Loading...
12. Appeal Sridhar ObilisettyDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CUPERTINO CITY HALL X0300 TORRE AVEiNUE ~ CUPERTINO, CA 95043255 TELEPHONE (408) 777-31 i O ~ FAJC_ (408) 777-3366 STAF]±' REPORT ~~ Agenda Item No. '~ SUBJECT AND ISSUE con#7~rI wed ~ F.eb. r~ aoo4 MEETING DATE: , Hearing on an appeal by Sridhaz Obilisetty of ttie Notice of Determination by the City Manager denying the Appeal of the Public Works Director's decision regarding the Underground Electrical Service Requirement at 10171 Lebanon Drive and Recommendation by staff to deny the Appeal_ INTRODUCTION On August 14, 2008, the Director of Pazks and Recreation conducted a hearing as the City Manager's designated hearing officer on Mr_ Obilisetty's appeal of the Public Works Director's decision to require under grounding of electrical service at 10171 Lebanon Drive. In a bate of Determination Notice dated September 3, 2008, the Hearing Officer denied Mr. Obilisetty's appeal. On September 15, Mr_ Obi]!isetty appealed the decision to the City Council. The City Clerk set December 2, 2008 for the hearing before the City Council. The September 3, 2008 Date of Decision is attached. This document outlines the issues and the rational- for the hearing officer's decision_ Glen Goepfert's July 14, 2008 response to Mr_ Obilisetty's email which was submitted at the August 14 hearing is attached. Also attached is Mr. Obilisetty's written appeal. BACKGROUND -See attachments. CONCLUSION The decision by the Director of Parks and Recreation was carefully considered and based on written documentation and the sworn testimony presented at the Hearing. There is no new evidence presented with Mr. Obilisetty's Appeal. Therefi~re staff recommends that the Council uphold the Determination by the Director of Parks and Recreaxion on behalf of the City Manager and deny the appeal of the determination by Mr. Obilisetty. ~s - ~ REC01y1M~-NDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny the Appeal of Sridhar Obilisetty of the Determination by the City Manager that the Public Works Director acted properly and in full compliance with the Cupertino Municipal Code in requiring underground electrical service at 10171 Lebanon Drive_ SUBMITTED BY. Mar Linder Director, Parks and Recreation APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: ~ / David W. Knapp City Manager attachments iz-z DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CITY HALL ~0300.TORRE AVE=NUE • CU?ER"fINO, CA 950743255 C O P E RT I IV O TELEPHONE: (408) TT7-371 O • FAX: (408) 7Tl~36G Date of Determination: September 3, 2008 Mr. Sridhaz Obilisetty 10171 Lebanon Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: Hearing on an appeal by Mr. Sridhaz Obilisetty regarding -10171 Lebanon Drive Underground Electric Service Requirement. This notice refers to the hearing held at 10:00 a.m. on August 14, 2008 in Cupertino City Hall on the above subject, which I conducted as the City Manager's designated City Hearing OfFicer on the matter_ The following persons were present: Sridhar Obilisetty, Appellant Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works Glenn Goepfert, Assistant Director, Public Works -Engineering David Stillman, Senior Civil Engineer Jo Anne Johnson, Engineering Technician Donna Henriques, Ac9minictrative Assistant Issue of Appeal The Appellant, Sridhaz Obilisetty, is appealing the decision by the Director of Public Works to require under grounding of electrical service at 10171 Lebanon Drive. The Appellant states that the Cupertino Department of Community Development'approved the plans for his new construction at 10171 Lebanon Drive in June 2007.. According- to the Appellant, the approved plans-included overhead. electric service_ In October 2007, the Appellant states that Greg Elder, of PGBrE, suggested that he contact the City regarding the electric service, as the City typically requires the under"ground electric service. -Since PGBzE was getting ready to underground the ga:> service, it was also a good time to underground the electric service. Appellant stated he foIIowed Mr. Elder's advice: and went to Public Works, where he was told to proceed with overhead electrical service. Appellant further cited two projects underway near-his project. One was approved for overhead electric service and the other required underground electric service- i z - s According to the Appellant, he received a telephone call from David Stillman, Senior Civil Engineer, in Iate April early May 2008_ Mr_ Still-man informed the Appellant that the electrical service had to be underground. At the time the Appellant received the call, the trenching work for gas service was complete. To underground electric service would require redoing the trench Appellant cla;mc he would have installed underground electric service at the same time as the gas sergice if would have known of the requirement. The problem the Appellant faces now, is going underground for electric service after all the work is completed will be costly and will negatively impact his roof and stucco. He will also need to have PGBzE come back and dig up the trench. F~ndin~ and Determination o€ Annea[ I have reviewed all of the written documents presented by the parties noted above. I have reviewed the written correspondence and the written response from the Department of Public Works staff. I have also gone over all of the testimony presented at the August 14, 2008 administrative hPar;ng, Based on my review, I find that the Director of Public, Works correctly required the undergrounding of electrical service at 10171 Lebanon Drive. There are a number of reasons for my finding. First, the Appellant and/or his azchitect, Frank Ho, received on April 23, 2007, a Public Works list of required actions related to the project on 10171 Lebanon Drive. This list included a checked requirement to "underground all overhead utility lines along frontage and/or any new service". Mr_ Ho is a local architect with a good understanding of the City's under grounding of utilities requirements. The Appellant cla~mc he did dot receive this checklist as it was given to his architect. . It is the responsibility of the Appellarxt and his architect to coTnmunicate with one another. I found that the Department of Community Development approved the Appellant's plans for the project on 10171 Lebanon Drive is June 2007, and that the approved plans included overhead