Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
15. Obilisetty appeal
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ~J ~~ HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE ~ CUPERTINO, CA 950Y 4-3255 C C P E RT I N O TELEPHONE: (408; 777-31 10 • FAX: (a08) 777-3366 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. f ~ MEETING DATE: December 2, 2008 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Hearing on an appeal by Sridhar Obilisetty of the 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 Parks 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 Date of Determination Notice dated September 3, 2008, the Hearing Officer denied Mr. Obilisetty's appeal. On September 15, Mr. Obilisetty 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 Pazks and Recreation was cazefully 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 Pazks and Recreation on behalf of the City Manager and deny the appeal of the determination by Mr. Obilisetty. is - ~ RECOMMENDATION 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. Maz Linder Director, Pazks and Recreation APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: David W. Knapp City Manager attachments is-z DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CITY HALL 10300.TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT i !V O TELEPHONE: (408) 777-311 O • FAX: (408) 777-3366 Date of Determination: September 3, 2008 Mr. Sridhar Obilisetty 10171 Lebanon Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject:. Hearing on an appeal by Mr_ Sridhar 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 HP-wring 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, Administrative Assistant Issue of Anneal The Appellant, Sridhar 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 Developnnent approved the plans for his new construction at 10171 Lebanon Drive is June 2007.. According; to the Appellant, the approved plans included overhead electric service. In October 2007, the Appellant states that Greg Elder, of PGB~E, suggested that he contact the City regarding the electric service, as the City typically requires the underground electric service_ Since PGBzE was getting ready to underground the gas service, it was also a good time to underground the electric service. ' Appellant stated he followed 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 nesar his project. One was approved for overhead electric service and the other required underground electric service. - ~ s - a According to the Appellant, he received a telephone call from David St;llrr,an, Senior Civil Engineer, in late April/eazly May 2008. Mr. Stillman informed the Appellant that the electrical service had to be underground. At the tune the Appellant received the call, the trenching work for gas service was complete_ To underground electric service would require redoing the trench_ Appellant claims he would have installed underground electric service at the same time as the gas service 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 PGB~E come back and dig up the trench. Finding and Determination of Anneal 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 hearing. Based on my review, I find that the Director of Public, Works correctly required the undergrounding of electrical service at 10171 Lebanon Drive. There aze a number of reasons for my finding. First, the Appellant and/or his architect, 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 not receive this checklist as it was given to his architect. . It is the responsibility of the Appellant and his architect to communicate with one another. I found that the Department of Community Development approved the Appellant's plans for the project on 10171 Lebanon Drive in 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 mothfication of/or a departure from the City of Cupertino specification or these improvement plans, the City Engineer shall have the authority to require such modifications or departure and to specify the manner in which the same is to be completed"_ The PGBLE representative advised the Appellant to recheck with the City regazding the overhead electrical service. PG8~E recommended this action because the City typically requires underground electric service. The Appellant cla;mc that he followed the PGBcE advice and talked with a person at the Public Works counter, Jo Anne Johnson, who told him to proceed with the overhead electric service. 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 tyre 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. 15-4 Finally, Cupertino Municipal Code Section 14.24,010 states, "Underground public utilities improve the aesthetic quality of a development, and stri~~ter requirements in open azeas maypreserve natural beauty". It is clear 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 requirement. 