As quoted in the above article, where he responds to a reporter's question: "there is no chance that we are saying no." It should take you forever to admit your error, but I guess we're all used to that by now.
You are reading way too much into what they aren't saying no to. Apple still has to follow all the guidelines that any company or individual would have to follow to get a structure built. Where is the proof that Apple is given additional allowances over and above what is typically allowable?
You are reading way too much into what they aren't saying no to. Apple still has to follow all the guidelines that any company or individual would have to follow to get a structure built. Where is the proof that Apple is given additional allowances over and above what is typically allowable?
I'm really not reading too much into this. I explained above how important this can be in the process in terms of what can be required so long as the City Council has not essentially pre-approved a project before an application has even been made. If you watch the City Council meeting where Steve made his presentation, the Council members were nodding like bobblehead dolls and falling all over themselves to praise Apple and Steve. And if that wasn't clear enough, the Mayor makes it perfectly clear two days later that Apple is getting whatever it wants. If you're a staff planner in a situation like this you know your hands and feet are tied from the start. You can't ask for any project flaws to be addressed. The store has been given away -- you're there just to play the background music for the inevitable. I have been a staff planner in a situation like this, so I know from personal experience that if your City Council is completely non-objective about a project that you can just turn out the light and go home.
Sigh. I watched the video posted several weeks ago where I recall one member of the City Council saying that there was no chance the city would not approve Apple's plans, and nobody else on the Council remarked to the contrary. It seems my memory of this is more complete than yours.
Putting a question mark after a sarcastic comment does not make it a serious question.
It's difficult to know what you mean by the city giving Apple a "harder time" since you don't seem to know what you yourself mean by this. More likely, you are once again talking through your hat.
To keep this as simple as possible, a project of this magnitude raises a whole host of land use, infrastructure and environmental issues, which the city can, or not, require Apple to address fully. It is just possible that Apple will cooperate to the satisfaction of everyone involved and affected. But having much first-hand experience with the development process I can report that it's far more likely that Apple will try to walk away from something, leaving someone else holding the bag. If the City Council has made a predetermination to give Apple whatever it wants before they've looked at the project in any detail, this increases the likelihood that Apple will be given license to skate on some impact-related cost or requirement.
The rubber will really hit the road when the Environmental Impact Report for this project is published. Under state law, the city has the obligation to reduce or avoid all project impacts where feasible, but the law has an escape clause. The Council can also adopt what is called a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which in essence is an admission that they are allowing the applicant to get away with something. I'll be watching to see if they go this route. It is also possible that Apple will attempt to shortcut the entire environmental review process by pressing the city to process it under a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Either route virtually assures a lawsuit.
This is California, land of the CEQA. It doesn't matter what any governmental entity says about what when or where. If anyone within the state is willing to pay the filing fees any project can be delayed for decades because the act is sooooo vaguely written.
Permits don't matter.
Environmental Impact statements don't matter.
Filing fees and a willingness to legally state "I disagree and you didn't properly weigh __________ in the EIR" will mire a project as long as the anti-project folks want. There's not even a requirement to get all the disputes out at once. Resolve one, immediately have a different "person" file the next. The only way to get around that is to have the CA Assembly pass a bill specifically waiving a project from CEQA because the legislature can override itself. That doesn't happen much except for things like stadiums.
The commercial project is on the site of a previous commercial project, even within the same industry (HP sold it to Apple). There will be more green space and less manufacturing waste than was onsite previously. How the EIR can come out anything but wonderful is beyond me, but that won't matter if anyone gets a bug up their butt.
This is California, land of the CEQA. It doesn't matter what any governmental entity says about what when or where. If anyone within the state is willing to pay the filing fees any project can be delayed for decades because the act is sooooo vaguely written.
Permits don't matter.
Environmental Impact statements don't matter.
Filing fees and a willingness to legally state "I disagree and you didn't properly weigh __________ in the EIR" will mire a project as long as the anti-project folks want. There's not even a requirement to get all the disputes out at once. Resolve one, immediately have a different "person" file the next. The only way to get around that is to have the CA Assembly pass a bill specifically waiving a project from CEQA because the legislature can override itself. That doesn't happen much except for things like stadiums.