electric service. I also found that the plans included the following statement, "Approval of these plans does not release the Contractor of the responsibility for the corrections of mistakes, errors, or omissions contained therein. If during the course of construction of improvements,. public interest requires a modification of/or a departure from the City of Cupertino specification or these improvement plans, the City Engineer shall have the authority to require such modifcations or departure and to specify the manner in which the same is to be completed"_ The PG8'~E representative advised the Appellant to recheck with the City regarding the overhead electrical service. PGL~.E recommended this-action because the City typically requires underground electric service. The Appellant cla;mc that he followed the PG&cE advice and talked with a person at the Public Works counter, Jo Anne Johnson, who told him to proceed with the overhead electric scrvice_ Jo Anne Johnson, an engineering technician, stated that she informed the Appellant of the City policy and advised him to speak with an engineer to clarify the policy in relation to 10171 Lebanon Drive. Her response was appropriate, as an engineering technician does not have the authority to decide overhead vs_ underground electric service on specific projects. The Appellant did not speak with an engineer regazding this issue. The Appellant claimed he would have done this if he had been told to do so. 72 - a Finally, Cupertino Municipal Code Section 14.24.010 states, "Underground public utilities improve the aesthetic quality of a development, and stricter requirements in open a,-Pac may preserve natural beauty". It is cleaz that the community, through its elected officials, wants utilities to be underground_ The Public Works Department is following the municipal code when the Director made the underground of electric service requvrement. Therefore, the appeal is denied. Please note: my decision may be appealed to the Cupertino City Council and the appeal must be filed with the City Cleric of Cupertino within tern business days of the date of this Notice of Determination. The Appellant can also file a claim with the: City Cleric of Cupertino if he feels the: City has caused him additional expense by requiring the electrical service to be underground at 10171 Lebanon Drive. Sincerely, - ,r'~~~ Marls Linder On behalf of City Manager cc: David Knapp, City Manager Chazles Kilian, City Attorney Ralph .Qualls, Director of Public. Works iz-s Oate= 09/75/2008 Cupertino City Council 7 0300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95074 Attn- Kimberly Smith City Clerk rom: 10177 Lebanon Drive [[~~ p~ 2 Cupertino, CA 96014 n ~ ~ i5 ~ lJ LS Subiect: Appeal to City~Council for-keeping the Overhead Electrical Connection installed per City approved plans ""`~ City Council Appeal ~~~~ [ would like to appeal the. City Manager determination to deny my request to keep Overhead power. in the City Council hearing, I would like to provide additional evidence on the case_ June 2007e - . • Cupertino City Approved plans as Overhead in June 2007 after a prolonged Public Works plan check process No vamber 2007: • During the PG&E design 8~ installation process,-Greg Elder of PG&E recommended that (double-check the Overhead vs_ underground issue with the City • Jo Anne Johnson in Public Works reviewed my plans and said that i should go Overhead 'rf the plans say Overhead and go Underground rt the plans say Underground. No information was provided to me on why some homes in my neighborhood such as '7556 Kirwan Lane' went .Overhead and other homes such as "'10255 Lockwood Drive° went Underground. Aarf/. Mav 2008r • PG&E Electrical Installation and Gas Trenching was complete • After all the work was complete, i got a call from David Stillman in Public Works that I need to Underground my Electrical Service - • I went to the City office next day and explained to him the situation. He, said that he will not be able to make a_ ny decisions in-the case and I needed to talk to Assistant Director of Public Works GTenn Goepfert • 1 called Mr_ Glenn Goepfert and left a detailed message about my situation and requested him to give me a call if 1 needed to provide any additional information • I did not hear back from him - June 2008r • We went through couple of Building inspections during which they listed several electrical issues (not the Overhead vs. Undergrourd issue) • We satisfied all the requirements and tt~e Building Department faxed an Electrical meter release to PGS~E • PG&E Cupertino branch faxed the Information to•the main office in Fresno • Later that day, PG8~E got another fax from the City stating that they are withdrawing the meter release • We had no power on the construction site for several weeks and after several escalations they gave me a 7 year temporary permit to use Overhead AuousL Seai!amLaer2008- • City Manager hearing was-held on August 74. I received a determination letter on September 3, 2008_ • My appeal to keep the Overhead power was denied K ti-s Additional Evidence: - • The determination letter from City Manager stated than the Counter staff Ms_ Joanne Johnson advised me to talk to an Engineer_ This is contrary to my compute3r records Elated in the attachmeni_ • f will provide additional evidence to confirm this fact Bxnensa3. Comvromis/no the /ntevrfty of E/ectrlcal Svstem: ~ _ • if the plans stated underground or the counter staff a~3vised me on underground connection in November 2007 - (when Greg Elder of PG&E alerted me of the issue), II would have underground my electrical connection along with my underground gas connection for which we dug a i20 ft trench Changing our current overhead connection to underground requires ripping out the existing overhead panel, breaking the roof, breaking the stucco wall, extending every wire that goes into the main panel, putting in a new panel that takes an underground connection, having-IPG8~E demolish the existing overhead connection, paying them an additional amount for laying a new connection and digging a separate trench for electrical Instead of trying to leverage the '120 ft trench that was dug to provide the underground gas connection. • Making this change from overhead to underground at this stage of our construction process is expensive and would compromise the integrity & efficiency of our elerctrical system for the life of this home. • One of the City Officials mentioned that this is an "Aesthetic' issue -- not a "Safety" issue_ Wa would appreciate ft very much if the Gity Council can review ail the facts surrounding the case and help us keep the overhead connection. Thanks for your time 8~ consideration_ Sincer Sridhar Obilisetty ` ' Cell#_ (408) 805 7 700 ~~ ,Z ~ v~ ~ - ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~.