Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge council to block proposed fuel transfer station and question Sweetwater Road approvals

National City City Council · May 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Multiple residents and community groups urged the council to reject a proposed USDG fuels transfer station and criticized recent handling of the Sweetwater Road gas station project, citing air pollution, truck traffic and alleged public-records problems.

A sizable group of public commenters used the National City council meeting to press elected officials to oppose a proposed fuel transfer station and to raise concerns over the Sweetwater Road gas-station project and related public-records handling.

Claire Grebner (speaker 18), associate director at an education nonprofit and representative of the National City Healthy Culturas Coalition, said a Texas-based fuel transfer project would concentrate diesel-particulate emissions on the city’s West Side and increase truck traffic within 0.3 miles of Kimball Elementary and Saint Anthony’s Church. "This project would increase truck traffic and lung damage and pollution, and impact our clean air goals," Grebner said, adding that National City’s 2024 climate action plan calls for heavy-duty trucks to electrify substantially by 2030–2050.

Multiple speakers linked the Sweetwater Road project to procedural concerns: they alleged missing public records and questioned whether the city had adequately disclosed communications and depositions in a related matter. One commenter asked the council to direct the city attorney and mayor’s office to produce records and permit forensic review of devices that may contain responsive communications.

Council did not take action on the projects at the meeting; staff and council members acknowledged the public concern and noted upcoming planning-commission and permit processes. Several councilmembers asked staff to follow up on enforcement and procedural questions and confirmed the projects would return to formal review forums where environmental and land-use requirements apply.