The commercial project is on the site of a previous commercial project, even within the same industry (HP sold it to Apple). There will be more green space and less manufacturing waste than was onsite previously. How the EIR can come out anything but wonderful is beyond me, but that won't matter if anyone gets a bug up their butt.
Not very accurately stated.
First, it does matter what a government says. A great deal, provided at least that they haven't (as in this case) essentially green-lighted a project before they even see the application. When the EIR is completed, they will be faced with a host of decisions about what kind and degree of mitigation measures they will require the applicant to implement. Local governments tend to get themselves in hot water when feasible mitigation isn't implemented because they've already bear-hugged the applicant. That can be grounds to sue, but when it happens, the local decision-makers generally have nobody else to blame but themselves. (Not that they won't try to blame their staff or consultants.)
Second, you've substantially oversimplified the argument that needs to be made to hold up a project over EIR issues. Simple disagreements on matters of opinion are not enough. And no, the delay isn't typically "as long as the anti-project folks want." Yes, long delays can ensue, but for the most part, only when the local government has tried to shortcut the environmental review process to (wait for it) please an applicant. Funny how often that item comes up as the critical issue. So no, the only way to get around that problem is not to have the legislature exempt a project from environmental review, but for the local agency to comply with the law scrupulously. Those that do rarely have big problems.
Finally, the baseline for environmental analysis is the conditions as they exist today. Change is measured from there. As I understand, the old HP office space is now vacant. This means that for purposes of environmental analysis, they are going from zero to 2.8 million square feet (especially important for the traffic analysis). I suspect this will be the big momma issue for this project. The EIR may require Apple to make street and intersection improvements far distant from the project site to mitigate traffic impacts. Apple could try to talk the city out of such things, and given the highly obsequious reception the City Council has provided to this project in concept, they may have already given up bargaining power they will need when they see it in more detail.
Ironically, this kind of chemistry often turns out badly for the applicant, since it opens up avenues for suing over the adequacy of the EIR. So the message is, do the job right in the first place and get the job done. I strongly suspect that the City of Cupertino hasn't got that message.
Comments
It's at 3:14 in this statement by the Mayor of Cupertino on June 9, 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FEwHk9Ap7I
As quoted in the above article, where he responds to a reporter's question: "there is no chance that we are saying no." It should take you forever to admit your error, but I guess we're all used to that by now.
You are reading way too much into what they aren't saying no to. Apple still has to follow all the guidelines that any company or individual would have to follow to get a structure built. Where is the proof that Apple is given additional allowances over and above what is typically allowable?
You are reading way too much into what they aren't saying no to. Apple still has to follow all the guidelines that any company or individual would have to follow to get a structure built. Where is the proof that Apple is given additional allowances over and above what is typically allowable?
I'm really not reading too much into this. I explained above how important this can be in the process in terms of what can be required so long as the City Council has not essentially pre-approved a project before an application has even been made. If you watch the City Council meeting where Steve made his presentation, the Council members were nodding like bobblehead dolls and falling all over themselves to praise Apple and Steve. And if that wasn't clear enough, the Mayor makes it perfectly clear two days later that Apple is getting whatever it wants. If you're a staff planner in a situation like this you know your hands and feet are tied from the start. You can't ask for any project flaws to be addressed. The store has been given away -- you're there just to play the background music for the inevitable. I have been a staff planner in a situation like this, so I know from personal experience that if your City Council is completely non-objective about a project that you can just turn out the light and go home.
Sigh. I watched the video posted several weeks ago where I recall one member of the City Council saying that there was no chance the city would not approve Apple's plans, and nobody else on the Council remarked to the contrary. It seems my memory of this is more complete than yours.
Putting a question mark after a sarcastic comment does not make it a serious question.
It's difficult to know what you mean by the city giving Apple a "harder time" since you don't seem to know what you yourself mean by this. More likely, you are once again talking through your hat.
To keep this as simple as possible, a project of this magnitude raises a whole host of land use, infrastructure and environmental issues, which the city can, or not, require Apple to address fully. It is just possible that Apple will cooperate to the satisfaction of everyone involved and affected. But having much first-hand experience with the development process I can report that it's far more likely that Apple will try to walk away from something, leaving someone else holding the bag. If the City Council has made a predetermination to give Apple whatever it wants before they've looked at the project in any detail, this increases the likelihood that Apple will be given license to skate on some impact-related cost or requirement.