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 Clerk of Cupertino within tE:n business days of the date of this Notice of Determination. The Appellant can also file a claim with the City Clerk 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, Mazk Linder On behalf of City Manager cc: David Knapp, City Manager Chazles Kilian, City Attorney Ralph Qualls, Director of Public. Works is-s pate: 09/75/2008 To- From- Cupertino City Council ~ 10177 Lebanon Drive D (Z (ra ~ ~ n~ Y 0300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 950'14 LS l~ LJ Cupertino, CA 95014 Attn: _ ~ _ ~ -$E~~-r5~~~$ Kimberly Smith ( i City Clerk i _-_-~- -____ __.. ___ i _-~_.._-___._-_ CUPERTINC CITY CLEF~K Subject: Appeal to City Council for keeping the Overhead Electrical Connection installed per City approved plans ~~'~ Ci#y Council Appeal ~~~~ I would like to appeal tFte City Manager deterrnfnation to deny my request to keep Overhead power. in the City Council hearing, 1 would like to provide additional evidence on the case. June 2007: • Cupertino City Approved plans as Overhead in June 2007 after a prolonged Public Works plan check process November 2007: • During the PG8~E design & installation process; Greg Eider of PG&E recommended that Idoub~e-check the Overhead vs. underground issue with the City • Jo Anne Johnson in Public Wortcs reviewed my plans and said that I should go Overhead if the plans say Overhead and go Underground if the plans say Underground. No information-was provided to me on why some homes in my neighborhood such as '"7556 Kirwin Lane° went -Overhead and other homes such as"70255 Lockwood Drive° went Underground_ APrf!_ MaV 2008: ' • PGS~E Electrical Installation and Gas Trenching was complete • After atf the work was complete, I got a call from David Stillman in Public Works that 1 need to Underground my Electrical Service • 1 went #o the City office next day and explained to him the situation. He said that he will not be able to make any decisions in.the case and 1 needed to talk to Assistant Director of Public Works Glenn Goepfert • I called Mr. Glenn Gcepfert and left a detailed message about my situation and requested him to give me a call 'rf 1 needed to provide any additional information • I did not hear back from him June 2008: . • We went through couple of Building inspections during which they listed several electrical issues (not the Overhead vs. Underground issue) • We satisfied alt the requirements and the Building Department faxed an Electrical meter release to PGB~E • PG&E Cupertino branch faxed the information to the main office in Fresno - • Later that day, PGB~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 AuvusL Sevfember 2008: • • City Manager hearing was held on August 14. 1 received a determine#ion letter on September 3, 2008. • My appeal to keep the Overhead power was denied - 15-6 Addrtfona! Evidence: - • The determination letter from City Manager stated that the Counter staff Ms. Joanne Johnson advised me to tack to an Engineer. This is contrary to my computex records TTstBd Tn the attachment. • f will provide additional evidence to confirm this fact Expense. Comvromis/rya ihs fnfeasl[v of Electrical System: ~ . • 1# the plans stated underground or the counter staff aiivised me on underground connection in November 2007 (when Greg Elder of PG&E alerted me of the issue), 1 would have underground my electrical connection along with my underground gas connection for which we dug x '120 ft trench Changing our current overhead connection to underground requires ripping out the existing overhead panel, breaking the rgof, breaking the stucco wall, extending every wire that goes into the main panel, putting in a new panel that takes an underground connection, having'I'G&E demolish the existing overhead connection, paying them an additional amount for laying a new c~nectian and digging a separate trench for electrical instead of trying to leverage the ~ 20 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 electrical system for the life of this home. • One of the City Officials mentioned that this is an "Aesthetic' issue -- not a "Safety' issue. We would appreciate it very much if the City Council can review all the facts surrounding the case and help us keep the overhead connection. Thanks for your time & consideration. Sincer Sridhar Obilisetty ` ' Cell#= {408) 805 1700 i~~~ ~ ~~~ - ~~ ~ 1- --- Z?,-tee, he~.~Y ~ n~ .Z Zo~~ - ~~~ ~ ~~ 15-7 ~~ ATTACHMENT ~~' Notes 2007Novt9DiscussionWithPublicWorks.pdf is-s Done: Habitable Dwelling Inspection for Demo Permit Cupertino City. Public Works Departrnsnt: Kevin Reed; kevinrt~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) essua on 11/19/2007 per Greg Eider's suggestion_ She was not farniiiar with °10255 Lockwood Drives' 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• MarKThomas 8. Company 20833 Stevens Creek Blvd, Sufte 104, Cupertino -Next 'to TargeU Pansra Bread - (408) 253 7071 ' Cindy -Receptionist; cmurohvCa)markthomas com ; ccracvCo~markthomas_com Nicoll -Engineer fn-charge of Approvals. Spoke to her on 05H 1/2007 -she called me (a~ 11 :OOAM. Julie -Assistant. Spoke to her on 05/10/2007 ~ 2.30pm Chien Vu -Permit Co-ordinator - Casay Crary -Inspector - (408) 253 7071 - ccrarvCcc~cupertinosanitarvdistrict_com -Very Helpful guy George Santos -Inspector - gsantosk~cuoertinosanitarvdistrictcom -Responsible for TV inspections Roger- Field Inspector who came for inspection on 06Y!5/20D8 Shirley -Spoke to her on 06/26/2008 videotape Inspection Servic;es• (for the laferal, Geanout) • www.draindoctor.oom - (408) 720-1390 o $200 -Manager -Simon - o Vivian - VlvianCa7draindoctor.com • Able Sewer & Drain - (408) 377 9990; ' o Trtfany - $225 fee for the Video tape inspection o tiffanvt7a abieseotic com - $225 - - • Expensive o Roto Rooter - (408) 727 9850 o $15 Sewer 8i Drain - {650) 968 1551 City of Cupertino Planning Deoartment• 408.777.33D8 -~ 03 to reach another sins _ Email: planning@cuper-tino.org Piu Ghosh 8~ Gary in the planning department Kathy (Intern) - (4D8) 777 1356, kathvdC~cupertino orn Gary - (408) 777 3247 (Direct), (408) 777 3308 (Main), gFirvcCcacupertino,oro, www.cupertino.org/planning Privacy Landscaping not needed along our mutual property line Cupertino City Planning Ordinances 8~ plications• http://209.172.156.4/city government/departments and offices/planning and buildinq>index.asp ' Accessory Structures Ordinance- • .Available on the websita • Minimum setback is 3 feet Max height of only 7 feet Setback has to increase by 1.5 feet for every foot in height. For instance, we would need a 4.5 ft setback for 8 feet height. - • is-s PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Ralph A. Qualls, Jr., Director CUPERTINO July 14, 2008 CITY i-IALL '10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3266 (408) 777-3354 -FAX (408) 777-3333 Mr. Sridhaz Obilisetty 10171 Lebanon Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: Appeal of 10171 Lebanon Drive Underground Electric Service Requirement: Written Materials to be Presented by the City at July 24, 2008, Hearing Dear Mr. Obilisetty: ~~,~ .Attached are the following items: ~--= - ~ 1. Your emailed letter to Public Works, dated June 9, 2008. .¢ 2. Letter, dated June 1 1, 2008, from the Director of Public Works, with attached checklist, dated April 23, 2007, for PPr+T*t # 07040175 for SFD at 10171 Lebanon Dr_, Cupertino, CA (previously transmitted). O 3. Email, dated June I2, 2008, from the Assistant Director of Public Works (previously transmitted) j ~ 4. Responses to your-June 9, 2008, questions regazding additional contacts with City sta$perta;n;ng to the underground electrical service requirement for 10171 Lebanon Dr., Cupertino, CA. These items aze the written materials that the City will present to the hearing officer for the heazing 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 forwazding the material that you intend to present aY the hearing to the hearing officer Mark Linder (email MarkT_(cr7cupertino.ort?), and to me (email G1er1nG@,cupertino.org), at least fve davs prior to the hearing. Please let me know if you have questions by contacting me at G1ennG~cupertino.org or _ (408) 777-3244. Sincerely, Glean Goepfert Assistant Director of Public Works is-io Hi Glenn, cafe: 06/0920D8 Please review the following fads related to my home on °10171 Lebanon Drnre' and guide me in the taking the appropriate next steps to get our Electricity Mater instalisd per plan as soon as possible. Offsite lmarovement and Erosion Control Plans Aaaroved by City of Cupertino /n 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 otfsite street improvements (such as Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk), we agreed to do these improvements and paid a $15,000 bond to fulfil- the requiremen#s of Cupertino Public Works department. After several review sessions, 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. f F s F - ~ r - ~.....~...+ i , li = I } 5 L ~ ~ _ ~___J ~ i - i . _ ~ 4 ~ ~, Y...~}•'~' ~i.tl' ... -car. _ _-- i"' ~ t_ ~~* C 'i x.- ! yi ~YY I , 8~ } - _ ~ ~ ~ r i `s. ~~ • 9 ' sa ~,~.--.. rr ~ _' y~ L _.~ I .tr}~i:{k~'~ _ _ Aer nrwaw•rcuw-r _ _'-_~)___jn~ _ ___ __ _ _ _ ~ fea _~ _ r ~ } L!):CF. YL INI(:, 14QFa^. i ___._- - y iUWf / Blli•OVI~ _ °.`~' .~'^ fP~-i}„RL G...G.'6~tSIG. w ~.G L°i^E J}°~ Follow-ua Meetino wlth Cupertino City Pub/ic YVorlrs OeoartnrenL- During the PG8rE 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 Kirwin Lane' went for an Overhead connection and the home on '10255 Lockwood Drive' went for Underground. 1 met with Joanne in Cupertino City Public Works department on 11/19/2007 to get clarity around the issue and make sure that 1 was not misreading the plans or going in the wrong direction. She- reviewed the plans with me, confirmed that my Electrical connection should be Overhead and recommended that I move fonnrard wrth the PGB.E new connection application process as planned. Oiscusslon wfth Cuoerdno City /nspector Kevin 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 called for Overhead connection and commented that his job as an Inspector would be to check compliance with approved plans on my projed_ But, not compare and 15 - 11 Z contrast my plans with those of other homes (such as "7556 Kirwin Lane° which went Overhead vs. "~ 0255 Lockwood Drive° that went Underground). CaI/ from Oav/d Stfl/man /n Cunertlno Pub/c INorlrs Oeoarfinent: • I got a call from David