~ ~ ~~--- ,2-7 '~'F ATTACHMENT ~'" Notes 2o07Novrt9DiscussFonWithPublicWorks_pdt 12-8 Done: Habitable Dwelling Inspection for Demo Perm' Cupertino City Public Works Department= Kevin Reed; kevinrr~cupertino.org (408) 777 3104 Expected to do the Habitable Dwelling Inspection on 04/'16/2007 Cupertino City Public Works Department: (408) 777 3354 -Main Jason Chou - Jasonc@cupertino.org (408) 777 3237 -Direct Kay - Admin Athena Joanna (Public Works) - Sridhar spoke to Joanne about UG {Underground) vs. OH {Overhead) tissue on 1 1/19/2007 per Greg Elder's suggestion. She was not farniliar with "10255 Lockwood Drive° or '7556 Kirwin Lane' projects. She said that we need to do overhead if the plans say overhead and underground if the plans say underground. Cupertino City Sanitary Department- Mark-Thomas $ Company 20833 Stevens Creek 81vd, Suite 104, Cupertino -Next to Target/ Panera Bread (408) 253 7071 - CIndy - Receptionist; cmurohvC~markthomas corn ; ccrary(~markthomas.com Nicole -Engineer En-charge of Approvals. Spoke to her on 05/11/2007 -she called me ~ 11:00AM. Julie -Assistant. Spoke to her on 05/10/2007 ~ 2:30pm Chien Vu -Permit Co-ordinator Casey Crary- Inspector- (408) 253 7071 - ccrarvl~cua~rtinosanitarvdistrict.cpm -Vary Helpful guy George Santos -Inspector - cjsantos(r~cupertinosanifarvdistrict.com -Responsible for TV inspections Roger -Field inspector who came for inspection on 06125/2008 Shirley -Spoke to her on 06/26/2008 Videotape Inspection ~rvices- (for the lateral, claanout) www.draindoctor.com - (40B) 720-'1390 o $200 -Manager -Simon o Vivian - V'nrianCa7draindoctor.com Able Sewec $ Drain - (408) 377 9990; o Tiffany - $225 fee for the Video tape inspection o tiffanvCalablessotic corn - $225 Expansive o Roto Rooter - (408) 727 9850 o $15 Sewer 8~ Drain - (fi50) 968 1551 City of Cupertino Planning Deoa ment- 408.777.3308 -> 03 to reach another line Email: planning@cupertino.org Piu Ghosh & Gary in the pianning department Kathy (Intern) - (408) 777 1356, kathvdCa7cupertino ore Gary - (40B) 777 3247 (Direct), (4p8) 777 3308 (Main), garvc(aicuaertino.ora. www.cuoertino.org/plannino Privacy Landscaping not needed along our mutual property line Cupertino City Planning Ordinances $ Applications- htto://209.172.156 4/city aovemment/deoartments and offices/planning and buildinarndex asa Accessorv Stn~ctures Ordinance- _ Available on the website Minimum setback is 3 feet Max height of oniy 7 feel. Setback has to increase by 1.5 feet for every foot in height. For instance, we would need a 4.5 ft setback for 8 feet height. - . iz-s PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Ralph A. Qualls, Jr., Director CUPERTINO July 14, 2008 c1TY FIALL ~ 0300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTlNO, CA 950'143266 (406) 777-3354 -FAX (408) 777-3333 Mr. Sridhar Obilisetty 1 O 171 Lebanon Drive Cupertino; CA 95014 Subject: Appeal of 10171 Lebanon Drive Underground Electric Service Requirement: Written Materials to be Presented by the City at July 24, 2008, Hearing Dear Mr. Obilisetty: Attached are the following items: ~ 1 _ Your emailed letter to Public Works, dated June 9, 2008_ ¢ 2. Letter, dated June 11, 2008, from the Director of Public Works, with attached checklist, dated April 23, 2007, for Permit # 07040175 for SFD at 1 O 171 Lebanon Dr., Cupertino, CA (previously transmitted). O 3. Email, dated June 12, 2008, from the Assistant Director of Public Works (previously tra„crr,itted) t ~ 4. Responses to your-June 9, 2008, questions regarding additional contacts with City staff pertaining to the underground electrical service-requirement for 10171 Lebanon Dr., Cupertino, CA. These items are the written materials that the City will present to the hearing officer for the hearing on this subject scheduled for July 24, 2008, at 9:30- a_m. As expressed in the June-30, 2008, letter from the City Attorney, the City would appreciate your forwarding the material that you. intend to present at the hearing to the hearing officer Mark Linder (email MarkT.~cunertino.ora}, and to me_ (email G1ennG~a7.cuyertino.orra), at least five davs prior to the hearing. Please let me know if you have questions by contacting me at G1ennG~a cupertino..or¢ or _ (408)- 777-3244. Sincerely, . Glenn Goepfert Assistant Director of Public Works ~z-io Hi Glenn, care: os~Ji2oos Please review the following facts related to my home on '101 i'1 Lebanon Drive' and guide me in the taking the appropriate next steps to get our Electricity Meter installed per plan as soon as possible. Offs/te /mprovement and Eros/on Control Plans Aaproved by Crry of CupertSno fn June 2007: We submitted the initial Civil Engineer plans to the City of Cupertino Public Works department around May 22, - 2007. Though several. homes on Mann Drive were not required to do affsite street improvements (such as Curb 8~ Gutter, Sidewalk), we agreed to do these improvements and paid a 315,000 bond to fulfill the requirements of Cupertino Public Works department After several review sess~fons, discussions with Cupertino Union Sanitary Department, other organizations, internal review and a $15,000 bond payment from us, the City of Cupertino Public Works department approved our plans around June 22, 2007. - -fay"-i7Ee~ ~ ._-~ _-s` _ ~~ l ,. l I ~ s ~ - s _ a _- ~ -~_` _ .~ }} [[g f, E ~~ Z ' 1 ~SJ ~f _ 't A v rte` ~ 1 Y - - ~ i lI a ~ piYftAL e3n' 1. rj t~. •f _ ` 1~ ,'t+ w.ww~w~ nuw'n . ~.5.1? a..._ __ __ _ __ _ _ - -- y __ ~_L 4~~" - LS }pA pt ItR:.346T: _ ~ _ :aliatttr~xw __._.__ -~~ ~ _= - _a - ..4.m...