Shirley,
As you know, I had discussed the Fresno Elm matter with PG&E and opened friendly negotiations via Ms. Mendell Penn about their assisting us in reparations; specifically, contributing funds for utilities undergrounding, for replacement trees, and replanting costs.
Yesterday (Wed, 9-24-97), Ms. Penn reported to me the results of an internal meeting at PG&E. The meeting included PG&E's legal department. Here is a summary of her report:
Sensing I was suddenly being stonewalled by the PG&E monolith, I saw no sense in quarreling with Ms. Penn who is clearly just a flak-catcher in this matter. I informed her I was working with the Mayor on this issue and the next move would come from the Mayor's office.
That PG&E is complicit in the spread of DED is, I think, a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. In Jerry Kuch's presentation at our neighborhood meeting on 9-4-97, he admitted that the City had concluded the same. At that same meeting, Jerry noted that PG&E was going "to be involved in the removal."
I smell a skunk here. It's clear that the City forestry department discussed this issue with PG&E and cut a deal where PG&E agreed to pay for the removal of the infected trees. I'd like to know what facts were discussed at that meeting, the terms of the deal, and on whose authority this deal was accepted by the City. I'd also like to know the answer to the question Ms. Penn no-commented; namely, why PG&E is paying for the removal of trees if it is not responsible for their death.
You have doubtless heard the expression that "surgeons bury their mistakes." Certainly the same is true of tree surgeons. For this reason, I am concerned that this matter will drag on until the trees have been chopped down, leaving us without a corpus delicti.
I would appreciate a phone call to discuss these new developments.
Sincerely,
Good Morning: Thanks for the update on
your discussions with PG&E. I think you are making some conclusions
concerning my talk with the Fresno Ave residence that are not accurate.
We have no proof that the PG&E pruning had any effect on the spread
of the disease. We discussed the pruning of the trees with PG&E consulting
Foresters since we thought their pruning might have contributed, but we
do not know that it did or didn't.
As to
PG&E assisting in the removal of the trees, this often happens when
there are City trees under utility lines and there is a mutual benefit to
having the trees removed. In cases were there are trees that are dead or
in poor condition and are also under utility lines where PG&E has to
constantly trim the trees to clear the lines, they will often stand the
cost of tree removal and we pay for the grinding out of the stump. These
cooperative removals are both initiated by the City and by PG&E on a
case by case basis. In this instance, when we talked to PG&E about the
pruning of the trees, we also discussed their removal since many of the
trees are under their lines. They agreed to stand the cost of removal if
we took care of the stump removal.
As I wrote
to you before, when the trees are removed, I will be happy to inform you
of the date and time and you may take samples of the wood or inspect any
portion of the tree.
Jerry
Jerry,
You have stated at various times that there is no proof that PG&E caused
the spread of the disease. As we work our way through this, it is important
for you to realize that your idea of what constitutes proof is not necessarily
what is required by law. In fact, the burden of proof in civil negligence
cases is much different from that in criminal ones. Circumstantial evidence,
especially failure to exercise due diligence, has great weight.
Examples of circumstantial evidence:
"When we first detected the signs of DED on Fresno, mainly on the north part of this [the 900] block, our first thought was that it was probably spread by PG&E's clearing of the lines. We contacted their foresters and they said, no, they disinfect the tools between trees. We're not quite convinced of that, but it's also very difficult to prove otherwise."
The very fact that you first thought was that PG&E had spread the disease is itself important circumstantial evidence. What lead you to think that PG&E had spread the disease? When the PG&E foresters claimed that Davey disinfects its tools between trees, did they by any chance describe exactly how one sterilizes a chain saw? Most important, after talking with their foresters, why did you remain "unconvinced?"
I assume that in your discussions with PG&E foresters you determined the exact dates when Davey pruned these trees? For the record, what were those dates?
Could you please tell me the date of removal of the tree at 919 Fresno? Also, what was the date of the lab test proving that the disease on Fresno is, in fact, DED?
FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH: Davey tree was on seen on Saturday taking photos of the trees on Fresno. Irv Hatch of 1136 Fresno asked them if their photos were related to the DED. They responded that they didn't know why they were sent to take photographs. They also opined that there is no DED in Berkeley, and that the closest known case is in Pinole. Simultaneously interesting and scary. I take at face value your explanation that PG&E's assistance in removing the trees is routine.
Joe Campbell
Good Morning: We had a meeting with PG&E concerning the removal of the marked elm trees on Fresno and they have agreed to assis us with the removals. We would like to set a date within the next two weeks. Is there any date that is best for you. I know you are interested in inspecting the wood and if there is any date that would facilitate that, we will try to arrange the removals then. PG&E and myself would also be happy to meet with the neighborhood prior to the removal of the trees. Please let me know if that would be helpfull. The stumps will be ground out by City a contractor in December of this year. Will wait to hear back from you.
Thanks, Jerry