|
|
|
Uploaded: Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 6:07 PM
Tensions high in PG&E pipeline meeting
|
|
by Daniel DeBolt
Mountain View Voice Staff
Residents had heated exchanges with PG&E officials at a meeting Tuesday evening at San Lucas Way over plans to strip their backyards over a major gas line. Residents said they fear for their safety in case of an explosion like the one in San Bruno in 2010 that killed eight people.
"At first I was upset over trees," said one of the neighbors. "Now I fear for my life."
PG&E officials tried to convince the residents that backyard tree roots, especially of older trees that have been allowed to grow for decades, posed an immediate threat to their safety.
"When the wind blows that tree over and the roots are around that pipe, what do you think is going to happen?" said PG&E official Mike Falk. "It is not going to be pretty sight."
Residents expressed frustration with PG&E's insistence that the pipeline not be relocated to Middlefield Road, requiring them to lose all their trees instead. Neighbors said they were not satisfied with PG&E assurances that the pipeline had been pressure tested and found to be safe. The deadly San Bruno incident "changed everything," said Eileen Telleria.
It feels like PG&E is "budgeting our safety," Telleria said. "If something were to happen when you are not inspecting it, we are dead. Then you will have to do something different."
"I get calls from people telling me they are losing sleep every night because of their fears," said her husband, Beto Telleria.
Since 1944, PG&E has had the 15-foot wide easement, which runs through 16 backyards near San Veron Park for a 24-inch diameter pipeline -- line 132 -- the same line that exploded in San Bruno. As part of renewed safety efforts, PG&E now says numerous older trees have to be removed from over the pipeline, trees which have provided shade and a sense of comfort for decades.
"I just don't want anybody walking out of here with the idea that the first thing we should do is remove the pipeline," said Falk.
"You said it was an option," said one resident. "No one told us it was an option."
Easement debate
The utility company wants the easement to be clear to allow an aerial view for laser-equipped aircraft to inspect the pipeline, which now done monthly, Falk said. But neighbors say PG&E doesn't have a right to an aerial view in their easement agreement because such technology didn't exist in 1944. Instead they say it can be inspected on foot.
Eileen Telleria claimed that the easement agreement actually did not mention trees.
"We don't agree we are violating the easement," neighbor Dennis Goldwater said. "The easement makes it clear trees are allowed."
He said he would like to know how much money it could cost to relocate the gas line because "you are facing an expensive legal fight. Compensating us for the cost of changing our agreement will be enormous."
Same story
At the meeting it was made clear that any structure, tree or piece of vegetation over 18 inches in height could pose a problem for the pipeline, which is buried several feet under their backyards.
"We could show you pictures that would really scare you of what we've found in the last four months," Falk said. "Living, breathing vegetation emits acid into a water-filled soil. That's not good for bare steel."
One neighbor said a realtor "guaranteed" that the known existence of the pipeline would mean a sharp drop in the price of her home, but PG&E officials said that wasn't the case.
"Why does a small group like us have to pay the ultimate price for our city?" said the neighbor, who didn't want to be named. "Why can't you just ante up and get this thing out of our yards so we get to live the way our neighbors get to?"
The meeting was called by public works director Mike Fuller as a way to make sure all the residents were told "the same story" by PG&E. Goldwater claimed PG&E had been trying the "divide and conquer" approach in meeting with each household, while others claimed PG&E was "bullying" them by threatening to dig up the pipe and kill their trees, and "lying" to them about the cost of moving the pipeline, quoted to some as costing $1 million a foot. "Really? Do you think we're that stupid?" said one neighbor.
Kenneth Hauck, a resident of a condo complex at 1963 Rock Street, also raised concerns about losing several smaller trees that screen his backyard because they sit over another gas pipeline, line 109. Falk said that line is set to be relocated next year.
"I'm still going to lose every tree in my backyard even though you are going to be taking the pipeline out," Hauck said.Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Mike H., a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2012 at 7:49 pm While tree roots can damage pipeline coatings, I would be interested in what the results of coating checks on this pipeline are like. Residents have fought other pipelines about tree removal along right of ways, but, often the Courts have sided with pipelines. It is troubling that PG&E waited so long to do tree clearings, since other pipelines have done tree clearings for years before now.
I would also like to know how much of Line 132 has been field checked to see if it was of poor quality welding & steel, like in San Bruno.
|
|
Posted by David, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2012 at 7:56 pm How can PG&E expect to be taken seriously? One one hand they're saying it's an impending threat, on the other they've ignored it for 50 years, and on yet a third they say that it's safe. Which is it, and why the need to produce so many conflicting tales?
|
|
Posted by eileen, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2012 at 8:18 pm To be clear, it was discussed that with the trees gone and everything the way PGE wants it, the pipe is old and damaged and the same material that at some point failed 2 years ago, but clearly had passed the tests for safety prior to the explosion, is laying 6-8 feet from children's bedrooms and grandparents bedroom and parents bedrooms. This pipe can spontaneously explode like it did 2 years ago. The difference is PGE has an opportunity to do something better and they are deciding not to. The company is willing to take a chance on our lives and are satisfied that the tests they did for San Bruno before it blew up is good enough for this pipe in Mountain View that can easily kill us.Mike from PGE kept saying the test showed the pipe was good NOW...(not tomorrow.)always... now.PGE agreed their idea is better, not best. They have a chance to do best...they have decided there is no value to them to do best...I would think the pain and agony of our San Bruno family would be enough reason to now do best.Very sad.