~ ~ - Follorwup Maetlrta with Cuverrino City Pub/!c Worlrs Deparbnent: During the PGB~E design, estimate process, we had discussions about Overhead vs. Underground Electrical connection at their office in Cupertino. Some homes in my neighborhood were going for Underground while others were going for Overhead. The home on '7556 FGrwin Lane' went for an Overhead connection and the home on '10255 Lockwood Drive° went for Underground_ I met with Joanne in Cupertino City Public Works deparment on 11/19/2007 to get clarity around the issue and make sure that I was not misreading the plans or going in the wrong direction. She reviewed the plans with me, confirmed that my Electrica! connection should be Overhead and recommended that I move forward with the PGB~E new connection application process as planned_ Olscussion w/rh Cuoerdno C/iv inspector Keyfn Reed- Late last year, Cupertino inspector Kevin Reed was in the neighborhood for a separate issue and we met with him and discussed the Overhead vs. Underground question. My contractor was installing the outside Electrical box that day. Kevin looked through the plans, confirmed that the plans celled for Overhead connection and commented that his job as an inspector would be to check compliance with apps^oved plans on my.projeeL But, not compare and ~2-~~ Z contrast my plans with those of other homes (such as '7556 Kirwin Lane" which went Overhead vs. '10255 Lockwood Drive' that went Underground). Cali fnpm David StAlman /n Cupert)no Pubic Worlrs DevartmenL- • 1 got a call from David Sti[Iman in Cupertino Public Works Department in early May (1 don't remember the exact date). Apparently, Kevin Reed was at a neighboYs jobsite for an inspection and the issue of Overhead vs_ Underground came up. ~ - • I went to the Cupertino City office next day and explained my situation with David. After going through the details around the situation, David mentioned that he does not have the authority to make any decisions in this case and that 1 should speak with Glenn Goepfert. When i asked David about the expenses involved in making a change at this stage, he commented that the Cfty may pay for the additional expenses involved in making this change_ But, this was a decision to be made by his supervisor Glenn Goepfert and not him: • 1 salted the main- phone number for Cupertino City Public Works Department (408) 777 3354, asked for Glenn and left a Tong voioemail explaining my situation_ Cupertino CitylnsvectorBo6 GrevorvE/ectrfca/ lnsnections: • After the memorial day weekend, we had multiple electrical inspections and they identified several issues. After fixing the issues identified in the earlier inspections, we finally passed the electrical inspection on Thursday 06/05/2008. • PG8.E received a fax for the electrical release. My Contractor ordered the removal of the Temporary Power pole.. Several hours after receiving a fax for the electrical release, PG&E received another fax stating that we failed the inspection. • f did not ast anV communication from Public Works via phone. email or fax about the Overhead Vs_ Underground issue after my visit in early Mav until my visit to the Cupertino City office on 06/06/2008_ Overhead vs. tJndervround Discussions on Friday OB/06~t008: • When 1 got an angry call from my Contractor, 1 rushed to the PGB~E office and then to City of Cupertino office on Friday D6/06/2008 and spent a good part of the day taiking to various officials about my situation • After talking to Vivian in Public Works department4 !went upstairs and Rick KFtson spent time understanding my situation and helped arrange a meeting with the Chief Building Officer Greg CaSteel. Both Rick and Greg were generous with their time and skipped lunch to address my situation. ' Asphalt Discussion on Frldav 06/06/2008: ' • After completing the Electrical Overhead vs_ Underground discussion, 1 went back to Public Works and asked them about any potential Asphalt requirements. The City approved plans do not talk about any Asphalt requirements. But, 1 saw a neighbor redo the Asphalt street - • 1 spoke with Joanne in Public Works department about Asphalt and she said that l don't have to do any Asphalt worts on my project. ' • Given my prior experience on the Electrical matter, l requested her to gFve this information in writing. • Joanne recommended that I .speak with Vnrtan Wong. She reviewed my plans carefully and confirmed that 1 do not need to do-any Asphalt work. When 1 asked for a written statement, Vivian said that she would prefer not to give anything in writing. • Earlier in the day, Chief Building Officer Greg Casteel showed ms a fax communication listing some requirements_ 1 called the Chief Building Officer Greg Casteel and solicited his help again in the Asphak matter., • Greg Casteel spoke with Vivian Wong and Joanne about the Asphalt issue. They looked through the files and confirmed l would not need to do any Asphalt. But, I stilt don't have anything in writing. As a resident and a first time home builder, this is vary stressful_ We have enough challenges dealing with contractors and getting the project done while working fulltime. The stress we are going through in dealing with this process is tremendous_ Dument Situation on 06/09!2008: ' I have no electrical power on my property and all the work on my job has stalled. 1 CANNOT AFFORD TO WAIT IN THIS SITUATION: I need the electrical meter installed as soon as possible I sincerely urge you to review the facts and help us get through this tough situation qukdcty. Sincerely, Sridhar Obilisetty, Cell: (31 O) 428 92D't 12 - 12 3 Pueuc wowcs a~P.e-FtTiwe~tr Ralph A. Qualls, Jr., Dire~~or - CRY HALL 20300 TORRE AVENUE •- CfJPERl7N0, CA 950'14-3266 C O P E RT i N 0 (4a~ m~as~ - ~'~ C4;~> 'm-~~ - June 1 I, 2008 - Mr. Sridhaz Obilisetty - 10171 Lebanon Drive - Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: New Co*+~*~tion at 10171 L.ebarion Drive Improvement Requirements Deaz Mr. Obilisetty_ The improvement requirements that are disc~issed here aze typical requirements of deveIogments such as yours and -are applied a.; conditions of developmaent pursuant to T~*+P**~*•o Municipal Code Section 14.04.040_ - You have asked the City Deparrtment of Public V-VOrks to waive its requirement to convert the existiing overhead electrical service ct the newly crfncfr~,ated, house at 101'71 T ebancire Drive to as underground service. The reason you -gave why the Department should consider doing so is that .the req,r*~+ri~+t for was not sufficiently communicated to you. And furthermore, you assert in your emailed letter of June 9, 2008, you should not be required to uruierground your clectaical service because of exa~les you cite where similar developments lv3ve not been required to do so. With regard to the possibility of insufficient communication of the undergiounding requuirement, staff has been unable to find any evidence that that is the case. The original building pit regr;*+ement checklist sheet (copy atrarhe~3~ for Permit # 0704017$ for a two-story Stingle family dwelling at 10171 Lebanon Drive, dated April 23, 2007, with applicant noted as your architect Frank Ho, c:Leazly has marked on the fast page as required.. "Undea-griound all Overhead Utility Lines Along Frontage and/or any new Service " This is ~ usual manner is which this reclnirrment is communicated, and since it was part of the original review of the perraii~ it would certainly seem m have been Gomm2IDleated 122 a timely mare rr~ - - When, during my As5?