Montecito / Sonoma / Carmel Pricing

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Panda said:
How must exactly has Sonoma's sales price gone up in price since its first phase 1 release. Anyone know?
Click to expand...
1st post of this thread has Feb 14 pricing which is just 2 weeks after they opened:
Sonoma
Plan 1: 3/2.5, 2365sft from $765,200
Plan 2: 4/3, 2463sft from $820,500
Plan 3: 4/3, 2635sft from $875,600
Click to expand...
I'm going to assume those are about $3k-5k higher than Phase 1.

A pretty significant jump even if you take lot premiums into consideration.
 
nytransplant said:
The homes that were perpendicular to sandcanyon in phase 1 and all the homes behind these (Phase 9 and 10) are not zero lot lines.  Also the homes a the end of the streets are not zero-lot lines
Click to expand...

I think your assessment is identical to mine.

Here's the siteplan with non zero-lot homes in red rectangles.  I walked into the backyards of phase 1,2,3 and verified the lots.  For others, based on corner location and lot width they should be accurate.
For Phase 9, 10, 11, 12 the homes behind Cal Pack homes seem to have same width as other homes with zero lot lines, so it should be zero-lot line.  As you can see phase 9, 10 homes not behind CalPac homes are wider and should be same layout as phase 2 and 3 homes, which are not zero-lot lines.  They just didn't have enough homes lined up in a row to squeeze in one more house by making these homes zero-lot line.

[attachment deleted by admin]
 
Irvine2Irvine said:
nytransplant said:
The homes that were perpendicular to sandcanyon in phase 1 and all the homes behind these (Phase 9 and 10) are not zero lot lines.  Also the homes a the end of the streets are not zero-lot lines
Click to expand...
I think your assessment is identical to mine.

Here's the siteplan with non zero-lot homes in red rectangles.  I walked into the backyards of phase 1,2,3 and verified the lots.  For others, based on corner location and lot width they should be accurate.
For Phase 9, 10, 11, 12 the homes behind Cal Pack homes seem to have same width as other homes with zero lot lines, so it should be zero-lot line.  As you can see phase 9, 10 homes not behind CalPac homes are wider and should be same layout as phase 2 and 3 homes, which are not zero-lot lines.  They just didn't have enough homes lined up in a row to squeeze in one more house by making these homes zero-lot line.
Click to expand...
Lot 72 looks huge, I wonder how many SF that is and what premium they charged for it.
 
That's the 8000 sqft lot earlier posts were taking about, not sure about the price.  Better not have been too much more because you are right next to Sand Canyon and have low income housing (I think 3 story building) looking down your yard.
 
USCTrojanCPA said:
Irvine2Irvine said:
nytransplant said:
The homes that were perpendicular to sandcanyon in phase 1 and all the homes behind these (Phase 9 and 10) are not zero lot lines.  Also the homes a the end of the streets are not zero-lot lines
Click to expand...
I think your assessment is identical to mine.

Here's the siteplan with non zero-lot homes in red rectangles.  I walked into the backyards of phase 1,2,3 and verified the lots.  For others, based on corner location and lot width they should be accurate.
For Phase 9, 10, 11, 12 the homes behind Cal Pack homes seem to have same width as other homes with zero lot lines, so it should be zero-lot line.  As you can see phase 9, 10 homes not behind CalPac homes are wider and should be same layout as phase 2 and 3 homes, which are not zero-lot lines.  They just didn't have enough homes lined up in a row to squeeze in one more house by making these homes zero-lot line.
Click to expand...
Lot 72 looks huge, I wonder how many SF that is and what premium they charged for it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately on lot 72 they built the house so that the front faces lot 71 and the back yard is against San Canyon.  A large portion of the layout is taken up by a driveway.  Not planned very well
 
nytransplant said:
irvinehomeowner said:
I2I:

How are you determining non zero lot lines? Are the homes on the lots framed and the dividing walls up?
Click to expand...

I2I is correct.  The siteplan layouts are available in the office.
Click to expand...

I did look at some architectural plans and walked into backyards of phase 1, 2, and 3 before people started moving in.  The rest of them are analyzed by corner location and the lot width, so no guarantees but it should be mostly correct.

There is one small advantage with a zero lot line.  The side yard is 8-9' wide, so you can put a small shed in the side yard and get it out of the view of back yard.

