PC 042314 - Laserfiche WebLink

Brian Griggs stated that he thinks there are concerns brought out which the environmental documents hopefully have explored. He indicated that certainly the last thing Workday wants to do is be perceived as an unfavorable partner with the City. He noted that there are some concerns about timing if this project were to be delayed; he indicated that Workday has commenced drawings to actually be able to bid the project. He added that the uncertainty as to start of construction really has to do with flexibility and should not be perceived in any way as an indication that Workday is going slow. He indicated that they have spent a lot of money and will continue to spend a lot more speculatively to try and have the ability to start in a fairly timely manner. Mr. Griggs stated that Workday certainly has alternatives to find space, and they did look. He noted that there are a couple of very large vacant projects both in Pleasanton and outside Pleasanton. He further noted that the culture that Workday is founded upon really is indicative of an inclusive culture, and that was one of the reasons they wanted to be proximate to the other two buildings they occupy and, pretty soon, possibly part of a third building in the complex. He indicated that having the ability to keep the company together is really what the main emphasis of this will be. He added that candidly, Workday has a very good partnership with the City of Pleasanton, having employed a lot of residents and planning to continue to employ residents as they grow. He asked the Commission to take this into consideration and to not delay the project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allen asked staff to address the process for creating some of the assumptions that were used around air quality and the miles traveled. Mr. Dolan replied that there are really two points in Ms. Dennis' letter: the first relates to air quality /greenhouse gases (GHG) issues, and the other one is about the housing inventory. He indicated that he would address the first issue on environmental. Mr. Dolan stated that the air quality analysis is the traditional analysis staff has been doing for years in CEQA about specific contaminants. He indicated that there are models that are approved for this, and the normal model was used. He added that there are some averages there that are assumed and that it is accepted practice to use the default settings for a project like this. He explained that the idea is that if one is too high in a certain situation and the other is too low, it is going to average out. He noted that that is completely different from the GHG analysis: the first one is relatively routine, and the GHG analysis is something that is relatively recent. He pointed out that when the City did its General Plan, the City was sued over its Housing Element, and there was another lawsuit that included an inadequate GHG analysis of the City's overall development. He noted that collectively, the State and the region have come up with an approach to that; and one of the things the City was asked to do was prepare a Climate Action Plan (CAP), which it did and added it to its General Plan. He continued that once a Climate Action Plan is done, individual GHG analysis for every project does not need to be done; all the City needs to do is analyze whether the project that is being proposed is consistent with the Climate Action Plan. He pointed out that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 23, 2014 Page 7 of 27