Cupertino building dept. approved Steve Jobs Theater occupancy after iPhone X event invite...

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple invited members of the press to the new Steve Jobs Theater at Apple Park on Aug. 31, but the City of Cupertino didn't actually sign off on allowing people into the building until a day later, documents reveal.




Apple applied for a Temporary Occupancy Permit for the Steve Jobs Theater on Aug. 8, VentureBeat discovered. A few weeks later, on Aug. 31, Apple sent out invitations for its Sept. 12 event.

"Let's meet at our place," the invitation read. "Please join us for the first-ever event at the Steve Jobs Theater in Cupertino."

Clearly, Apple was confident that the city would sign off on the new building. But approval wouldn't come for another day, as Albert Salvador of the Cupertino building department didn't officially approve occupancy within the structure on Sept. 1.

Photos have shown the theater still under construction as recently as Sept. 1.




The city's approval mans that Apple has the all-clear to host members of the press for Tuesday's event, where it will unveil the highly anticipated iPhone X with OLED display. The temporary permit also approves the use of the lobby for a hands-on demonstration area, where attendees will presumably get their first opportunity to use the iPhone X.

AppleInsider will be there live at the Steve Jobs Theater on Tuesday when Apple's iPhone X event kicks off at 10 a.m. Pacific, 1 p.m. Eastern. In addition, the company is also set to announce an iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, Apple Watch with LTE, and a 4K Apple TV with HDR.

Readers can install the official AppleInsider app on their iPhones and iPads to get instant alerts and push notifications as news breaks.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    they prob just printed the form the day after approval, no biggie
  • Reply 2 of 16
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,166member
    Was there really any doubt it would be approved? I hope not.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 3 of 16
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 3,959member
    I deal with the inspectors and the SF planning department here in San Francisco (which I think is the worst) way more times each year that I would prefer to.  This kind of "announcement" is a non-event.  It sounds more like AI (and others) is just shooting off articles to keep the momentum going.

    Seriously... the only time it would have been an issue if if Apple DIDN'T get the permit, or knew it wouldn't get an occupancy permit.  

    But hey... slow hour I suppose.

  • Reply 4 of 16
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 2,950member
    I'm sure Apple was working very closely with the City of Cupertino, and weren't expecting any surprises -- at least none that couldn't have been fixed quickly. Why is this a story?
    gregg thurman
  • Reply 5 of 16
    Yes, but did Apple get Soli's approval for building occupancy? ;)
    Soligregg thurmanronnStrangeDaysmelgrosspscooter63lkruppradarthekat
  • Reply 6 of 16
    mac_128 said:
    I'm sure Apple was working very closely with the City of Cupertino, and weren't expecting any surprises -- at least none that couldn't have been fixed quickly. Why is this a story?
    You may have missed the seemingly endless discussion following Apple's event announcement that the theater didn't "look" finished in that last drone video, and "does Apple have a permit" , "will they be forced to go somewhere else if it isn't done?", and so on, and so on, and so on.

    Come to think of it, I'd be better off if I were asking myself the same question you asked above  :s
    ronnradarthekat
  • Reply 7 of 16
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,196member
    Yes, but did Apple get Soli's approval for building occupancy? ;)
    1) Whomever dug this up has got my approval.

    2) Campus Holdings, LLC is an interesting name. Did Apple create an entirely new LLC for the campus? There's word that the the theater would be a waste if only used by Apple with all the backstage area that it could be used for theatrical productions for the city between Apple events.

    3) I was hoping there would be a max occupancy value on it or the project valuation figure be filled in. Maybe someone will be able to dig up more info with the other info listed or the official occupancy form.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 8 of 16
    I'm sure Apple was going to do it anyway.
  • Reply 9 of 16

    Psst. Apple probably requested that it not be signed until after the invites went out... lest someone check the city records beforehand and leak that the Steve Jobs Theater was ready for its closeup.

    edited September 2017 ronnStrangeDaysradarthekatcornchip
  • Reply 10 of 16
    1. Why is this even worth reporting on?

    2. Pretty obvious that the project managers at Apple and the construction firm that built the place knew they'd get it.  Projects this big are pretty predictable, especially something as important as an occupancy permit.  Getting the piece of paper that says they're good to go is merely a formality.
    ronncornchip
  • Reply 11 of 16
    Soli said:
    2) Campus Holdings, LLC is an interesting name. Did Apple create an entirely new LLC for the campus?
    Apple must do one of two things (tax wise) with the cost of Apple Park. #1. Keep the asset within Apple, Inc, in which case Apple can only depreciate the cost (less land value) over a 40 year period, or #2. Create a new entity, i.e.., Campus Holdings, LLC (which Apple, Inc wholly owns), in which case Apple leases the asset (that rent including the value of the land) the asset for 40 years. The cost of constructing Apple Park will show as an asset (loan to Campus Holdings) and an expense (monthly lease payment) and a receivable (Campus Holdings payments against the loan). #2 is by far the the best option.
    Solipscooter63radarthekatrandominternetperson
  • Reply 12 of 16
    Holy Girdles, Batman! $296 per month for a temp. occupancy permit!!
  • Reply 13 of 16
    Slow news day I guess...who the hell cares whether or not they got a permit. What effect does that have on everyone else? 
  • Reply 14 of 16
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,196member
    macxpress said:
    Slow news day I guess...who the hell cares whether or not they got a permit. What effect does that have on everyone else? 
    Why do you think posting the permit implies a concern for having gotten the permit? Do you think that looking at Apple Park plans or drone video of the campus being built implies a concern for the engineer's plans or competency of the construction crews?
    edited September 2017 randominternetperson
  • Reply 15 of 16

    But approval wouldn't come for another day, as Albert Salvador of the Cupertino building department didn't officially approve occupancy within the structure on Sept. 1.

    No. He most likely approved it before filing the paperwork. A permit is not a piece of paper, the piece of paper memorializes the permit.
  • Reply 16 of 16
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,166member
    When talking about approvals, it needs to be understood what is being approved. It’s not the final touches. It’s not even getting all of the chairs in. It’s the building safety that matters. Are the major electricals finished, and approved? Are the entrances and exits working to standards? Is the lighting in place? That’s assuming that the building inspectors were approving the building progress in stages as work went on, which they usually do for industrial projects.

    it’s matters like that that require the approval. My business was a commercial film lab. We needed a lot of inspections over the years whenever we did something major. But we never needed approval while we were installing machinery unless that machinery was required to be hardwired, and/or needed direct connection to city water. We could rearrange the interior, and did, any way we wanted without needing any approvals, or filling out any paperwork.

    and that’s in NYC, which is one of the toughest jurisdictions one will ever work in.
Sign In or Register to comment.