18 ATTACHMENT 03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Hpr ua ua u;~: ~~p J M Sesundo 9254549985 p, 1 Description of Complaint Concerning Water Tank at 481 Roacha Residence After reviewing the description of Mrs. Roacha's well water storage tank report there are many fallacies I must address. First, is the fact that the old water shed did not need to be replaced. The fact of the matter was that she did not like the location or the way the unit looked. She was looking to purchase a maintenance free tank after tearing down the old unit. Secondly, the location of the new tank could have easily been docated at the far rear of her property and had no damage to any additional running of the booster pump. Thus, _ -- epmg e an c ose tot ewe ea meant ess out o poc et expense. I am aware of _ this as I too used Dan 's Water and Well and was able to speak directly to him about the Roacha's installation. His comment was that he was surprised she tore the old unit down as she could have f:xed the tank or he could have used it for another job other than her destroying it. Also, when asking him about the direct pump line length and it's location it would have made no difference to the booster pump if it had been SO feet away or 10 feet away from the well head. He also added that the pad was not concrete so other than the cost of the tank itself it was a rather inexpensive repair to start with. If it was relocated the cost to do so would be fairly cheap. I must also add that Ivan, the owner of Dan 's Water and Well, was only present at the job site after the install was complete to fix a stickingfloat level and never spoke directly to Mrs. Roacha. I know this; 1 spoke with him Tuesday 4/8/08 about this whole ordeal. Finally, the residence is plumbed to city water and the front landscaping and horse trough are the only water ways feeding from the tank not the whole property which disregards the 10, 000 gallons a day usage. As far as any careful considerations concerning my property and it's preservation I feel Mrs. Roacha made this unpermitted placement of the water tank in malice after a brief discussion the two of us had prior to the tanks install. During this conversation she informed of a water tank being installed and that it would be placed in the estimated area it now sits. 1 expressed my concern of its placement being at my properties frontage and asked her to consider a smaller unit as well as moving it to the rear of my garage's end 1 explained that it would be lower in height and less of an eye sore for me to look at. 1 also told her that if she placed it in that location 1 would assist helping pay for some foliage to make it even more incognito. The response was of dismay as she said quoted" I am a good neighbor trying to raise my son as a single widowed mother and have done nothing but improve this land... 1 don't know what to do... you have your R. Y. parked in an area where a friend of mine complains of it being unsightly from the courts view. " At the time 1 had no idea what this had to do with the placement of her water tank other than it being a big eye sore for the court home owners. This also brings up the issue of a new fence installed court side from my property which only opens up ground level to 6 feet of plain view. In other words, a water tank standing 12 feet tall would still be seen whether a deer fence or a solid wood fence existed. Also, the redwood tree line installed was done prior to any removal of my tree removal as well as the water tank's installation. The trees were installed after a fence line was relocated and was never discussed for any "screening purposes "other than for Mrs. Roacha to have a definitive property line and quote " helping keep the dust down ". The reality was more for her privacy as she also told the Pleasanton Police Department she did not want to speak with me any longer after a second encounter which 1 must add was civil from my end but again on her terms as she could not talk to me or look at me and has not since. ~ i ~~ p _ 7~ S _'..''~