Carson council introduces updated pipeline franchise ordinance after heated public comments; vote 3–2
Loading...
Summary
City staff proposed a comprehensive update to the pipeline franchise ordinance (Ord. 26‑2603) — switching from volumetric to linear‑foot fees and increasing projected annual franchise revenue from about $1.8M to $3.2M — after months of stakeholder outreach. Labor and industry groups urged delay; council voted 3–2 to introduce the ordinance for first reading.
Carson city staff presented a comprehensive rewrite of the city's pipeline franchise ordinance (Ord. 26‑2603) on Feb. 3, 2026, proposing new integrity testing and mapping requirements, changes to insurance and deposit rules, and a conversion of the fee basis from volumetric measurement to linear feet. City consultants said the change would raise the city's pipeline franchise revenue estimate from about $1.8 million to roughly $3.2 million annually.
The proposal was presented by Special Projects Manager James Wynn and consultant Luis Perez of Everest Environmental, who outlined multiple concessions made after stakeholder outreach. "We reduced the pollution liability requirements significantly," Perez said, and the draft allows letters of credit in lieu of performance bonds, a tiered and refundable application deposit, partial releases of compliance deposits for demonstrated good performance, and a 60‑day extension for pipeline replacement deadlines for force‑majeure events. Perez also described the new requirement that franchisees provide the city with copies of integrity tests submitted to the State Fire Marshal and updated GIS mapping for all lines in city streets.
Industry and labor representatives urged more time to negotiate. Ramin Ross, senior manager for the Western States Petroleum Association (WISPA), told the council the ordinance "duplicates existing federal and state oversight" and expressed concern that the change prioritizes revenue over operational practicality. Several union and refinery workers requested a 30‑day continuance to allow bargaining and further review; Tommy Favai of the Los Angeles/Orange County Building Trades urged good‑faith negotiations and more outreach.
Supporters on the dais and from the audience countered that the ordinance is long overdue. Resident Diane Thomas said the city had not updated the ordinance since 1978 (with a 1995 amendment) and urged the council to move forward: "When you finally get it, you deserve what you get," she said.
Council debate centered on whether to continue the item 30 days for further stakeholder negotiation or to introduce it for first reading that evening. The mayor (presiding officer) offered a motion to introduce Ord. 26‑2603 for first reading with full reading waived, noting that the ordinance would not take effect for 30 days and stakeholders could meet with staff in the interim. The motion carried on a 3–2 vote.
The ordinance as presented would: change the fee basis from cubic‑foot volumetrics to linear feet; increase the illustrative franchise fee from $4.10 to $4.62 in staff's example materials; require annual certification of pipeline compliance and copies of integrity inspections; add GIS mapping and reporting requirements; impose a cap on liquidated damages and permit partial releases of compliance deposits; and create administrative fees to recover city administrative costs. Staff indicated the city compared insurance requirements with other jurisdictions and made several concessions after outreach.
Next steps: Ord. 26‑2603 was introduced for first reading (title only). The ordinance will return to the council for a second reading/adoption (or additional action) consistent with municipal procedure; the 30‑day effectiveness window gives industry and stakeholders time to meet with staff and raise follow‑up concerns.
Actions and vote summary: The council moved to introduce Ord. 26‑2603 for first reading; the substitute motion carried 3–2. The transcript records the motion and the tally but does not provide an itemized roll‑call vote in the public record excerpt.