Stillman in Cupertino Public Works Department in early May (I don't remember the exact date). Apparently, Kevin Reed was at a neighbors 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 h8 does not have the authority to make any decisions in this case and that 1 should speak with Glenn Goepfert When 1 asked David about the expenses involved in making a change at this stage, he commented that the City 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: • !called the main phone number for Cupertino City Public Works Department (408) 777 3354, asked for Glenn and left a long voicemail explaining my situation. Cuoertlno City /nsaector Bob Greoorv E/ectrica! Insaectfons: • 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 receNed 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, PG8~E received another fax stating that we failed-the inspection. - I did not laet 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_ Underoround Discussions on Friday 06/062008: • When I got an angry call from my Contractor, 1 rushed to the PG&E office and then to City of Cupertino office on Friday 06/06/2008 and spent a good part of the day talking to various officials about my situation • After talking to avian in Public Works department,. I went upstairs and Rick Kitson 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. .4snha/t Oiscussfon on Friday 06/062008: • After completing the Electrical Overhead vs. Underground discussion, l 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 I don't have to do any Asphalt work on my project. ' • Given my prior experience on the Electrical matter, I requested her to glue this information in wnting_ • Joanne recommended that I.speak with Vivian 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 me a fax communication listing some requiremerrts. I called the Chief Building Officer Greg Casteel and solicited his help again in the Asphalt matter.. Greg Casteei spoke with Vivian Wong and Joanne about the Asphalt issue_ They looked through the files and confirmed I would not need to do any Asphalt. But, I still don't have anything in writing. As a resident and a first time home builder, this is very stressful. We have enough challenges dealing with contractors and getting the project done while working fulltime. Tha stress we are going through in dealing with this process is tremendous. Current Situation on 06/092008: 1 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 quickly_ Sincerely, - Sridhar Obilisetty, Cell#: (3t O) 428 9201 is- ~z 3 PUBLIC WORKS DEPAF:TMENT Ralph A. L]ualls, Jr., Director ~ ' CITY HALL t030D TORRE AVENUE -- CUPERTINO, CA 950143266 C V P E RT I N O (4os1 ~-n-ss5a - ~Ax i~ac~s) m-ssss June I I, 2008 Mr. 5ridhar Obilisetty 10171 Lebanon Drive ' Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: New Constn~otion at 10171 Lebsrion :Drive Improvement Requirements Dear Mr. Obilisetty: The improvement requirements that are disc~~.ssed here are typical requirements of developments such as yours and • are applied as conditions of development pursuant to Cupertino M~i.cipal Code 5eciion 14.04.040. You have asked the City Department of Public ViTorks to waive its requirement to convert the •~+a++-ng overhead electrical service at the ne~~viy coastrucf~ed horse at 10171 T.-],A„~,., Drive to an underground service. The reason you gave why .the Department should consider doing so is that .the regturement far undexgrounding was not sufficiently communicated to you_ And furthermoa~e, yogi ~~rt in -your emailed letter of June 9, 2008, you should not be required to underground your electrical service because of examples you cite where similar developments hove not been required to do so. With regard to the possibility of insufficient communication of the undergi-oimd* requirement, staff has been unable to find- any evidence that that is the case. The original building permit rege•?rement checklist sheet (copy attached) for Permit # 0704017$ for a two-story :single family dwelling at 10171 Lebsmon Drive, dated April 23, 2007, wiih. applicant noted as your architect Frank I3o, clearly has marlred on the first page as required: "Underground aiI Overhead Utility Lines Along Frontage and/or any new Service." This is the usual manner in which this I+equi,~rnPr,t is communicated, and since it was part of the original review of the permit, it would certainly seem to have bees communicated in a timely manner_ When, during my A_`=ctat.t Director's June 9, 2008, ~1+~^~~+on of this issue at the public counter in City Full, he presented yon with a copy of this checklist to verify that this req^,**P**,~*+t had been applied and communicai~ed at the outset of the project, yon asserted that iY went to your architect and that you had riever seen it. The project record in the Building Department shows that the review comments were returned to the aPPh~, presumably your architect or your architect's representative_ The City does not have the 15-13 responsibility to assure e$ective communications between you and your professional representatives; tha# arrangement is up to you. The City fulfilled