-a+a*•* Director's June 9, 20108, discussion of this issue at the public counter is City I3a11, he p;resezated. yon with a csopy - of this checkl;~ to verify that this requirement had bean applied and communicated at the outset of the project, you asserted that it went to your areh_++~-t and that you had. never seen it_ The project record in the Building Department shows that the review comments were retu2ned to the applicant, prec~***+aR]y your architect or your architect's representative: The City does not have the - - - - - 12-13 responsibility to assare effective communications between you and your professional representatives; .that aaangement is uP to you. The City fulfilled the requirements for notifying you of the undergrounding mquirement Then you pointed out that the site plans do not coazffiin specific mention of the uundergronadmg requirement. This would be an om; ac;on on the part of your An-}+;+~+ or engineer, and City approval of the plans with such as orn*~;on does not constitute a waiver of a condition previously required and communicated. - A standard note required by the City, which appears on tbe'site plans for your project, states: ~4pproval of these plans does not release the C07Tb'aCtOr of the responsibility for the corrections of mista)fres, errors, or omissions contained therein. If; during the course of construction of . improvemerds; public interest requires a modifrcatwn ofJ'or a departure from the City of Cupertuso specifscatlon or these - - improvement plans, the Cziy Engineer shall have the authority to require such ;nodifzcation or departure and to specify the manner in _ which the same is to be completed - - Although you indicate in your email letter that you had reason . to believe from your conversations with Public Works staff that the undergro~ding req,*+T~*+cnt might not apply, the accounts of our Public Works inspector and senior engineer contradict that ~c~~**+Ytion_ Our Public Works inspector has sta#ed that he had infom~ed you that your type of development is usually required to underground the overhead utilities. Fria informing our senior engineer of the situation led in our senior engineer specifically infn*n, ~ you that indeed you -were required ~ underground t3~e electrical service. Ia. - doing this, our senior engineer was invoking the authority explicit in the aforementioned standard note, informing you of an om*c-a+on and recp7* ~o yon to coaect it. Again, - although it is unfortunate that your architect or enoo;r,e~r omitted a specific instruction on _ the plans to undergrouad~the overhead electrical service, our senior engineer notified you of-the requirement, which had been communicated at the outset of the project, and :,,~,.-rte you to correct it_ In spite of the communications with you, outlined above, that the undergro,mding ,pquiremeat was still in place, your account bas it that for some reason you thought that the undergrounding was not required_ 5o you took subsequent actions based on that mi~t~~-n A~.~.,r.,ption tlsat Ied to your temporary construction power being removed. You have citod the inconvenience- of that situation as a feather reason that the City should waive the undergrounding requirement While it is unfortunate that your actions have inadvertently port-you in that situation, we caimot use it as justification to waive the lIt2dQgLOUnd1IIg req„irernPni - It is Public Works' policy 1D require developrmeats of a]I -types, inchidiag yours, to umdergroumd their overhead urtilities, typically the individual service connection, at a: m;n;rr~uIIl, unless it i9 clearly infeasible or Sze level of development is not StzbSlaat[al enough to trigger review of a pmject by .Public Works. We try to_be as consistent ss 12-~ possible in caaying .out this pol3cy_ But even if it caa be pointed o>n where eve have erred in the past, that in itself would not. henceforth_ remove the obligation of developments to underground tine overhead services in the circumstaaces when it is normally required. You have also indicated. tha# you rel•~*++ty ag~+eed to install curb, gutter, aad sidewalk improvements, even though such improvements had not been required of similar developments on Mann Drive. Ia the case of Mann Drive, the street was designated semi-Waal afier application by the residents and approval by Council, acoo~ing to the +'~»+*ements of the Gtiapertino Municipal Code. So Mann Drive is specifically exempt from the standard roadside improvemeffi requirc:menu. Again, t]ie requirement to install roadside improvements is standard for developments of the type you are undertalang_ Please inform Public Works of your schedule for. in~tat__ting these roadside improvements. In summary, I see no reason to waive the requirement to umdcrgroumd the overhead electrical service aY 10173 Lebanon Drive. Should you wish to in.rct,P this further, you may contact the City Cleric for the procedure to appeal the regniremem to the City Manager. ]f you have questions, please contact Glenn Goepfert of my staff at (408) 77'7- 3354. Sincerely, - Ralph A_ Qualls Director of Public Works vvv Attachment 12 - 15 f ~ - ~ - - -, nn7 y _ - PROJECT NAME: 5 ~ T..7 - ~2 - S T~Q ~ . P ' ~"t #: J7 a ~ p ~ 7 ~ ~~ f'- STREET ADDRESS: ~~j7~ L~.~,~,~~7V ,~ APN: (REQUII2E17) 3~Z~- /•S~O-trJ DEVELOPER/OWNER: 'S2ti~~~/~ Q 8 t LQS~ 11~TCREABE IN vAI.UE: _ 'TELEPHONE NUMBER C ~j s~.7yJC. ~~ . ~ 9 ~ ~ S ~ ~Z~ The Public Works Department requires the following checked ftems to be completed. Contact Jason Chou at (¢08) 777-3237 regarding this checklist- - - Required - - Completed Agreement for Public WorXs Improvements - Faithful Pe~ormance Bond 8z Labor and Material Bond (2 Bonds) ~_ Quit Claim Deed for Underground Water .Rights •Grant of Real Property for Roadway, Sidewalk, Utility or Other PLUpo$es (Plat and description req~red) .