News


OPINION: PG&E's arrogance shows again

Utility wants to cut down thousands of trees, including 390 in Pleasanton

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) agreed last week to hold off on implementing its plan to cut down hundreds of trees, including 390 along major thoroughfares in Pleasanton, as part of its robust effort to improve natural gas pipeline safety.

The agreement came after Mayor Jerry Thorne and City Manager Nelson Fialho met with other elected East Bay officials and Eric Figueroa of the League of California Cities to coordinate and consolidate strategy to fight the tree-cutting plan.

PG&E's plan came to light when representatives of the utility, appearing as the new sheriffs of the East Bay, walked into the Pleasanton planning department to obtain permits to start their tree-cutting work. Among those to be uprooted were trees on First Street, Sunol Boulevard, Foothill Road and Stanley Boulevard, including some designated as heritage trees and some 100 years old.

PG&E says it needs to clear-cut its large distribution pipeline corridor along the streets to provide good sightlines for aerial surveys and to protect its 50-year-old pipeline from possible penetrations by tree roots.

Besides Pleasanton, the PG&E tree team sought permits in Walnut Creek (where more than 700 trees are slated to be cut, including many along Locust Street downtown), in Hayward (where more than 1,000 trees would be removed), and also Danville, Concord and Livermore, 15 East Bay cities in all.

Trees, regardless of age, height or type, are on PG&E's tree-cutting chart if roots are within 10 feet of the pipeline. A precise list of sites affected isn't yet known because cities don't know where the pipeline was buried 50 years ago, and PG&E so far has refused to provide a map, worried that terrorists might get hold of it.

PG&E first met with Pleasanton city staff at the utility's request to discuss pipeline maintenance, but instead used the time to announce its intentions to start cutting down the tress. PG&E provided very little information on what trees needed to be removed and why. Nor were its representatives there to answer any questions.

According to Thorne, they seemed intent on letting Pleasanton know that PG&E has the absolute authority to preempt any and all local processes and proceed with tree and brush removal absent any local input or review. Further, they stated that they wanted to start "soon" and to complete the tree removal project within the public right-of-way by June. They also said they would be starting immediately to remove trees located within easements on private property. They told other cities the same thing.

PG&E's agreement to hold up on the tree cutting only applies to the cities involved. The utility plans to forge ahead on private properties and has sent notices to those property owners that it will start immediately.

Not so fast, Pleasanton staff say and has sent its own notices to the same owners advising them of the city's intent to fight the tree-cutting plans, in court if necessary. Property owners who have received notices should contact City Engineer Steve Kirkpatrick for more information.

There's no question that Pleasanton and all other cities where PG&E's large distribution pipelines are buried want the best protection and maintenance possible to protect the population. Given the gas pipeline explosion in 2010 in San Bruno, gas pipeline safety is foremost in everyone's mind.

It's also no doubt a top priority for PG&E, which faces billions of dollars in fines and penalties based on a criminal indictment issued this week.

But it's also fair to ask how trees with fairly shallow roots, with the possible exception of oak and palm trees, threaten a pipeline buried 8-12 feet down. Also, many of the trees targeted by PG&E are much older than the pipeline, which was installed 50 years ago next to the trees that were already there.

In the criminal indictment of PG&E last week, PG&E's failure to document maintenance and repair procedures over the years had a major influence on the grand jurors who voted for the charges. The utility's claim here over possible tree root intrusion and its obstructionist attitude in answering basic questions by Pleasanton and other East Bay city leaders adds to our suspicion of an arrogant operations structure once again.

Pleasanton Weekly staff.

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Apr 7, 2014 at 9:03 am

According to Michael Fulford the cities' Arborist. City owned trees in Pleasanton are valued at more then $50 million. All trees in Pleasanton between the sidewalk and curb and gutter are owned by the city of Pleasanton. There are a number of areas outside of the curb and gutter such as parks that have city owned trees. With that amount of money in the city owned trees. It is reasonable to ask that PG&E compensate the city and any property owners impacted with the removal of any trees. regardless of any right of ways.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rick Nobles
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Apr 7, 2014 at 9:38 am

Hear, hear.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Editors have left the building?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2014 at 4:28 pm

Who the heck wrote this?

"appearing as the new sheriffs of the East Bay"

"Not so fast, Pleasanton staff say"

Is this an op-ed or news story?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Supporter of Jerry
a resident of Danbury Park
on Apr 7, 2014 at 4:55 pm

I really hope our mayor can get this fixed and quickly. PG&E has been kind enough to donate to his political campaigns in the past, so hopefully some of those contacts can be called on to stop this insanity. Although no one could accuse our mayor of being an environmentalist, it's clear to see that this PG&E proposal to destroy our town is so outrageous that even he has got right onto the job to stop it. Fortunately our mayor is a strong leader and he'll reach out to all groups in the community to save our trees.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Editors have left the building?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2014 at 8:44 pm

In search of the all mighty tax dollar, the city will approve over and over again developments that will cut down hundreds of trees (Oak Grove), yet when its own streetside trees are hacked down, they make a big fuss.

Ah, the irony.

Too bad the city would never be able to hire any of the big environmental lawyers to stop this.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tree Hugger
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Apr 7, 2014 at 11:12 pm

Nothing destroys a community like an explosion... And I suppose none of you have ever had roots mess up your plumbing or crack your foundation. I think it's smart to have these pipelines accessible to make the whole community safe. Ask PG&E to plant new trees (away from their lines) or build a park. Why aren't we willing to partner to keep our citizens safe?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Merrill
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Apr 9, 2014 at 8:32 pm

Merrill is a registered user.

This is purely an attempt by PG&E to reduce costs. Published research has shown that root invasion by trees to deep gas pipelines is a non-issue. They want to use only aerial monitoring. Ground-based monitoring by auto equipped with special instruments has been proven in tests by the Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI)to be highly reliable at leak detection as speeds of up to 45 mph. There is absolutely no justification, except cost, for wholesale removal of trees in an urban environment which is easily accessible by ground-based monitoring.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Prop 46: Two Bridges Too Far
By Tom Cushing | 21 comments | 1,674 views

The valley loses a distinguished and humble leader
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,119 views

My secret identity is revealed!
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 1,037 views