the requirements for notifying you of the •undergrounding regirirement. Then you pointed out that the site plans do not contain specific mention of the undergrounding requirement. This would be an omission on the part of your architect or engineer, and City approval of the plans with such an omission does not constitute a waiver of a condition previously required and communicated. A standard note required by the City, which appears oa the'site plans for your project, states: ~ippravcrl 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 of1'or a departure from the City of Cupertino spec cation or these - - improvement plans, the City Engineer shall have the authority to require such modification or departure and to specify the manner fn which the same is to be completed ~ ' Although you iadica#e in -your email letter that you had reason to be&eve from your conversations with Public Works staff that the undergrouading requirement might not apply, the accounts of our Public Works inspectar and senior engineer contradict that assumption. Qur Public works iivspector has stated iha# he had informed you that your type of development is usually required to underground the overhead utilities. I3is info*'***i*~g our senior engineer of the situation led to our senior engineer specifically in~Fnrm;n~ you that indeed you were required to underground the electrical service. In doing this, our senior engineer was invoking the authority explicit in the aforementioned standard note, informing you of as omiccion and regt*i+~+~ you to correct it Again, although it is unfort~mA+e that your architect or engineer omitted a specific instruction on the plans to underground the overhead electrical service, our senior engineer notified you of_ the regni,-Pment, which I~ad been communicated at the outset of the givject, and insiriicted you to correct it. - in spite of the communications with you, outlined above, that the undergroundiag requirement was still in place, your account has it that for some reason you thought thax the undergrounding was not required. So you took subsequent actions based on that mica-a7~en assumption that led to your temporary construction power beixig x~moved_ You have cited the inconvenience of that situation as a -further reason that the City should waive the undergrouading req,^i,rmeD[t. While it is unfortunate that your actions have inadvertently put you in that situation, we cannot use it as justification to waive the undergrounding requirement. . It is Public Works' policy to require developments of alI -types, incl ~derground their overhead utilities tiding yours, to ,typically the individual service connection at a minimum, unless it is clearly infc~sea;ble or the level. of development is not substantial enough to trigger review of a project by Public Works. We try to.be as consistent as 15-~ possible in carrying ouf this policy. But even if it can be pointed out where we have eaed in the past, that is itself would not henceforth remove the obligation of developments to underground the overhead sexvices in the circuYnstances when it is normally required.. You have also indicated that you reluctantly agmed #o install ¢urb, gaffer, and sidewaIIc improvements, even though. such improvements had not been required of cim;iar developments on Mann Drive. In the case of Mann Drive, the street was designated semi-rural after application by the resideants and. approval by Council, according to the requirements of the Cupertino Municipal Code. So Mann Drive is specifically exempt from the st~da~ roadside improvement requiremerrts. Again, the requirement t0 Install roadside improvements is standard for developments of the type you are undertaking. Please inform Public Works of your schedule for 1*+stari~*^g these roadside improvements_ In summary, I see no reason to waive the rectuirement to underground the overhead electirical service at 10171 Lebanon Drive. Should you wish to pursue this farther, you may contact the City cleric for the procedure to apP~ the req*„rnment to the City. Manager_ If you have questions, please contact ~31ena Goepfert of my staff at (408) ?77- 3334. sincerely, .CL t~ f~C ~ C.l Ralph A_ Quails Director of Publio Works Attachment ~ -- - ~ ~~~ . sr1~'ROJECT NAME: 5 ~ T] - ~ -.s T~Q L~f . PERN.LI"T #: l~~ ~ `f ~ J 7 - _J l / 1 ~ STREET ADDRESS: j~l~J L~2•<$h/~ X1.7 ~~• APN: (REQUIREb) ~~.. I~vL--C~-fJ ~- DEYELOPEI2/OWNER: 'S21%~J~4fL~ ~ Fj I L~s~ I~N CREASE IN YAI:IIE: f C Ti.LEPHONE 1~TUIViBER: ~j srrJL /~~ , ~ ~ ~ _ ~.~'~~• The P3lblic Worizs Department requires the foIIpwing checked items to be completed. Contact Jason - Chou at (¢08) 777-3237 regarding this checlrlist_ - Required Completed - ..~ Agreement for Public Works Improvements - • ~ Faithful Perforr*~-mce Bond 8c Labor and Material Bond (2 Bonds) Quit Claim Deed for Underground Water Rights -Grant of Real Property for Roadway, Sidewailc, Utility or Other Purpo$es (Plat and description regt~red) .~- Copy of Grant Deed or Ciureat 'T'itle Report ~ ~ . ~_ Storm Drain Fne 3Z9 , i (Acct # 215-40'7 _ . X -Public Worl~ Play Check 8s Inspection Fee $515.00 - - '-Ly7 •- • (Acct #llLl-4531) - ~~.