So, where is the pledge from PG&E to plant more trees, or perhaps move existing ones? These trees are valuable resources, not just for shade and carbon sequestration, but aesthetic of our beautiful city as well. I was born and raised here in MV, and the idea that a utility company can mow through and completely change the climate and livability of our city without equal and opposite improvement is quite concerning.

I appreciate them trying not to blow us up like san bruno, but this isnt a Dr Seuss book, and we dont have a Lorax.. Who will speak for these trees???

It would be valuable to have some context, such as knowing what fraction of Mountain View's trees these represent. I estimate there are at least 100,000 trees in our community of 80,000 residents. If so, the removal affects less than three-tenths of a percent of our trees. Unlike the previous commenter, I do not think this is enough to "completely change the climate and livability of our city." I sympathize with those who live next to the trees that will be removed, but I applaud PG&E's increased attention to safety. I recently drove through Santa Rosa where whole neighborhoods burned because of fires started (most likely) by PG&E's poor maintenance practices.

Trees are great. Trees reaching their roots into gas lines, not so great. Let the engineers do their work to keep our city safe from gas leaks and explosions. We can put trees in elsewhere ... even on the roofs of our buildings these days.

Less trees better during winter. No leaves to rake or blow.

Ginko trees the worse in my neighborhood.

Really, Duong? Your response to this important dialogue is to fret about having to rake or blow leaves? Perhaps you'd like to see the trees in your neighborhood removed in the fall, before the leaves fall, and then put back in early spring so you can enjoy the benefits for the next six months until the trees become inconvenient again?

@Bruce Carney

If I recall correctly, Mountain View has something in the area of 30,000 trees on public land, not counting private property. Last month, we wrote a story about the debate over the city's efforts to preserve its tree canopy:

Web Link

Mountain View residents, please take a look: www.savelafayettetrees.org.

There is NO reason for PG&E to take down these trees. Their claims for first responder access is disputed by our fire officials; nobody is going to enter a live leak area until the gas is shut off. Also, tree roots have never cause an accident at an underground transmission pipeline anywhere in the US in the last 20+ years.

PG&E is cooking up bogus claims so they can clear their lines for convenience of doing future patrolling and maintenance work. They have not done a CEQA review, as required by law, and are trying to go from community to community to divide and conquer.

Have your city officials tell PG&E to back off. There's no reason to destroy trees on gas transmission pipeline easements.

Really. They're using their San Bruno disaster as a reason to cut down tree? That tradgedy was caused because PGE couldn't be bothered to keep proper records of their equipment so no one knew the line had welded seams and couldn't take the pressure they were putting on the line.

Oh please stop worry about the trees. They are renewable.

It's your back yard. The pipeline does not have a surface easement to prohibit trees. PG&E should compensate for the loss of value if they take private property. They have ways to inspect the ground that do not require removing trees. They want to fly over with infrared cameras, which is a technology that was not invented when the easement was purchased, and trees were expressly permited in the easements as purchased.

Thank you Michael Dawson! As a wildlife biologist, it greatly concerns me that no CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review has been done. Does the City of Mountain View have any say in this? Do WE have any say in this?

From one Old Timer to another, yes trees are a renewable resource. Do you have 50 years to wait for a newly planted five gallon bucket tree to grow into a a fully mature tree? Once they are gone they make an immense adverse (unless you are Duong, yay, less trees! SMH...) impact on the community for decades.

I wish they would remove the trees just in front of my house. They scrape against the window when the wind is blowing. Squirrels use them to climb onto the roof. I used to have excellent reception from broadcast tv with just an indoor antenna in the window, but now I get pixelation as the trees have grown tall and block the signal.

There is an over fixation on saving trees (or maybe an anti housing growth/commerce strategy). Trees are a renewable resource that you don't have to wait fifty years to enjoy...

Come on people, let PG&E do their job and stop harassing them.

PG&E just wants to cut cost to maintain these trees. They are lazy and greedy, period. These trees are public property bringing natural beauty to our city, no corporation should be allowed to remove them unless approved by majority of the residents here.

Residents in Lafayette are fighting PG&E tree removal because we've lost trust in PG&E safety priorities. We have found pipeline safety lapses that PG&E needs to address - exposed pipeline; lack of pipeline testing; no provision of historic records; no remote gas shut off valves, etc. PG&E is spending $500 million, yes, half a billion dollars on tree removal for first responder access after there is a pipeline emergency! There is no pipeline safety law that mandates PG&E clear their easement row. PG&E was criminally indicted for neglecting pipeline safety law in San Bruno. Trees had nothing to do with that tragedy. First responders were delayed because PG&E could not shut off the gas. PG&E may threaten legal recourse as a bully tactic, but they have yet to publicly document sound legal basis for taking residents to court. Stick together, ask them to be accountable to pipeline safety law first and foremost, not their bottom line.

Some people here advocate that we let PG&E 'do its job', and remove trees that it feels should be removed. That would make sense, if PG&E were a reputable company with our best interests at heart. Alas, that is not the case. PG&E is blatantly greedy, and is clearly only interested in what is cheapest for PG&E. Many experts have already weighed in against all of PG&E's stated justifications. Meanwhile, before PG&E began its 'gentler approach', it was quite open about its true justification, claiming that it has the right to do whatever it wants in order to lower its costs. Since that approach failed, the current approach is to pretend that it is all about safety. I recommend that we have unbiased experts weigh in about the validity of PG&E's claimed justifications and what is best for the city before the city officials agree to let PG&E determine what trees have to go in the pretense of our best interests, rather than in its own best interests.

> Really, Duong? Your response to this important dialogue is to fret about having to rake or blow leaves? Perhaps you'd like to see the trees in your neighborhood removed in the fall, before the leaves fall, and then put back in early spring so you can enjoy the benefits for the next six months until the trees become inconvenient again?


Just remove ginko trees. No trees better in my front yard.

I don't care about your neighborhood or its trees.

Trees clean the air. Without these trees our world gets more polluted. Please plant more green leafy trees.