Originally Posted by flippysc
Services include transportation and the council should have inquired more, perhaps starting with, "how can we work together to best minimize traffic during peak times that would benefit both Apple and Cupertino?" When are the peak times? Where are the site access points? Are people going to be traveling between the two campuses and when? Would they consider light rail between the two campuses? (This could be the impetus to declare eminent domain against the apartment complex.)
I doubt there will be much transit between the two sites, certainly not enough to justify a light rail. And eminent domain can't be used in california to benefit a private developer at the expense of residential property. A constitutional amendment was passed preventing it shortly after Kelo vs New London.
How are emergency vehicles going to have access to the entire building.
That gets discussed in different meetings with the emergency services themselves.
No mention of water management strategies -- I presume another impact on city services.
The site has already been developed so presumably the water use won't be changing much.
If I recall, Mr. Jobs stated they will have their own generators, but still use the grid. If he did actually say they may use the grid, the city should have asked him under what scenarios. They should have asked where the generators are going, and if close to the property lines, then to provide noise abatement.
He said in the presentation that the grid was likely to be used just as redundancy in case of a generator failure. As for noise, modern gas turbines are remarkably quiet, quiet enough for domestic use! They'll certainly be quieter than the freeway that runs right next to the property.
This is not the "greenest" building in the world, but like with any building project, there are trade-offs. This building would be more environmentally efficient if it had a smaller footprint, making it more vertical.
I'll be extremely interested if you can provide a link to any kind of study demonstrating that taller buildings are more environmentally efficient. I seriously doubt you'll be able to. Lowrise buildings have several intrinsic advantages, it's easier to naturally light them, the ground acts as a thermal buffer, elevators are power hogs etc. Given the ratio of building footprint to landscaping he's
In fact at the other extreme, earth sheltered buildings are incredibly energy efficient.
We don't know how green this building will end up being, we won't until it's considerably further along the design process. We don't even know what the final design will be, all that Jobs is getting approval for at this stage is the master plan for the site.