-~~• Park Fee _ (Acct #280-408 , Maintenance Agreemeu# (all nan-standard items in the Right-of-WaY) _ -- Engin6ering Calculations for Retaining WaI1- - - - NOI (Notice of Intent) and NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permit Req~~~T•P**+eut - http_//www.s~vrcb.ca. eov/stormwtr/constructi.oa.html Amended Development Best Management Practices (BMP) RPM +**•~ents ~ Contact Public Works Dep~Lment for requirements - - - X Underground all Overhead Utility Lines Along Frontage and/or goy new Service .[Indicate as a-note on site plan] - Tract Map Parcel Map G3-ading Permit (Residential) (Acct #110-4533) - Grading Pmt (Commercial) Acct #110-4534) Grading Band (Acct #110.2221) - ~ ski . - ~, bite works Pfau C7tecIr comments: 7n(-~T - - - . -- completed Contact Joanne Johnson at (408) 777-3245 to obtain an encroachment permit - for work in the right of way. (Circled Improvements Required). - _ (Streetlight, sidewalk, curb Sc gutter, diiv~:way approach, street tree, pool permit, curb-thru-drain, new utility services, curb ramps) - • Fee: $ond: _ No Bee Per~ai[t- X ~ Best IvFaaagement Practices Sheet (flbtair, from the Building D a=talent) ~~-. X ~ t" ~~ ~ C 5 ~- ~ow~ - - Other. _ -Soils Z.etter /Soils Report -On-site Drainage fo be-shown on site plait ~ -All existing and future utility services mTnst be shown #o snbj act development. 1 o~--1s-tea ch (I~Tbte_ May impact encroachment permit fees an.21 bonds.) - -. . z6- -Street Imgrovements/Gratling Play (3 seta) and cost estLA.*e shall be submitted to the Public '~ ~~ Worls:s Department for proces . sing and review_ ($1000-Plan. Ch Deposit Req_) . ~'~~`lw~~ .~~~ct,lg-C.. ,f~Z.3 53-t7cc~'~ \_.:-~ _ - ~. ~o Ci~t~i~ ~i-tt~?3~Z "4s3cz-~ r.>ur+leQdc/[ ~Io A'~~'f~i~~QR-~~F'7~- 3yt~{_ s~.~.1 i-N~~C ~ ~ Add these grading notes to site plan. (CII2(`f.7+.n NOTF.5 ONLI~ - - m~4-''. - 1) Civic Engineer or Soils Engineer tv review all grading and submit ii final zeport ~ the City prior to occupancy. 2) CarQpaclien reports and pad eleYatia~a eerti$cation is requited ~ all bm7ding pad work.- - ~ . 3) Contact Public ~Kor7~, 777-3104, for drainage sad final grade inspoctian, which inchtdes dram Imes and zoof drains down spouts: 4) Cornractor is responst'ble for dust control and ~++~++~*+o the area adjsicend to the wvrlc is ]e$ m h cle8a-condition. -- - - - 5) T'he contractor shall review std. Deta.zZ 6~ oa Y[ee protectiaca Prior 'to acc~ptishiag any woFlc or removing-say trees. - ~ AI] grading aha2l ba dorm in accordance with the Soils Report ptzp;ired by dated - . SIe no_ 7) All storm line installation with slope lass than 2% shaII be certified. by a Civil. F?n,g+*+.~_ $) pill Ong Scl' inter]/ Sewer hneB 8nd 7ATars.Tie Shall be sabJect t0 btaldlmg department gppreval prior tD ~wTlAhnn. 9) Utt7ize seat 113anagemW4 Practices (BNSP's), as inquired by the State wafer Resources Control Board, for ANY activity, which diaturbs'sor"L - -1 O) A work sc*~~?--4.- of graditlg and Erosion 8t Sediment Coairol P_Iaxi shaII be provided Yo the City Hng;neer lry August 15. loo 6fllside grading shall be performed between OMober 1 to April i5_ 11) All maf drams and/or down spouts shaII be drained sheet flpw 2q away. from the T,~„'T~T,,, o and maybe collected by drainage inlet connected to petite slums drain faczZity. If and only if the draia$ge is in the hillside area c~ the water be directly cOIIIIOCtBd to the public Ar:,,-.,, drain. . 1't SubmittaI - - ~-~ a~ .~,pproved/N pprove ~ . ~ngfneering Stag' Signature Date - 0 FF~s ONL R l~ suanwa aER>;or•F aarROVa~ 2nd Snbmf ~ '-3'O• ~~-- e~pprove t Approved Engineering Staff Signature Date I~ Ft~s o1vLY RenutRm Fort sttt:.oato vsRrour pPgxovrLL 3`'d Snbmf*+-..t- .IipprovedlNot Approved Engineering Star Signature Date ~ FF~s ONLYREntta3® FoR etrrlorno PERMtT gppROVq~ 4"' Submittal Engineering-Stail<Sigaature - Date ApprovedlNot Approved - © SEES ONLYREGUtRED FOR BUaDtNG PERiRrT APPROVAL. 15 - 17 :ONTROL # PERMIT # p`70 `'J ~- l7s' DATE ~ ~ 3- O'-7 ROJECT 2 sue' - - _ .DIGRESS - ~,~ ~ - .PPLICANT gyn. .f-I.o OWNER ~~-,dh~,r-- r~ ~ Its-a_rt.; AGENCY tN ~-~N stelae Init i[J RE7VR1v states Init Rv Rl.'f'URN status Init BLDG -~Z~-d 'f 2'yfs! t5 - A OU~~C ~Y Y~Z'3-`~ `~ `~ T t.~~T 04 PLNG ~ ~ ~ w y,-z3-~ ~ hl~f ~-~-•~7 5 ~ ~ a/s9 ~ . . X ~ 6-~~ ' 23 _ o ©' ! ~?3~7 ~ f Z ~Q- FIRE X DIST N Y-2 `~ ~7 ~4 / "n . . SA SESSOR y ~'"'d AS - HOOD - - F3EALTH .PN# 3 Y "Z-l~-f - o b ~~ RES. (LANG) y ~ // ~ (GAR.AGE) ~.5~-~ $ 'OMM.SQ.FT.(NEV~ T.I. SQ.FT. LS !S RES. REMODEL ~ONTACT ~rc~,-.. /~ ~o HONE # ~~-Sa~..o FAX &7 / .-~9z-3 /ALUATION -~~~ mod l°~ RECEIP"I' # PLN. CHECK ~~ ~O-~'' ENERGY ~ONSTR,UCTION TAX ---------_-(}~ (N) GRADING _ SCHOOL FEES - ---__ - (~ CI`n SOILS SOUSING MITIGATION FEES ---(Y) (N) BLDC_'* PMT :-TEARY OF CiTY -------{Y) (iJ) SEISMIC VOTES: •~ !O - ~~Le ~ L' ELECT . / •~ '~ PLBG MECH - f S SUED BYE ~~~ DATE !3 ~ ~~~`~ ~ ~ TOTAL FEES ~ 2.