Cupertino Mayor Wong: Apple’s mothership campus ‘definitely not a done deal’

“Cupetino city officials Thursday night held a public meeting to start the Environmental Reveiw process for a new home for Apple,” KTVU reports.

“Apple’s plans call for a 3.1 million square foot building – four stories high and round,” KTVU reports. “People broke up into smaller groups Thursday night to talk about issues that should be included in the Environmental Impact Report. Cupertino officials will incorporate those ideas into a draft Environmental Impact Report that will then undergo further public review.”

Advertisement: Limited Time: Students, Parents and Faculty save up to $200 on a new Mac.

“‘Is it a done deal? It’s definitely not a done deal,’ said Cupertino Mayor Gilber Wong. ‘We have to go through a public process,'” KTVU reports. “That could take a year, and would culminate with a City Council vote on the EIR.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Regardless of what Gilbert is saying this minute or next, there is no deal more done.

(Although, if any state could eff something like this up, it would have to be California.)

 

Related articles:
Cupertino City Council to examine environmental impact of Apple’s new Mothership campus – September 7, 2011
City of Cupertino posts further details on Apple mothership campus – August 13, 2011
Cupertino area residents greet Apple’s proposed mothership campus with enthusiasm – June 20, 2011
Apple’s new ‘Mothership’ campus: Full details and gallery – June 16, 2011
Cupertino mayor: ‘There is no chance we are saying no’ to Apple Mothership (with video) – June 9, 2011
Steve Jobs presents giant 12,000 employee ‘spaceship’ campus to Cupertino City Council (with video) – June 8, 2011

60 Comments

  1. Let’s see, a local company wants to expand in a down economy, pay more in property taxes, reenforce its local presence, solidify its national and international identity in its chosen municipality, voluntarily committed to energy efficiency, environmentally sound construction, “green” methods on all fronts, be “neighbor”-friendly; and they want to pretend that the process is more important? Perhaps they would rather approve or disapprove of a 15- story, traditional square building. I understand that they don’t want to be seen as simply rubber-stamping whatever Apple wants, and sometimes things are just too good to be true; but sometimes there is such a thing as being a bit too obtuse just for its sake. Sheesh.

    1. Process is more important. You state a lot of things that are surrounded by “wants” and “promises”. Let the process play out so that the campus is built and the promises are kept.

      1. The process is there to get the citizens’/city’s desired outcome. When we start from a position that’s so far beyond what everyone is expecting, it’s a shame the process is sitting there as a one-year roadblock. Couldn’t that be a great incentive for going above and beyond? Instant approval.

          1. quick approval…. plenty of states would suck this status symbol up and give loads of gifts in. Go ahead and sit a year on this, watch it walk away. That is the process. That is democracy. Thumb up your butt, and they would walk.

            If the town wants this project, they should get off their butt and settle this in 30 days, not 365.

          2. Where do you live? The USA is NOT a democracy.

            I’d say Tim Cook could put his stamp on Apple real quick by moving it to a neighboring city that would gladly welcome it. If they want to try out some southern hospitality… They’re welcome here, in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains.

  2. He has to say it’s NOT a done deal, otherwise, people would complain; also, why pay for all these reports and studies, if they’re just going to rubber-stamp their approval.

    1. Exactly. The deal isn’t *officially* done. Apple still has to jump through the hoops in the process. But the Cupertino city council should (will) do everything to expedite the process and help deal with any obstacles. You can bet that Cupertino desperately wants to keep Apple anchored in place. I have no doubt that dozens of other communities would offer tens of millions in incentives if Apple were willing to move or open up a major branch facility.

  3. “We have to go through a public process. That could take a year, and would culminate with a City Council vote on the EIR.”

    A year?? I thought that only happened in third world countries, I mean [always] developing economies. A big change of public process or a more effective city mayor is clearly necessary.

    And would culminate with a vote!??? What are you guys thinking??
    A big change of public process or a more effective city mayor is clearly necessary.

    1. I don’t know any third world country that has a written process. #1 People don’t ask their government for permission they just do it and cheat their way out of paying any taxes. #2 or they just bribe the people in charge.

      Regardless the process is less than a year. Usually, days if a bribe is involved.

      1. OK, I see your point…

        Because the U.S. is a first world country (developing economy whatsoever) we must have a written process, we must follow it, and it should take a year (even if a bribe is involved) to approve something like Apple’s mothership campus.

        Thanks!