~_ Copy o#'CYrant Deed or G~nrent'1'itle Report ~~ ~_ - -Storm Drain Fu 3Z9 , 2.i (Acct # 215-407 - - X - Public Works Plan Check 8c iisspection Fee 5515.00 '~ - (Acct #110-4531) - - - l~}~~'rl-C~~ PsIc Fee (Acct #280-405 - , Maintenance Agreement (all aan-standard items in the Right-0f-Way) - -. Enginee~ng Calculations for Ret"n' ~ Wall. - - NOI (Notice oflntent) and NPDES (National Pollutan# Discharge R1;,,,4natioa System) Permit Requirement httpJ/w~vvr_swrcb_ca. eov/stormwtr/constructi.onhtml Amended Development Best Management Practices (BMP) Regnirrm ents # Contact Public Works Department for requircme~ts - - X Underground all Ovcrhead Utility Lines Along Frontage and/or any new Service - [Indicate as a-note oa site plan-] bract Map Parcel Map Grading Permit (Residentian- (Acct #110-4533) ' - C-;~-ari;T,g Permit (Commercian Acct #110-4534) - - Crrading Lund. (Acct #110-2211) ~_ - i z~i - ~. Ifc Works plan Cheek. Comments: ~n(17 f" - r.~'' .Requf~ed - - - - _ - completed Contact Joanne Johnson at (408) 777-32:45 to obtain an encroachment permit - for work in the right ofway. (Circled Improvements Required)_ (Streetlight, sidewalk, curb 8s gutter, driveway approach, street tree, pool permit, curb-thru-drain, new utility services, curb ramps) Fee: Bond: No Fee Perzpft: X - Best Management Practices Sheet (Obtaixt from the Building D artment r9~ X ~ ~Q ~ C saw B~o,,.,~ ) - - Other: _ -Soils Letter /Soils Report -On-site T~+1*~age to be.showa on site plwz --y~ -All existing sud future utility services mast be shown to subject development. ~S• ~. ~~ (Mote: May impact encroachmen# permit frees sad boads_) - ~G- S -Street Improvements/Gradirxg Plan (3 sets) ~d cost estimate shall be submitted to the Public ~ - ~- Woks Deparlmeat for processing and review. ($1000-Plan Ch Deposit Req.) CJAtj..~~ P~ ~•ttr~Z "c' 9rcr+~ r.>`-rr~t8 ivC ~p /}q@ (Zo~PR-tct`7~- 3 tt~, off! 6 ~o i-NC~~C . _~ Add these grading notes to site plan. (G7~tCLED NOTE5 ONL'i') - off' • " 1) Cm7 ]~eei or Sorts f?*+gi++r~ to review all grading and submit a finel zzport to the City puex to Occupancy. 2) Ce~actioa reports and pad elevation certi.$fieatinu is requaed as Fell bua7diag pad waxk.' ~ , 3) Contact Public Worlca, 777-32D4-, far daa**~.o~ and ~aI grado msp~ection, which mcIvdes dicta tines and reof drams down spout: 4) Contractor is respoast'ble for dust control and ^+Q+ roo @ie area adjacent Lo tl~ wor3c is left in h clehn con~1+t~~+++ .. - - 5} The ooatt&;tar shall review std. Detail G-4 oa tree Projection prior m ece®plishing ~y woFlc or xcmoving-aay trees. ~ All gradmg shall be dane•in accordance with the Soils Report prepared by dated . file an_ 7) -All stuffi lion installation with elope less thaw 2% shall be ceatifieci by a Civil Eagiacer_ 8) All ---- -"- sanitary sewer Imes and 7nte~sTe shall be subject to buxleling departmerat approval prior to mstallatie~ 9) Th,'f;n, $~ Mme., ge~p„r p;~„~,.r¢ (gT~•s)~ ~ by the Staff Water Resotuus Control Bom-~d, farANY a distnrbs'soi7.. ctivity, which 10) A work schedule of gradia,g cad Erosion 8c Sn~m+~^t Con1ro] Playa shaII br: provided to the City ~_ - by August 15. No htIlslde gradfng shall be performed between October 1 tm April 1_°i. 11) All mof drams and/or down spouLa shalt be dreiued sboet $pw 24R: away. from tine trm"t~*++e and maybe collrctcd by drainage inlet connected to public stox=n drain fiu-r7ity. If and only if the drainage is is the hillside area can the water be direc8y connected Yo the public storm drain. 1" Submittal - `-~ e~ .Approved/N pprove ~ engineering Stag Signature Dale Q Fr~s ONLT aulttxrro PER~trT swaaovu 2"d Snbmi ~ '39• dam- ,4pprvve t Approved • Engineering Staf3 5fgnature Date ~ FEES ONLY ei=ctn~n Fort su[pss; purr nParsovnz 3`a Snbmitte.~ Engineering Stai~Signature Date Approved/Not Approved _ Q Fps ONLYrsE4traz® FOR BUO.DI!!G PFltra[r aPAROVu 4'~' Submittal - Engineering-Staff Signature Date V ,~igroved/Not Approved - Q FEES ONLYREOUItEl) FOR 9UaDWG PERIRT APPROVAL 12 - 17 :ONTROL # PERNiTT # p~70 E'j ~? l 7S DATE ~/- 2 3- a? ROTECT 2 S ~ - - - - - .DDRES S ~ CJ ~,~-+ ~ - .PPLICANT cam. -(-!.o OWNER ~~-- ~d~~,.-- F~ ~ l;rs-o~t.a AGENCY M RE'1'CTRN status Init IN it.6TURly status Init IN R~I'IIRT~I status Init- BLDG -~Z~-o 'f~ 23-x/ 6 •~} OU ~/,r~ - ~~L3-'a S ~l T z-3~T7 0~ - PLNG - ~ ~ W P ~/~~~ 8' )/~ ~-`~-r7 5 ~ A//~ . . X ~ •1`I ' 23_o C?' 1 ~23~7 S' J2 .4 ~~ DIST sAN y`2 Y ~ ~ '9 ~ -~ . . s SSESSOR y ~`~ A i300D HEALTH .PN#. 3 Y 2-1~-C- 0 6 ~ RES. (i.YNG)~ y ~ // ~ ~_ (GAR.AGE) S~~ ~ ~OMM.SQ.FT.(NEV~ T.I. SQ.FT. ~~CS /'S RES. REMODEL ~ONTACT ~r~t /~ Flo HONE# ~'?~r~-Saz.o FAX &'7/ ~~~z3 /ALUATION -~~~ mad ~`~ RECEIPT # PLN_ CHECK ~? ~+CD_s~-~ CONSTRUCTION TAX -----(Y) (ICI) SCHOOL FEES -- ----------- (Y) (N) -IOUSING MI3'IGATION FEES --(Y) (N) HEART OF Ci'I'Y/ ----i` ~ i VOTES: ~u~~/O - `X '~~ ~ C~1'3rir~-+-~ ISSUED BY~~~~~ DATE GS -' Z~l~~ ENERGY GRADING SOILS BLDG PMT SEISMIC ELECT PLBG MECH TOTAL FEES ~ ~~~~7~t~ ~ Q ---Original Message-- From: Glenn Goepfert Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2OD8 10:4D PM To: Sridhar Obitisetty [mailtoarfdhar1116@gmail.oom7 Subject: Followup: 10171 Lebanon Drive Occupancy Certifimte Sridhar, Thank you fior forwarding the shortened statement of what you are requesting from the City. After our discussion of Public Works' June 11, 2008,. letter to you {another copy of which is attached) at the public counter last night, 1 spoke with the Building Department about what it will take for occupancy of the house at 10171 Lebanon Drive to be granted, specifically with respect to the electrical service connection, and also generally in terms of other outstanding requirements. The central fact to be aware of is that occupancy will not be granted by the Building Department with a temporary electric service connection. That means that the permanent electrical service connection must be in place before occupancy will be granted. The June 11 letter states that Public Works has required throughout the permit process that the permanent electrical service to the house is to be installed underground, and Public Works stands by that requirement and considers it to be in effect Public Works will not sigh off its approval of the building permit without the electric service connection being in place: underground. Without that approval, occupancy cannot be granted. (There are a great number of other approvals needed, but more on that below.) Your contention is that the undergrounding requirement was not communicated adequately, so you have contested the undergrounding requirement: by appeal to the Director of Public Works. Since, after review and due consideration of your cointention and request to waive the undergrounding rexluirement, the Director of Public VV'orks has determined that it is appropriate to stand by that requirement, we have directed you to tlhe next step in the appeal process, should you wish to pursue it The next step in that procedure is to request that the City Manager consider conducting an administrative hearing of yocir contention and request You must file that appeal within ten business days of the June 1.1, 20013, letter, which. means the appeal should be filed before June 25, 2008. Attached is a PDF file containing a form that can be used to make the appeal to the City Manager for an administrative hearing and a copy of the Cupertino Municipal Code section that outlines the appeal process. 