~~~Z1~~ 1 --Original Message- From: Glenn Goepfert Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2008 10:40 PM To: Sridhar Obllisetty [mailto:sridhar1116@gmail_comj Subject: Foliowup: 10171 Lebanon Drive Occupancy Certificate Sridhar, Thank you for forwarding the shortened statement oP 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 9 0171 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 willl 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 sign off its approval of the building permit without the electric service connection being in places 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 contenton and request to waive the undergrounding requirement, the Director of Public VVorks has determined that it is appropriate to stand by that requirement, we have directed you to the next step in the appeat process, should you wish Yo pursue it_ The next step in that procedure is to request that the City Manager consider conducting an administrative hearing of your contention and request You must file that appeat within ten business days of the June 1.1, 20013, letter, which means ttte appeal stiouid bg fated 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. F-can fax-this material to you if you wish, or you can go to.the City Clerk's office in City Hall to fil! out the form_ There is a $158.00 fee for fiiing the appeal_ You have mentioned. in your communications with Public Works that there are costs you have incurred or will incur in fulfilling Public Worlcs` requirement to underground the electric service that you feel should not be yours solely to bear. If you wish, you may file a claim with the City for what you feel are the undue costs. To do so, you may contact the City Clerk at City Hafl or by calling (408) 777-3223. You should note that the BuIIding Department has in1`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_ taut-there are many more that have to do with other agencies and departments. Sincerely, - Glenn Goepfert Assistant Director of Public Works ~~ 15-19. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Ralph A. OuaBs, Jr., Director CUPERTINO Tuly 14, 2008 CITY HALL '10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 950'143266 (408) 777-3354 -FAX (408) 777-3333 Responses to Mr. Sridhar Obilisettv's (SOl June 9, 2008. questions regarding additional contacts with City staff pertaining to the underground electrical service requirement for 10171 Lebanon Dr., Cupertino. CA_ 1. SO: Follow-up Meeting with Cupertino City Public Works Department: During the PGBcE design, estimate process, we had discussions about Overhead vs. Underground Electrical connectzon at their office 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 "I0255 Lockwood Drzve" went for Underground I met with Joanne [Johnson] in Cupertino City Public Works department on II/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 re"viewed the plans with me, confirmed that my Electrical connectzon should be Overhead and recommended that I move forward with the PGc~E new connectzon applicafion process as planned Response, Jo Anne Johnson: I did speaIr with Sridhar at the counter. I explained the City policy regarding 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. SO: Discussion with Cupertino City Inspector Kevin 1Riedenl: Late Iasi 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 Etectrical box that day. Kevin looked through the plans, conjzrmed 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 went Overhead vs. "I025S Lockwood Drive that went Underground i s - zol Response, Kevin Rieden: - - I have never met with SO or his contractor. I have only spoken to SO by phone.. I do not even know what he or his contractors look like. He must have me confused with someone else. Defmitel:y 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 Stillman in Cupertino Public Works Department in early May (I don't remember the exact dates. -flpparently, Kevin [RiedenJ was at a neighbor's jobsite for an inspection and the issue of Overhead vs. Underground came up. I went to the Cupertino City office the -next day and explained my situation with David e4}ier going. through the details around the situation, David mentioned that he does not have the authority to make any decision in this case and that I should speak with Glenn G~~epfert When I asked David about the expenses inrvolved in making a change czt this stage, he commented that the City may pay for the additional expenses involved in making this change. But a decision to be made by his supervisor Glenn Goepfert and not him. 7 called the main phone number fro Cupertino Pulilic Works Deparrinent (408) 777-3354, asked for Glenna Goepfert and Zefi` a long voicemail explaining my situation. Response, David Stillman: During the phone call I made to Sridhar in "e;arly May" (I believe it was actually late. ApriI), I informed Sridhar that he-would have to underground his utilities. When Sridhar came to the counter I told him again that 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 claim 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. That day he asked if we could sign off on occupancy without the ofI'-site improvements having been completed. I told him no_ I also reminded him about the undergrounding 