Category Archives: News

Closed Sales from 2/02/2012 to 2/08/2012

Date Sold Address Zip Tract Sold Price Beds

SqFt

Northwood
2/2/2012 79 Lakepines 92620 The Lakes $169,000 1 934
2/3/2012 42 Van Buren 92620 Horizon $292,000 2 1052
2/8/2012 18 Longstreet 92620 Shadow Run $620,000 4 2077
Oak Creek
2/2/2012 6 Redberry 92618 Cypress $570,000 3 1750
2/7/2012 66 Ivywood 92618 Kelsey Lane $749,000 4 2386
Orange Tree
2/7/2012 349 Orange Blossom 92618 Lake Condos $160,000 1 639
Turtle Ridge
2/3/2012 35 Clouds Pt 92603 Amberhill $1,980,000 3 3100
University Town Center
2/2/2012 57 Wellesley 92612 Cambridge Court $384,500 2 1455
West Irvine
2/4/2012 15 Emory 92602 Andover $415,000 3 1498
2/8/2012 17 Bradford 92602 Sheridan Place $450,000 3 1569
Westpark
2/3/2012 18 Del Azul 92614 Borgatta $455,000 2 1139
2/6/2012 17 Del Roma 92614 Borgatta $580,000 3 1762
2/7/2012 1502 Solvay Aisle 92606 Brio $350,000 2 1028
Woodbridge
2/3/2012 3 Winterhaven 92614 Seasons $399,000 3 1117
Woodbury
2/3/2012 2 Iceberg Rose 92620 Bowen Court $282,000 1 1100

Happy Birthday Zovall!

Irvine Racks Up Another First: Great Park Chosen as the Next Site for DOE's Solar Home Competition

“We are, in fact, at the Great Park creating a living laboratory for innovation.”—Beth Krom, Irvine’s Mayor Pro Tem

Photo courtesy energy.gov

As I’ve said and written many times before, Irvine is always on the cutting edge of development. This spirit of innovation is in Irvine’s DNA. It goes back to the ranch days and continues today. Some love the results; others hate it. But whatever side of this divide you fall on, it’s the cutting edge. It’s innovation.

Today Irvine is adding another first: The Great Park in Irvine will be the first site outside of Washington D.C. to host the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon. The DOE Solar Decathlon consists of students from schools of higher education, both U.S. and international, competing to build homes that are not only energy efficient but also marketable. In other words, potential buyers like the look of them and are comfortable with the price. This biennial competition was launched in 2002 and has attracted more than 100,000 visitors.

Here is how the DOE describes the event:

“The 20 teams from colleges and universities across the United States and from around the world will now begin a two-year process to build solar-powered, highly energy-efficient homes that combine affordability, consumer appeal and design excellence. Throughout the two-year process, the teams will design, construct and test their homes before reassembling them at the Solar Decathlon 2013 competition site. As part of the Solar Decathlon, teams compete in ten different categories – ranging from best architecture and engineering to energy production for heating and cooling – while gaining invaluable real-world experience in a growing global industry.”—Energy.gov

And here are some of the benefits that local officials expect to reap by hosting the DOE Solar Decathlon:

“We’re looking at this being a really huge thing not just for Irvine, not just for Orange County, not even for the region. We can really showcase California as a hotbed of innovation for renewable energy.”—Tim Shaw, manager of external affairs at the Great Park

“Staging the 2013 Solar Decathlon at the Great Park will focus worldwide attention on the entire solar renewable energy industry in Orange County and throughout California. The event will also greatly stimulate the local economy by bringing in tourism dollars from those attending.”—Mike Elzey, Great Park CEO

One more comment on the benefits of “going green”: Not only does the City of Irvine and the U.S. Department of Energy see benefit in adopting innovations in energy efficiency, so does the U.S. military. As these links show, the U.S. military see it as a way to save money and as a national security issue:

Sources:

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

Closed Sales from 1/19/2012 to 1/25/2012

Date Sold Address Zip Tract Sold Price Beds SqFt
Airport Area
1/19/2012 8061 Scholarship 92612 The Plaza $675,000 2 1675
1/25/2012 2210 Scholarship 92612 Avenue One $250,000 1 868
El Camino Real
1/19/2012 14772 Doncaster Rd 92604 El Camino Glen $505,000 3 1750
1/20/2012 5151 Doanoke Ave 92604 $360,000 3 1480
Northwood
1/20/2012 26 Midsummer 92620 Bella Rosa $680,000 4 2386
1/20/2012 31 Castillo 92620 Orchard Glen NW $420,500 3 1337
1/24/2012 69 Cartier Aisle 92620 Northwood Villas $388,000 3 1593
1/25/2012 37 Grant 92620 $489,000 3 1672
Portola Springs
1/20/2012 35 Sacred Path 92618 Sevilla $585,073 3 2044
1/20/2012 20 Land Grant 92618 Sevilla $599,445 4 2044
1/24/2012 52 Gray Dove 92618 Las Colinas $995,000 4 3383
Quail Hill
1/20/2012 235 Tall Oak 92603 Ivy Wreath $650,000 3 1800
Shady Canyon
1/20/2012 8 Vernal Spg 92603 Shady Canyon Custom $2,750,000 4 4820
1/25/2012 25 Wildhawk 92603 Villas of Shady Canyon $2,850,000 2 4240
Stonegate
1/19/2012 34 Serenity 92618 Santa Rosa $378,000 1 1120
Turtle Rock
1/20/2012 12 Highland Vw 92603 Highlands Townhomes $440,000 2 1600
University Park
1/20/2012 17672 Cassia Tree Ln 92612 Parkside – Deane $650,000 3 1749
Walnut
1/20/2012 14502 Larch Ave 92606 College Park $603,000 4 2621
West Irvine
1/19/2012 163 Topaz 92602 Mandeville $403,000 3 1469
1/19/2012 36 Calais 92602 Concord $785,000 5 2900
Woodbridge
1/19/2012 10 Rockwren 92604 Gables $945,000 4 2300
1/20/2012 34 Brookstone 92604 $510,000 3 1440
1/23/2012 28 Greenfield 92614 Alders $318,000 3 1267
1/24/2012 31 Glenhurst #18 92604 Parkside $360,000 3 1399
Woodbury
1/20/2012 205 Groveland #15 92620 Garland Park $375,000 2 1355
1/23/2012 199 Wild Lilac 92620 Garland Park $390,000 2 1357
1/24/2012 9 Herringbone 92620 La Casella $560,000 3 1550