1-can fax this material to you if you wish, or you can go to.the City Clerk's office in City Hall to fill out the form. There is a $156.00 fee for filing the appeal. You have mentioned. in your communications with Public Works that there are costs you have incurred or will incur in fulfilling Public Works' requirement to underground the electric service that you feel should not be yours solely Yo bear. if you wish, you may fiie a claim with the City for what you feel are the undue costs. To do so, you may corrtac! the City Clerk at City Hall or by calling (408) 777-3223_ You should note that the Building Department has ini'ormed me that there are a great many other requirements on your building permit, besides the one discussed above, that must be fulfilled before occupancy can be granted. Some of those requirements, such as grading and frontage improvement inspections,-stem from Public Works. E3ut'there are many more that have to do with other agencies and departments. Sincerely, Glenn Goepfert - Assistant Director of Public Works ~2-~s PU6LEC WORKS DEPARTMENT Ralph A_ Qualls, Jr., Director ClJPERTINO July 14, 2008 CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE ^- CUPERTINO, CA 950'14-3266 (408) 777-3354 -FAX (406) 777-3333 Responses to Mr. Sridhsr Obilisetty's (SO) June 9. 2008, questions reeardiaa additional contacts with City staff pertaining to the undereround electrical service requirement for 10171 Lebanon Dr_, Cupertino, CA_ 1 _ SOe Follow-up Meeting with G~pertino City Public Works Department: During the PGBcE design, estimate process, we had discussions about Overhead vs. Underground Electrical connection at their o,~`ice in Cupertino. Some homes in my neighborhood were going for Underground while others were going for Overhead. The home. on "7556 Kirwin Lane " went for an Overhead connection and the home on "10255 Lockwood Drsve" went for Underground I met with Joanne [Johnson) in Cupertino City Public Works department on 11/19/2007 to get clarity cEround the issue and make sure that I was not misreading the plans or going in the wrong direction. She reviewed the plans with me, confirmed that my Electricat connection should be Overhead and recommended that I move forward with the PGBcE new connection application process as planned Response, Jo Anne Johnson: I did speak with Sridhaz at the counter. I explained the City policy regazding electrical connections as follows; connections from the front of the lot are required to be underground while connections from the back of the lot are typically allowed to be overhead- Again, I advised "Sridhar to speak with an Engineer for clarification as~to the accuracy of his plans. 2. SOe Discussion with Cupertino City Inspector Kevin fRiedenl: Late last year, Cupertino inspector Kevin [RiedenJ was in the neighborhood for a separate issue and we met with him and discussed the Overhead vs. Underground question. My contractor was installing the outside Electrical box that day. Kevin looked through the plans, confirmed that the plans called for Overhead connection and commented that his job as an Inspector would be to check compliance with approved plans on my project But, not compare and contrast my plans with those of other homes (such as "7556 Kirwin Lane " which wens Overhead vs. "10255 Lockwood Drive that wen# Underground i z - 20[ Response, Kevin Rieden: I have never met with SO or his contracl:or. I have only spoken to SO by phone.. I do not even know what ha or his contractors look like. He must have me confused with someone else. Definitely he is confused here with this whole explanation_ - 3. SO: Call from David Stillman in Cupertino Public Works Department: I got a call from David Stillmacre in Cupertino Public Works Department in early May (I don't remember the"exact date). -Apparently, Kevin [Rieden] was at a neighbor's jobsite for an inspection and' the issue of Overhead vs. Underground came up. I wens to the Cupertino City o,~ce the -next day and explained my situation with David Ajler going-through the details asround the situation, David mentsoned that he does not have the au~`hority to make any decision in this case and that I should speak with Glenn Goepfert. When I asked David about the expenses involved in making d change art this stage, he commented that the City may pay for the additional expenses i~avotved in making this change. But a decision to be made by his sxipervisor G'Ienn Goepfert and not him. I called the main phone mtmber fro Cupertino Pub~Zic Works Department (408) 777-3354, asked for GZenn Goepfert and left a long voicemail explaining my situation. Response, David Stillman: During the phone call I made 1.o Sridhar in "early May" (I believe it was actually late- April), I_informed Sridhar that he would have: to underground his utilities. When Sridhar came to the counter I told him again 1:hat he would have to underground his utilities, but if he wanted to contest it he would have to speak to Assistant Director Glenn Goepfert. I didn't say, "I don't have the authority to make any decisions" I also told him that perhaps he could file a clava with the City Clerk's office if the undergrounding requirement resulted in additional expense for him, I did not say, "the City may pay for the additional expenses." Additionally, on May 27, Sridhar came to the: counter. Twat day he asked if we could sign off on occupancy without the off site improvements having been completed. I told him no. I also reminded him about the tmdergrounding