|
|
Posted by Eileen, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2012 at 8:46 pm One more thought and then I will be silent. We were challenged by PGE to read the fineprint of the original easement and chasdised that we were not educated in it. So I did. and it became clear to me why this seemed so surprising. No one had the pipe mentioned in the easement on their title. From the county the original easement does mention the pipe does mention that PGE can have access to maintain does mention they are not allowed to disturb our property without putting back the way it was and mentions "no structures." The easement discussion for the poles clearly stated that trees had to be trimmed. Regarding the Pipe easement there can be "no structure" period. Trees are fine. and if they destroy anything they have to pay. So we were all living according to the PGE easement. PGE now is asking us to change it. Please no we are not being selfish. We are aware at some point wisdom has to take over not just the money and power.
|
|
Posted by Beto, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 1:14 am If PGE understood that the Good is the enemy of the Best, they would move gas lines from every homeowners yard in the Bay Area and dedicate this to those who have
suffered from loss, grief, and injury secondary to the San Bruno Explosion.
The result? Some measure of the Sting of this Suffering may be ameliorated. And, as for C.E.O. Anthony Early's objective of establishing a new PGE that truly does put safety first? Done. Finished. Fait accompli.
Everyone would then respect PGE and hold it high. Early could be proud.
|
|
Posted by kman, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 2:23 pm I say we stop all gas flow within the bay area.
There is really no reason I can see that we need gas for. Gas stoves, are a thing of the past, they are electric now. Water heater, well why not make them electric. Gas heaters should go too.
Just like the old days with the gas street lights, all gas appliances should go.
Can anyone tell me why we should keep such an explosive gas under our homes and roads?
|
|
Posted by Guest, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 2:36 pm Why bother moving the pipelines to middlefield? How about these houses on middlefield? Don't be so selfish. If you don't like it and are willing to live without GAS, draft a petition and collect the signatures.
Regarding property value, you bought the problem. I feel your pain but you should have done the research before the purchase. If it's not disclosed properly, then sue the previous owner or the government.
|
|
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 3:46 pm Mob mentality has overtaken property rights in Mountain View; i.e., what the majority wants, the majoriy gets, regardless of property rights, contractual rights, etc.
|
|
Posted by the_punnisher, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 4:07 pm I've got an idea:
If Perennial Gouger & Extortion would only BUY all the affected properties AT MARKET VALUE, and start having their management people REQUIRED TO LIVE ON THE PROPERTIES THEY BOUGHT, would that start solving the " claimed " problems with the pipeline? ( every utility I've had to deal with HAS LIED TO ME, PERSONALLY. I won't bore you with the details, unless people want it )
In Sweden, the government forces every industry to build their water intakes DOWNSTREAM from the waste water they put out. Having PG&E executives forced to live on top of their pipelines is a similar idea.
Criminal charges should have been levied in the San Bruno disaster. Ignorance of the ( natural ) law is no excuse. Moreover the lack of ( or destroyed ) records means that culpable negligence is involve, or in a MURDER trial, it's called PREMEDITATED.
From an engineering standpoint, relocation of the pipeline to major thoroughfares is what has been done before; examples of this are all over the Denver Metro Area.
The other party that might have been a factor is the developer that tore down ( if the underground pipeline were properly marked ) all the gas line placement sign's into the areas BEFORE the realtor/developer was involved in the creation of new housing.
The developers are probably gone and their companies liquidated..
They could be considered the " accomplices who got away". However PG&E created the hazard, now they don't want to spend the $millions THAT RATEPAYERS HAVE BEEN GIVING THEM TO MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE!
It's time to pay the piper ( I know, that is a sick pun ) for the MURDERS that PG&E has perpetrated on California citizens.
I was there when radicals bombed the local PG&E substations; I didn't think that they had a clear motivation to do so. Now they do. Think about it.
|
|
Posted by Yolanda, a resident of another community, on Oct 4, 2012 at 8:11 pm Opportunity to make your voice heard. Help to link profits to accountability by signing the petition to decrease the profits PG&E will be granted by the CPUC. Our utility bills will be increased based on the amount of profits they are granted. For the first time ever, the CPUC is allowing public input. We only have a week to get this message across and we need at least 100 signatures. Web Link#
|
|
Posted by Eileen, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2012 at 8:12 pm For those who wonder, we ARE the houses on Middlefield. None of us would consider having this affect another group of families. Middlefield is in front of us.A park would be between us. The idea is have it be in a place that allows easier access and all of us a bit more of a chance to escape if something were to happen. And yes all of us did buy this. We were happy trusting PGE would not create such an unsafe situation in a tiny backyard. I believe they thought they had, until San Bruno. And coming upon a home that has not changed in 50 years there is an expectation that this is allowable and the way it should be. reading further into our easement, it confirmed we are right and the way are homes and yards are is just as the easement allows. PGE needs to change our easement to fit their needs.Again, it is safety, safety, safety, for PGE also...can you imagine how these people would feel if San Bruno happened again on their watch? Just a thought.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
