PG&E meets with Contra Costa supervisors about tree removal plan

Board: More information needed before utility moves forward with proposal to remove hundreds of trees from county property

Members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors said Tuesday that they would need more details from PG&E before the utility moves forward with a proposal to remove hundreds of trees from county property as part of a larger tree and vegetation removal plan to boost access to its gas pipeline network.

The board was the latest government entity to hear from PG&E about its controversial Pipeline Pathway Project, which in recent months has angered and concerned some East Bay residents and city leaders who say PG&E cannot unilaterally cut down trees.

The public indignation over the proposal has prompted PG&E to slow down the plan and utility officials have agreed not to cut down any trees before reaching agreements with cities and counties.

However, utility officials say removing vegetation and even some small structures such as free-standing garages over the utility's gas pipeline is essential for public safety -- one of PG&E's top priorities in the wake of the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion that killed 8 people and damaged some three dozen homes.

PG&E Vice President Kirk Johnson addressed the Board of Supervisors at its meeting in Martinez Tuesday about the dangers trees and their roots pose to the pipeline.

Johnson said that for decades, the utility has been "too customer-friendly," allowed property owners to plant trees too close to the pipeline and has been lax on reinforcing previously existing guidelines about planting trees above the pipeline.

Now, he said, PG&E has seen that "tree roots have the ability to interfere with the safety and protection of our pipeline from external corrosion -- corrosion impacts the integrity of the pipeline."

In addition, trees situated just above the pipeline make it difficult for workers to access and maintain the line and check for any safety issues, he said.

Still, PG&E officials have pledged to slow the five-year, $500 million tree removal plan until they have inked agreements with the cities, counties and private property owners involved.

"It will take a while to get there but this is what we would like to see to eliminate the risk," he said.

PG&E has put up thousands of line markers and signs to clearly mark the pipeline and is dispatching patrols and sending out mailers to boost awareness of keeping pipeline access areas clear, he said.

Debra Mason, a Bay Point resident who spoke at Tuesday's meeting, agreed that removing the trees is necessary.

"It's sad to see an oak tree go...but I think we have to put the people and our community's safety first," she said.

However, several other speakers said removing the trees would significantly downgrade their homes.

"To clear that pipeline would be ruinous to our community, it would ruin our property values, it would ruin our ambiance," said Pleasant Hill resident Yehudit Lieberman.

Susan Fuller, who lives along the Iron Horse Trail in Pleasant Hill, asked PG&E to consider alternatives to removing the oak trees that line the yards in her neighborhood.

County staff Tuesday said that PG&E must provide more specifics about where they plan to remove trees before it can work with the utility on the proposal.

— Bay City News Service


Like this comment
Posted by Frankly
a resident of San Ramon
on May 2, 2014 at 6:36 am

As they begin to discuss the PG6E tree removal for safety sake, RECALL that the PUC as well as all other agencies which investigated the San Bruno mammoth fire, THEY ALL CONCLUDED:

it was faulty seam wedling from day one and NOT TREE ANYTHING!!!!!

Total disregard, total failure to do due process, total lack of public interest then AS NOW, total disregard for any safety rules to protect the public with the resulting disaster.

NOW they want to cut down trees!!!! WHY???

Cut out the wasteful management which failed in their responsibility!!!!


For ALL THESE FAILURES, no retirement funds to them; no bonuses to them; no rewarding for failing to do the most demanding decision making job to protect the public.

If a retirement is still sought, then a minimal one as evidence that a public agency does care, does perform, does protect, will execute its ethical, moral(what is this word?) responsibility to the public.

All to point out that carelessness is not the domain of PG&E nor its badge of courage!!!!!

Personal gain at the total expense of the public is not what a publicly allowed agency is allowed to exist.

Now, lets hear from all the PG&E personnel as well as retirees

Surely you knew and know about failure then but maybe it was a total coverup then and perhaps now.

May good workers be rewarded well, and may they retire with total compensation but not at the expense of lack of due process in performing a highly responsible and at times a hidden resulting job.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Monte Vista High School

on Jun 5, 2017 at 11:06 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Salami, Salami … Baloney
By Tom Cushing | 29 comments | 843 views