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, Glenn 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 ~~ was going to assume that he could go overhead with the electrical service unless I is-si personally were to tell him otherwise. I do recall that Senior Engineer David-Stillman had told me just previous to this that he had already confirmed for Mr. Obilisetty 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 assumption tha# he didn't have to underground the electrical service.. My understanding at that time was that the original comments on Mr. Obilisetty's building permit submittal had clearly indica#ed that overhead utility services to the house were to be underground, and that every contact that Mr. Obilisetty had had"with PtzbIic Works confirmed that requirement. To me, the requirement to underground had been adequately communicated to Mr. Obilisetty and subsequently confirmed. On May 27, 2008, however, David Stillman informed me that Mr. Obilisetty still wanted to contest the 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 11, 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 that because . of constra*nts on his .temporary housing arrangements, he needed to be granted occupancy in the new house by the end of June 2008. One of the many outstanding requirements for occupancy was that a permanent electric service be in place. In order to assist Mr_ Obilisetty in his effort to gain occupancy, the Director of Public Works allowed Mr. Obilisetty to keep the existing overhead service in place for the purposes of gai*i~ 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. 50: .Cupertino City Inspector Bob GreQOry Electrical Inspections: " After the memorial day weekend, we had multiple electrical inspections and they identified several issues. After frxing the issues identified in the earlier inspections, we finally passed the electrical inspection on Thursday 6/OS/~008. PGBcE 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, PGBcE received another fax stating that we failed the inspection. " I did not Qet anv communication from public. Works via phone. email or fax about the Overhead vs. Under~eround issue after my visit in earTv MaX until my visit to the Cupertino City oflzce 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 conne_ ction to be brought in overhead. 15-2212 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. SO: Overhead vs. Underground Discuissions on Friday b/06/2008: When I got an angry call from my Contractor, I rushed to the PGBcE off ce and then to the City of Cupertino office on F.,riday 6/06/2008 and spent a good part of the day talking to various officials about my situation. ~4fi~er talking~to Yrvian in Public Works department, I went upstairs and Rick Kitson spent time. understanding my situation and helped arrange a meeting with the Chief Building t~cer Greg Casteel. Both Rick and Greg were generous with their time and skipped Zunch to address my situation. ' Response, Vivian Wong: After SO left the office, I wrote an em~ul to Glenn jGoepfert] and cc_ David -[Stillman]. After lunch, SO came back to thb counter <<.sking if paving the street is required. I Iooked 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 i_ t in writing that he's not required to pave to the cuddle 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 req~>;*-~*~g him to afterwards. I apologized that it was overlooked during pmjiect plan check. Later, Greg talked to me ,about the paving requirements, while SO, waited for Greg at the counter, and I told Greg the same that w~~ do not put in writing when a project is not required to be paved to 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 me about this problem and we looked. at the plan check comments that had been • sent to the designer after the 1St and 2°d submittals which- identified that the overheftd 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 thinlang I might be of some assistance. Rick excused himself and I spent basicaIIy the reT*+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 the time o*~+~in*ng what his next steps would be so as to be proactive in getting his project finished_ `~ - _ _ - 15-23 . CIS l Kimberly Smith C~*~nVQ'KCe ~'e9Vts"` From: Sridhar Obilisetty [sridhar1116@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 9:33 AM To: Kimberly Smith Subject: Request for continuance of City C~~uncil Hearing scheduled for 12/02/2008 Ms. Kimberly Smith, Thanks for your time earlier today. As discussed on the phone, can you please continue my City Council Hearing scheduled for today (Decemt~er 02, 2008) to February 17, 2009. My trip back to San lose got postponed due to deaths in the family. The prolonged hostage situation followed by the killings in Mumbai has put many families like ours in distress. I have sporadic access to my voicemail. But, I check my email once a day or so. Please let me know if I need to sign any paperwork/ forms in connection with this continuance request. Sincerely, Sridhar Obilisetty 10171 Lebanon Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Email: sridhar1116(alemail.com