Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Sites Inventory and Methodology City of Pleasanton | B-15 <br /> <br />Table B-9: Parcels Less than 0.5 Acre Included in Lower Income Consolidated Sites <br />APN Owner Acreage Description Site Total Acreage of <br />Consolidated Site <br />094 010400300 <br />Green Valley <br />Corporation <br />0.13 Vacant <br />A 1.3 094 010400803 0.28 <br />Multi-tenant commercial (skin <br />care, hair care, construction <br />office, ballet studio) and <br />surface parking lot <br />094 012202300 First National Bank <br />of Pleasanton 0.16 Surface parking lot B 0.73 <br />094 011004900 <br />Koopmann Thelma <br />E Tr Exemption <br />Trust & Koopma etal <br />0.19 Commercial building, surface <br />parking lot C 0.93 <br />094 015700104 235 Main Street <br />Partners LLC 0.28 <br />Commercial buildings <br />(insurance office), surface <br />parking lot <br />D 0.63 <br />094 015700112 Dunkley Anne L & <br />Arthur W Trs 0.35 <br />Multi-tenant commercial <br />buildings/offices (pizzeria, <br />attorney’s office, brokerage <br />firm, polygraph testing, skin <br />and body care), surface <br />parking lot <br />094 015100805 Red Bear Inc 0.32 <br />Multi-tenant office commercial <br />building (CPR training) w. <br />interior parking <br />E 0.97 <br />Source: City of Pleasanton, Alameda County Assessor, LWC <br /> <br />Furthermore, income categories were refined based on parcel size, with smaller parcels (e.g., <br />below 0.25 acres) categorized as above moderate income. <br />Phase 4: Site-by-Site Assessment <br />Despite the screening analysis, some potential sites had existing development or other <br />conditions (e.g., irregular shape, accessibility issues, ownership, existing uses that were not <br />likely to discontinue during the planning period, etc.) that preclude them from the site inventory. <br />The analysis included a site-by-site assessment and refinement of sites depending on <br />additional information from direct observation or firsthand experience from City staff. For <br />example, parcels that had development potential (i.e., could at least triple the existing building <br />square footage and number of allowed units) but were well-performing commercial properties <br />were not included as sites. Development trends on nonvacant sites were considered in the <br />determination of sites. Market conditions in Pleasanton are demonstrating viability of <br />nonvacant site redevelopment for both residential and mixed-use projects as shown by current <br />development trends. See Sections B.2.3 and B.2.5 for additional discussion on development <br />trends and suitability of nonvacant sites.