My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2012
>
100212
>
11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2012 12:49:38 PM
Creation date
9/27/2012 4:42:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
10/2/2012
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
development sites are available, and the number of residential units seeking building permits <br /> became significantly lower than the annual allocation, the Growth Management Ord nance has <br /> not had any impact on housing production or cost. <br /> The impact of growth management on the cost of housing in Pleasanton over the life of the <br /> program is not clear. It is acknowledged that growth management may add a layer of processing <br /> to development review if the number of development applications requires decisions related to <br /> borrowing, reallocation and other growth management approval options. The added time to <br /> process a development adds cost to a project. However, the cost to complete a project is not <br /> likely to affect the price of homes, as the price of housing is based on what the market is willing to <br /> bear, and the added costs are more likely to reduce the profit for the land owner rather than <br /> increase the price of a housing unit on the market. <br /> As shown in the graph below, the annual difference in the cost of housing in Pleasanton <br /> compared to the cost of housing in Alameda County has varied over the period of time the <br /> Growth Management Ordinance has been in effect. The difference in the cost of housing in <br /> Pleasanton and the County was greater in 2011 than when growth management was <br /> implemented in 1996. The gap widened notably during the boom years around 2005 and again <br /> around 2009 when values in Pleasanton did not drop as dramatically as the remainder of the <br /> County. It is not possible to say whether growth management was the cause of this difference in <br /> housing costs. Scarcity of developable land in the City, high-scoring schools, abundant services <br /> and recreational opportunities, attractive appearance, easy accessibility to maior employment <br /> centers, and desirable location have likely been the primary factors driving housing prices in <br /> Pleasanton. Ultimately, the cost of housing depends on what people are willing to ray for those <br /> attributes relative to the cost in other communities. <br /> City of Pleasanton Housing Element BACKGROUND—February 2012 98 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.