Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Environmental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
National City council unanimously rejects USD Clean Fuels depot after hours of testimony
Summary
After a four‑hour continuation and nearly three hours of new public comment, the National City Council voted unanimously to reject USD Clean Fuels’ proposed rail‑served fuel transfer facility, citing local health, enforceability and environmental‑justice concerns despite applicant concessions on offsets, trees and air filters.
The National City Council voted unanimously on Nov. 4 to reject a proposed USD Clean Fuels transfer facility after an extended public hearing that drew dozens of residents, health professionals and environmental advocates.
The project — proposed for a rail‑served site on the West Side — would have handled biofuels by rail and truck. City staff and the applicant presented five new mitigation conditions at the continued hearing, including a commitment to attain offsets for diesel combustion emissions within five years, a 50% reduction target for diesel PM2.5, distribution of up to 100 portable HEPA air purifiers to nearby residences, a 100‑trees‑per‑year planting program for 10 years, and annual emissions‑reduction status reports beginning 60 days after the second full year of operations. Acting Director of Community Development Martin Reeder reviewed those added conditions for the council and public.
Bill Fierking, who spoke for USD Clean Fuels, described the company’s plan to work with railroads and trucking partners to optimize service, reduce locomotive and truck emissions and expand the local pool of renewable diesel. Fierking said the company would be legally bound by the conditional‑use permit to meet the offset goals and pledged operational controls such as on‑site queuing to limit queuing and idling outside the fence line.
But much of the public testimony focused on the project’s risks to a neighborhood already identified by local advocates and health professionals as overburdened by pollution. Dozens of speakers urged denial, citing the proximity of Kimball Elementary School and the McKinley Apartments, limits of indoor air purifiers for people who spend time outdoors, a lack of local air‑monitoring data, and concerns about relying on offsets and the cooperation of third parties such as BNSF. A number of physicians and medical students urged the council to prioritize children’s health, saying the proposed five‑year phase‑in of some mitigations left residents exposed.
Councilmembers questioned the applicant about operational details — how many truck trips would occur during off‑peak hours, whether trucks and locomotives would run on renewable diesel, how the city would verify reductions, and who would enforce idling and route restrictions. The applicant and consultants described modeling assumptions and emphasized that the EIR analyzed the project under CEQA thresholds; they said some regional benefits were possible but acknowledged much of the modeled particulate impact stemmed from locomotives outside the project’s direct control.
In deliberations, councilmembers said that while renewable fuels and reduced truck miles have potential regional benefits, National City should not bear concentrated pollution risks for a regional gain. Members noted gaps in enforcement capacity, uncertainty about locomotive technology and the limited effectiveness of proposed mitigations for outdoor exposures. On that basis one councilmember moved to reject the project on environmental‑justice and public‑welfare grounds; the motion carried unanimously.
The council made no additional findings of law in the public meeting record beyond the unanimous vote to reject the appeal. Staff will retain the record of the EIR and the written conditions the applicant offered as part of the proceeding.
The project’s opponents said the vote affirmed residents’ concerns about siting polluting infrastructure in already‑impacted neighborhoods; proponents, including a building trades labor representative, said the proposal would have brought jobs and local investment. The city’s formal action ends the appeal hearing for this iteration of the proposal; any future proposal would require its own land‑use and environmental review.
The public hearing portion of item 10.2 opened at the Nov. 4 meeting and included the applicant presentation, council questions, and more than 50 public commenters before the council closed testimony and voted to reject the project.
