Planning commission continues review of new 'innovation‑based business' zoning; commission asks for site maps and adjacency protections

The Pleasanton Planning Commission continued consideration of draft municipal code amendments intended to add an “innovation‑based business” (IBB) land‑use category and to streamline entitlement steps for biotech, life‑science and similar indoor industrial users.

Staff and consultant Alex Greenwood Group presented findings that Pleasanton has competitive advantages (educated workforce, existing flex inventory and proximity to research institutions) and recommended code changes to clarify definitions, allow by‑right IBB uses in select industrial and PUD districts, reduce design‑review requirements for minor exterior changes, and adjust development standards such as building height near BART and performance standards for emissions and hazardous materials. Melinda (city planner) and Lisa (economic development) described proposed edits to definitions, the land‑use table and design‑review thresholds; Eric Lukini (senior planner) and consultant Alex Greenwood explained how other Bay Area cities have sought to speed permitting for life‑science uses.

Key proposals discussed included a new IBB definition (indoor, technology‑oriented industrial uses such as biotech, advanced manufacturing and food‑tech), permitting IBB in IP and IG industrial districts and certain Hacienda PUD subdistricts, allowing up to 85 feet, 5 inches within one mile of BART (55 feet beyond that), and exempting minor exterior tenant improvements from full design review while retaining review for new buildings and significant additions. Staff also said the general plan’s current industrial floor‑area‑ratio limit of 0.5 could become a constraint for larger IBB projects and suggested a future general plan amendment if needed.

Commissioner discussion focused on two recurring concerns: (1) adjacency to residential areas and whether new height allowances (85' vs 55') should be constrained near existing residences; and (2) whether permitting hotels, personal‑service uses and small education facilities independently (i.e., without an IBB anchor) would encourage unintended development patterns rather than the clustered, amenity‑rich campuses staff described. Commissioners asked staff for more specifics on where the code changes would apply in the city and how many parcels/sites would be affected by the taller‑height allowance; commissioners also asked for clarity on setback and screening standards and how the Livermore‑Pleasanton Fire Department and Bay Area Air Quality Management District would regulate hazardous materials and emissions.

Multiple commissioners praised the goal of attracting life‑science and high‑value industrial jobs but requested greater precision. Commissioner Mohan and others asked for an objective, administrable rule to prevent an 85‑foot building from being placed immediately adjacent to existing residences; staff pointed to existing district setbacks, step‑back massing requirements for stories over 40 feet, MCUP (minor conditional use permit) requirements for certain adjacencies, and the option to elevate review to a CUP for larger or unusual proposals. Staff also noted that many industrial sites are built with on‑site circulation and setbacks that tend to locate buildings away from parcel edges.

After discussion, a motion to approve staff’s recommended PMC amendments (as presented) was made and seconded. The commission voted 2‑3 against the motion (Commissioners Pace and Wedge voted Aye; Commissioners Jane, Mohan and Chair Morgan voted No). The commission then voted to continue the item for further work: staff were directed to return with clearer mapping and examples of affected parcels, options for addressing height near residences (for example: absolute cap near existing residential or a delineated set of zones where 85 feet is allowed), and additional refinement on whether and how hotels/personal services should be permitted independently of IBB anchors. The continuation motion passed unanimously.

Staff said no immediate applications were pending that would be affected by the delay; staff indicated the earliest return would likely be in July given workload and analysis needs. Consultants and commissioners emphasized the city’s interest in speeding permitting for IBB uses while preserving protections for existing neighborhoods; the commission requested objective options staff could apply to specific sites rather than open‑ended standards.