition.

      • This was the best rated community in Area 5.

    • College Park—Grade B+

      • A moderate amount of homes needed minor repairs.

      • Many of the homes had dead lawns that might have been due to the season.

      • The pool area buildings showed some signs of deferred maintenance.

    • Green Tree Park— Grade B

      • Many houses had overgrown trees with poorly irrigated landscaping which resulted in signs of decay.

      • Due to damaged roofs, cracked driveways, warped garage doors, and fading paint, many houses were in need of upgrades.

      • Many houses were undergoing construction. In addition, the construction sites were substandard; large amounts of trash and debris were visible.

    • The Colony—Grade B

      • This was the most deteriorated community in the Area 5.

      • Cars were parked on the street for over 72 hours and seemed non-operational.

      • Most houses had curbside house numbers that were faded and hard to read.

      • Many houses had leaf build-up causing poor street run-off and drainage.

      • A large amounts of dead, unkempt trees existed on Hemingway and Utrillo.

    • Racquet Club—Grade B

      • Many homes had unsanitary garbage areas.

      • Many houses showed signs of decay, overgrown lawns, poor landscaping and leaf build-up.

      • The leaf build up in certain specific areas caused drainage issues.

      • Many houses in the area had cracked or asphalt driveways as well as weathered porch beams that were in need of upgrading or repair.

Area 6 – Woodbridge

  • Number of Homes Surveyed: 2,653

  • Type of Units: single-family detached and attached homes that are relatively new when compared to Irvine homes listed in the other six areas

  • Condition of Homes: Grade A with no evident signs of deterioration

Area 7 – Turtle Rock

  • Number of Homes Surveyed: 1,885

  • Type of Units: single-family detached homes

  • Condition of Homes: Grade A

    • These homes were in very good condition

    • No signs of deterioration or blight existed.

Here is what the Irvine Housing Element says about the condition of affordable housing in Irvine:

“Substandard conditions and the need for rehabilitation is not an issue with the City’s affordable housing inventory since units are well maintained by property owners. Moreover, like the rest of its housing stock, a majority of the City’s assisted units are fairly new and in good condition.”

And here is how the city is addressing housing that is in need of repair:

“To address deteriorating housing conditions, the City has operated a Residential Rehabilitation Program (RRP) since 2003. The purpose of RRP is to provide deferred loans and/or grants to very low, low and moderate income owners of single-family detached dwellings, townhomes, condominiums, and mobile homes for the preservation of decent safe and sanitary housing. The RRP corrects hazardous structural conditions, makes improvements considered necessary to eliminate blight, promotes the construction of healthy, sustainable and resource-efficient housing, improves disabled access, and corrects building, health and safety code violations. Financial assistance through the RRP previously only consisted of emergency grants up to $5,000 for emergency repairs such as leaking roofs, faulty plumbing or electrical wiring, or other necessary repairs. In 2010, the City established a loan program that provides three percent deferred loans of up to $25,000 to assist low-income Irvine homeowners with critical home improvement needs.”

Planning for the Irvine’s next housing element, which will be in effect for eight years, is currently in process. The planning commission and city council will be discussing the new version this year and next. So stay tuned to see how Irvine’s new housing element compares to the current housing element.

Discuss below or at Talk Irvine.