The rubber will really hit the road when the Environmental Impact Report for this project is published. Under state law, the city has the obligation to reduce or avoid all project impacts where feasible, but the law has an escape clause. The Council can also adopt what is called a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which in essence is an admission that they are allowing the applicant to get away with something. I'll be watching to see if they go this route. It is also possible that Apple will attempt to shortcut the entire environmental review process by pressing the city to process it under a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Either route virtually assures a lawsuit.
This is California, land of the CEQA. It doesn't matter what any governmental entity says about what when or where. If anyone within the state is willing to pay the filing fees any project can be delayed for decades because the act is sooooo vaguely written.
Permits don't matter.
Environmental Impact statements don't matter.
Filing fees and a willingness to legally state "I disagree and you didn't properly weigh __________ in the EIR" will mire a project as long as the anti-project folks want. There's not even a requirement to get all the disputes out at once. Resolve one, immediately have a different "person" file the next. The only way to get around that is to have the CA Assembly pass a bill specifically waiving a project from CEQA because the legislature can override itself. That doesn't happen much except for things like stadiums.
The commercial project is on the site of a previous commercial project, even within the same industry (HP sold it to Apple). There will be more green space and less manufacturing waste than was onsite previously. How the EIR can come out anything but wonderful is beyond me, but that won't matter if anyone gets a bug up their butt.
This is California, land of the CEQA. It doesn't matter what any governmental entity says about what when or where. If anyone within the state is willing to pay the filing fees any project can be delayed for decades because the act is sooooo vaguely written.
Permits don't matter.
Environmental Impact statements don't matter.
Filing fees and a willingness to legally state "I disagree and you didn't properly weigh __________ in the EIR" will mire a project as long as the anti-project folks want. There's not even a requirement to get all the disputes out at once. Resolve one, immediately have a different "person" file the next. The only way to get around that is to have the CA Assembly pass a bill specifically waiving a project from CEQA because the legislature can override itself. That doesn't happen much except for things like stadiums.
The commercial project is on the site of a previous commercial project, even within the same industry (HP sold it to Apple). There will be more green space and less manufacturing waste than was onsite previously. How the EIR can come out anything but wonderful is beyond me, but that won't matter if anyone gets a bug up their butt.
Not very accurately stated.
First, it does matter what a government says. A great deal, provided at least that they haven't (as in this case) essentially green-lighted a project before they even see the application. When the EIR is completed, they will be faced with a host of decisions about what kind and degree of mitigation measures they will require the applicant to implement. Local governments tend to get themselves in hot water when feasible mitigation isn't implemented because they've already bear-hugged the applicant. That can be grounds to sue, but when it happens, the local decision-makers generally have nobody else to blame but themselves. (Not that they won't try to blame their staff or consultants.)
Second, you've substantially oversimplified the argument that needs to be made to hold up a project over EIR issues. Simple disagreements on matters of opinion are not enough. And no, the delay isn't typically "as long as the anti-project folks want." Yes, long delays can ensue, but for the most part, only when the local government has tried to shortcut the environmental review process to (wait for it) please an applicant. Funny how often that item comes up as the critical issue. So no, the only way to get around that problem is not to have the legislature exempt a project from environmental review, but for the local agency to comply with the law scrupulously. Those that do rarely have big problems.
Finally, the baseline for environmental analysis is the conditions as they exist today. Change is measured from there. As I understand, the old HP office space is now vacant. This means that for purposes of environmental analysis, they are going from zero to 2.8 million square feet (especially important for the traffic analysis). I suspect this will be the big momma issue for this project. The EIR may require Apple to make street and intersection improvements far distant from the project site to mitigate traffic impacts. Apple could try to talk the city out of such things, and given the highly obsequious reception the City Council has provided to this project in concept, they may have already given up bargaining power they will need when they see it in more detail.
Ironically, this kind of chemistry often turns out badly for the applicant, since it opens up avenues for suing over the adequacy of the EIR. So the message is, do the job right in the first place and get the job done. I strongly suspect that the City of Cupertino hasn't got that message.