requirement_ He said he left Glenn Goepfert a message several weeks before to discuss the issue but he did not return his call, therefore he assumed it was OK to continue with the overhead connection. Response, GIenn Goepfert: My .written log of phone messages shows that I received a message from Mr. Obilisetty on April 25, 2008. . I don't remember the- details- of the message, but I certainly don't recall- that there was any indication in the message that Mr. Obilisetty Z was going tD assume that he could go overhead with the electrical service unless I iz-zi personally were to tell him otherwise. I do recall that Senior Engineer David-Sti71T.,~n had told me just previous to this that he had already confirmed for Mr. Obilisetiy in no uncertain terms-that the electrical service had to be provided underground to the house, so I certainly don't see any reason why Mr. Obilisetty would make the assn^**~ption that he didn't have to underground the electrica! service. My understanding at that time was that the original comments on Mr. Obilisetty's building permit submittal had clearly indicated that overhead utility services to the house were to be underground, and that every contact that Mr_ Obilisetty had had~with Public Works confirmed that requirement. To me, the requirement to underground had been adequately communicated to Mr. Obilisetty and subsequently conformed. On May 27, 2008, however, David Stillman informed me that Mr. Obilisetty still wanted to contest tho requirement to underground his electrical service. For the next two weeks from that point in time, Public Works staff was continually in .touch with Mr. Obilisetty responding to his requests first- that we verify that we had consistently required the undergrounding of the electrical service, and thereafter, that we consider waiving the requirement. Our responses culminated in the June 1 i, 2008, letter from the Director of Public Works upholding the undergrounding requirement. At some point during the late May -early June 2008 exchange with Public Works, Mr. Obilisetty informed us tha# because , of constraints on his -temporary housing arrangements, he needed to be granted occupancy in the new house by the ead of Juae 2008_ One of the many outstanding requirements for occupancy was that a permanent electric service be in place. In order to assist Mr. -Obilisetty is his e$ort to gain occupancy, the Director of Public Works allowed Mr. Obilisetty to keep the existing overhead service in place for the proposes of ga;ning occupancy upon receipt of a performance security from Mr. Obilisetty to guarantee that the electric serve would be converted to underground at a later date. 4. SO: Cupertino City Inspector Sob Gre~orv EI¢ctricaI Inspections: ~4fter the memorial day weekenc$ we had multiple electrical inspections and they identified several issues. After fixing the issues identified in the earlier inspections, we finally passed the electrical inspection on TTiursday 6/OS/2008. PGBrE received afar-for the electrical release. lbly Contractor ordered the removal of the Temporary Power pole. Several hours afer receiving a fax for the - electrical release, PGBcE received another fax stating that we failed the inspection. - I did not get arry communication from public Works via phone: email or fax about the Overhead vs. Underground issue after my visit in early Mav until my visit to the Cupertino Cit~ofTzce on 6/G/2008. Response, Greg Casteel for Bob Gregory: Bob Gregory did send a fax to PGBcE for the electrical release after the inspection. But Bob informed Public Works of the release, since he thought it was unusual that Public Works would allow an electrical service connection to be brought in overhead. . 12-22~~ David Stillman asked Bob to rescind the electrical release since the service was supposed to be brought in underground. Bob rescinded the release, so that the electric meter could not be installed for permanent electric service. 5. " 50: Overhead vs. Underground Discussions on Friday 6/06/2008: When I got an angry call from my Contractor, I rushed to the PGdcE office and then to the City of Cupertino o_,~zce on Fi^iday 6/06/2008 and spent a good part of the day talking to various officials about my situation. .4fler talking-to Vivian in Public Works -department, I went apstairs and Rick Kitson spent "time understanding my situation and helped arrange a meeting with the Chief Building (~cer Greg Casteel. Both Rick and C'rreg were generous with their time and skipped lunch to address my situation. Response, Vivian Wong. After SO left the office, I wrote an emaul to Glenn [Goepfert] aired cc: David [Stillman] _ _ After lunch, SO came back to thb counter a.slang if paving the- street is required. I looked through the plans with him and pointed out that what is shown on the plans is what he needs to do in terms of the paving. He asked if I would put it in writing that he's not required to pave to the middle of the street= I replied that we "do not- SO said how does he know that he's not required to pave to the noddle of street because the plans didn't indicate underground and the City is requiring him to afterwards. I apologized #hat it was overlooked during prof ect plan check. - Later, Greg talked to me ,about the paving rea~uirements, while SO waited for Greg at the counter, and I told Greg the same that was do not put in writing when a project is not required to be paved #o the middle of the street. During project review, if there's a requirement to pave to the middle of the street, then it would be shown on the plans. Since the detail on the- plans shows paving; appurtenant to installing the curb and gutter, that's what we would go by. Response, Greg Casteel: Rick [Kitson] did come back to speak with ine about this problem and we looked at the plan check comments that had been- sent to the designer after the In and 2"d submittals which identified that the overhe~-d utility was to go underground. Rick made a copy and brought it out to discuss it with the owner in the downstairs lobby. Rick was handling the situation and I came out 1h;nking I might be of some assistance. Rick excused himself and I spent basically the re**+A*nder of the lunch break going through the plan check comment and what is typically called out for from knowledge with that item. I also spent Ylie time outlining what his next steps would be so as to be proactive in getting his project finished. l ~ - 12-23