          1. No. Here’s what sucks…. In case you didn’t read it.

            Going through a public process that could take a year, and would culminate with a City Council vote.

            And only for a report on environmental impact??

            Say it took 30 or even 60 working days to do it, OK but, 1 year??

            Yes, that law/rule has to go.

  4. Apple’s building schedule shows they always expected it to take until the end of 2012 to get all the approvals needed, with groundbreaking in 2013. No surprises here. Still frustrating, though.

  5. As a 57 year native resident of California, I’ve watched us go from being the 6th greatest economic entity in the WORLD to a stumbling, crippled, anti-business piece of shit state, that can’t teach it’s children, can’t retain business, can’t generate revenue, can’t pay its debts. This state is pathetic and, sorry folks, it’s been in the hands of liberal Democrats for this slow painful death spiral. I don’t say this to denigrate Dems — really — but there is no denying the results of California’s liberal governance. Democrats and their policies have turned the Golden State into a pathetic loser.

      1. No, he didn’t. The Governor really has little power in this State except to veto some legislation here and there. The Assembly is currently about 2:1 Dems over Repubs, and has been like that for a very long time. We are Billions in debt, yet the Assembly keeps coming up with methods to spend more, while at the same time eroding the revenue stream by putting up more and more barriers to doing business here. There seems to be a logic disconnect between raising money and spending money. I don’t get the lack of reality check in Sacramento.

        1. Yeah, I feel your pain, but it’s much worse here in Taxachussetts.
          All the power resides in one hand, and it isn’t the Gov., but rather with the House Speaker.
          Also consider that the last 2 Speakers have been tried and convicted for corruption. Hell yeah, “it’s good to be the king”.
          We also have the worst attitude towards business in the country, as well as highest property, sales and various other taxes. It is such a shame really.

    1. You allow the voters to decide when to raise taxes. They won’t. You have no money to educate your children, retain business, fix your roads, etc, etc, etc. It’s not about Dems, it’s about failing to govern. Policy is not a popularity contest, to be decided by whoever can run enough ads on TV to get enough people excited about one issue or another.

      You should try to get an actual government started. Fundamentalist Republicanism or Democraticism won’t get the job done.

  6. I know, guys, that it has become very fashionable to bash government at all levels, often for just doing its job, which includes protecting the public interest. And yes, California has strong environmental laws, but they were put in place after unregulated industries had done a great job of polluting the air, poisoning the water and raping the landscape. And despite the belief that the environmental laws are toxic to commerce, if California were a country, it would be the 8th largest economy on Planet Earth.

    By the way, I’ve made my living in CA for the last 22 years as a real estate developer, so I am no tree hugger. However, I believe in development standards and public project reviews, and everybody – even Apple – needs to play by the rules.

    1. Yes, but something like this shouldn’t take a year for approval. The land use isn’t changing, Apple is simply converting HP land/buildings to Apple land/buildings and in the process they are creating even more green space. You should not really need a bunch of committees to “discuss” the whole thing for a year. A couple of independent auditors should be able to verify everything in a couple months at most.

      I bet Cupertino would move a little quicker if Apple bought a couple hundred acres in Sacramento or perhaps in North Carolina.

      1. If it’s anything like NYC, once a project exceeds a certain scale, it is automatically required to be put through a lengthy process of study and public dialogue. Responsible development requires some degree of study and iteration with the public, although I grant you some of the bureaucratic overhead on this process could stand to be reduced.

      2. The Apple development is a very large scale project in a densely developed area with all kinds of impacts on air quality, ground water, traffic, etc. In California, under CEQA, the City is required to evaluate these impacts, even when the project proponent has offered up-front to mitigate them in various ways. Among other things, this process ensures that nothing one developer does leads to damaging the values of other nearby property owners, both residential and commercial.

        The primary reason this process takes time is NOT the bureaucracy, but built-in public review and comment periods. This what is known as democracy – here in America, and especially in California, the citizens in a community are accorded a say in what kind of place they live in. Is this a sometimes messy and time-consuming process? Well, yes, but it beats a system like they have in China where the government can take your land and approve a development without ever asking for your input.

        As for Apple moving somewhere else, that is comic fantasy. Despite the California bashing going on here, the fact is that there is literally no other place on Earth where Apple can find the skilled labor pool it needs to grow. There is a reason why virtually all the high tech companies in the world have a presence in California, and many are headquartered here, and that is highly trained and motivated people, and the environment that keeps them here.

Add Your Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.