Antioch Council denies natural gas pipeline appeal
Mentions opportunity to negotiate new franchise agreement
Company’s attorney refutes City staff’s portrayal of continued operation during litigation
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 4-0 to deny the Encroachment Permit Appeal of California Resources Pipeline Company, LLC (CRPC), owner of the low-pressure, natural gas pipeline that runs under the city and has been shut off since 2021. (See related articles here, here and here)
In introducing the public hearing on the matter, under item #6 on the agenda, Antioch Public Works Director and City Engineer Scott Buenting said, “An Encroachment Permit is not the appropriate process.”
Dean Persinger,Vice President of Operations and Ester Brawley, VP of Technical Operations for California Resources Pipeline Company (CPRC) provided the company’s presentation.
He said the company applied for the Encroachment Permit “to maintain the right-of-way.”
Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger spoke on behalf of the City saying, “The City requests the city council denies the appeal and uphold the decision of the City Engineer.”
“An encroach permit is not the appropriate approach for this long-term encroachment…for a project of this magnitude. It’s normally used for a short time and limited scope,” he explained. “They wanted to continue to pump gas…when before in order to do that they had to through the franchise agreement process.”
Kundinger also pointed out the company continued to operate the pipeline although the city council majority in 2021
“Even if you were to find the process is appropriate, CRPC failed to comply with the code,” Kundinger added. “This was an end route around” the council’s decision to not renew the franchise agreement, he stated.
Public Comments
During public comments, resident Harry Thurston spoke of his concerns about safety as the pipeline runs near homes and Sutter Delta Medical Center.
Bob Brown spoke next “on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association” about the “safety and jobs” and that “The pipeline is safe and well-maintained. “Safe and reliable energy are essential” and asked the council to allow it to resume operations.
Resident Mark Jordan said, “This is a situation where both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The last council and a group of people decided we didn’t want petrochemicals running through our city. If it’s not organic, it’s not stone…it has petrochemicals in it. To believe that we don’t need pipelines is wrong.
“We’ve been told that they ran gas through that pipeline after they were denied. That’s disconcerting,” he continued.
“Where you are is, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. You’ve been in court running up bills,” Jordan stated. “You want it solved? You put them in a room with a representative from the city and mediator. I’ll do it.”
“They’re going to have to pay a penalty for using that pipeline after they no longer had a franchise agreement,” he continued. “I support giving them a franchise agreement. The way to go is ‘what’s in it for us’? They’ll pay, because they want it and because they make $3 billion a day (as an industry). We need petrochemicals and they need their pipeline. They can just load up a thousand trucks and run them down our street and there’s nothing you can do to stop them? What’s the better way to move the petrochemicals?”
“He wants to cut a deal. Let’s do it,” Jordan concluded.
Timothy Jeffries spoke on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers saying, “I’m here as a worker…maintaining this infrastructure. It supports high-quality jobs, family-supporting wages…right here in this city.”
Resident Jan Warren said, “I want to support Harry Thurston’s comments. I hear these same stories at the Air District, the legislature bill sessions. I don’t believe any job is being created here in Antioch by that 8.5-mile pipeline.”
“Thank you, City Attorney and City Manager for saying, ‘no’ when they didn’t follow the rules,” she continued. “They’re trying to work their way around. It’s time to deny…this appeal.”
Former Councilman Ralph Hernandez said, “I’m with the City, the appeal should be denied” claiming it’s “a very dangerous transportation of natural gas. Don’t let a big corporation come here and basically bribe you with what they want. I don’t know what the potential danger these pipelines create. Think of the city and its safety and whether it’s a good thing or not.”
Mark Hughes said by Zoom (which is now allowed by state law), “I’m the Executive Director of the Industrial Association…in the Bay Area…in support of the encroachment permit.” He also mentioned, “California has the strictest…regulations in the nation and the world.”
“It actually results in an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions,” he added.
Resident Frank Sterling, also speaking via Zoom, said, “I’m going to speak out against the pipeline.” He referred to the explosion of the pipeline in San Bruno. “I’m just against it.”
APOC Vice Chair Devin Williams said, “I’m against this pipeline, as well. I actually live in District 4 and there’s a pipeline running through my community.”
Resident Andrew Becker spoke last during comments saying, “I’ve lived next to this pipeline for the past 30 years…and what I really think about is…the only thing I’ve really seen changed is the sidewalks lift and cracked, yet there’s yellow stakes telling us there’s a pipeline undergound. I can assume it’s being maintained.”
He mentioned his appliances being gas powered and said, “Should this pipeline go away and other pipelines go away, my bill’s just going to go higher and higher.”
“Somebody in this city is not negotiating properly. Along with maintaining the pipeline, maybe they can plant some flowers,” Becker concluded.
CRPC Attorney Refutes City Staff’s Comments on Continued Use of Pipeline
The proponent had five minutes for a rebuttal comment in which their attorney used it to explain the company’s continued use of the pipeline after the council denied the renewal of the franchise agreement for its use in 2021.
Michael Mills, outside counsel to CRPC mentioned “a letter sent to staff and council, yesterday. Most importantly, it’s been now, almost five years, that the prior council decided to reject the franchise agreement. Since then, there’s been litigation.”
“The company negotiated a series of extensions to continue to operate the pipeline,” he explained. “The judge invited the City to enjoin the company from operating the pipeline during the legal challenge, but it did not do so.”
“Up until the point the company lost the legal challenge to the denial the company operated the pipeline. It wasn’t correctly stated in the staff report,” Mills pointed out.
“The company very much wants to work out something with the City,” the company’s attorney stated. “That’s the entire reason we’re here asking you for this permit.”
Council Discussion and Decision to Uphold Staff Denial
During council discussion, District 3 Councilman Don Freitas said, “The issue for the council is on the recommended action. Is an Encroachment Permit appropriate? The answer is ‘no’.”
“It’s simply about whether an Encroachment Permit is the proper process,” Kundinger said.
“I do think it’s creative,” Freitas stated. “Let’s not make it difficult. Let’s not bring in these other issues.”
“The company is not precluded from asking the city to sit down and discuss a franchise agreement,” he continued.
“The company has not been operating the pipeline for several years,” Freitas stated.
“I cannot confirm or deny if they have been using it. I have no personal knowledge,” Kundinger responded.
“How much in mitigation fees would we get?” District 4 Councilwoman Wilson asked.
“I believe the original was $75,000,” Kundinger said. That was from 2016-21. “Those were amounts fixed by agreement.”
“If a franchise agreement were in place, then an encroachment permit would be appropriate?” Mayor Ron Bernal asked.
“Permission could be given through a franchise agreement, yes,” Kundinger responded.
The motion by Freitas to uphold the city staff denial of the encroachment permit passed 4-0.
the attachments to this post:
CRPC’s Union Island Pipeline map