Another thing I just noticed is that the AC unit and the garage side door is on the "zero-lot line" side.  So, you have a wall and access to the front half of the "zero-lot line" side.  So the front half of the house is not zero-lot line and only the back half of the house is zero-lot line.  By looking at the house from front, you won't be able to tell if it's zero-lot line because there are 2 gates between the houses on both sides of the house.
It's an interesting arrangement, but it's better than full zero-lot line like my current house. 

 
I was there today and they had sold sign on every single lot.  Even the Plan 1 lot next to Sand Canyon and Trabuco intersection that's been available for about a month had sold sign on it.
 
Irvine2Irvine said:
I was there today and they had sold sign on every single lot.  Even the Plan 1 lot next to Sand Canyon and Trabuco intersection that's been available for about a month had sold sign on it.
Click to expand...

Here's an update, that was us on the Plan 1, we just backed out of it today.  Stood in the lot today per I2I's suggestion, being Sunday, traffic was light but definetly APPARENT.  Of course only the frame is up so the noise is like standing in the back yard when it's done.  We were fifty/fifty on it, wife didn't like the zero lot, dust, and noise.  I like the layout and the room for our 1 year old.  But while standing in the middle of our master bedroom on the second floor, a semi roared past on Sand Canyon going about 50.  The second floor shook and rumbled just slightly.  At that moment, it was clear this is not the house for us. 
 
ps99472 said:
Irvine2Irvine said:
I was there today and they had sold sign on every single lot.  Even the Plan 1 lot next to Sand Canyon and Trabuco intersection that's been available for about a month had sold sign on it.
Click to expand...

Here's an update, that was us on the Plan 1, we just backed out of it today.  Stood in the lot today per I2I's suggestion, being Sunday, traffic was light but definetly APPARENT.  Of course only the frame is up so the noise is like standing in the back yard when it's done.  We were fifty/fifty on it, wife didn't like the zero lot, dust, and noise.  I like the layout and the room for our 1 year old.  But while standing in the middle of our master bedroom on the second floor, a semi roared past on Sand Canyon going about 50.  The second floor shook and rumbled just slightly.  At that moment, it was clear this is not the house for us. 
Click to expand...

You never want to be stuck with a $800,000 regret.  Were there any consequences to backing out?
 
No, we were planning to sign the purchase contract tomorrow, the 3% deposit was returned to us in full. 

So semi-trailer are allowed on Sand Canyon? 
 
The Sand Canyon is THE MAIN route for the Bowerman landfill which is located to the northeast of Sand Canyon and Trabuco.  The landfill is open Mon-Sat between the hours of 7:00am to 5:00pm.  Also, the truck traffic is suppose to increase over the years.  I believe the landfill is sheduled to remain open for another 20-30 years.  I have stood on various lots of Sonoma and listen to the traffic noise and decided that I didn't want to be too close to it.  So I ended up paying additional $4K for a smaller lot, but it was twice as far away from Sand Canyon.  For me, it was worth the extra money and 120 sq ft smaller lot to be away from Sand Canyon.

It's also the diesel exhaust fumes as well as the noise you would had to deal if you are so close to Sand Canyon.  It may not bother some, but it bothered you.  ps99472, you did the right thing backing out since it bothered you.  Fortunately for you, Plan 2 and 3 seem to be more popular due to the 4th bedroom, so you should be able to pick up a plan 1 in the near future.  Good luck and hope to be your neighbor soon.
 
I just don't get some of their pricing stragety.  How are lot 82 and 86 same price? They are both plan 3, but lot 82 is 500sq ft larger, is not zero lot line, and one house further away from Sand Canyon.  The stone facade of lot 86 cannot be worth enough to negate all the disadvantages.

It also seems that the builder does not really discount the houses that are on or near Sand Canyon vs the interior locations.  I guess they don't have to as long as people are willing to buy them, despite the resale hit they will take when it's time to sell.
 
My Sonoma plan 3 went up more than 30k compares to the same phase 10 plan 3.

The Sonoma phase 2 Plan 3 already sold more than 930k to 956k but those two are very big lots .... I passed both of them as one faces the low income housing apartment and the other next to sand canyon.

How is Carmel selling?



 
How is this not price manipulation?

TIC has a monopoly on new Irvine houses and while we can argue that buyers/the market sets the price... then at the same time, people cannot ignore the fact that Irvine has a premium or else people would not be willing to pay these prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top