National City council continues decision on proposed rail‑to‑truck fuel transfer facility after heated public hearing

The National City City Council on Wednesday continued its decision on an appeal of a proposed rail‑to‑truck fuel transfer facility after hours of public comment, testimony from agency experts, and a lengthy applicant presentation.

The project, proposed by San Diego Clean Fuels (USD Clean Fuels), would add rail spurs and a transfer terminal adjacent to BNSF tracks to offload renewable fuels from railcars into trucks for regional distribution. Staff told the council the final environmental impact report (EIR) analyzed project operations, including a modeled maximum of 72 truck entries per day and a facility throughput of roughly 13,800 barrels per day. Planning division analyst David Welch said the EIR found no significant impacts after mitigation and recommended certification of the document as compliant with CEQA.

“We analyzed air quality, health risk, truck routing, coastal consistency and mitigation,” Welch said. “With the mitigation and operational conditions proposed, staff found the project would not result in significant unmitigated impacts.”

The applicant’s representatives said the proposal would reduce long‑haul truck miles into the San Diego region by moving bulk deliveries by rail and increase the supply of renewable diesel and other low‑carbon fuels. “Our modeling shows this project eliminates about 2,400,000 long‑haul truck miles per year and reduces particulate pollution regionally,” Bill Fierking, principal for USD Clean Fuels, told the council. He added the company would provide an annual community benefit payment and follow conditions required by the city.

Opponents — including neighborhood groups, public‑health advocates and the National City School District — said the facility would concentrate diesel and rail emissions in an already heavily burdened neighborhood on the city’s West Side. “We are not a testing ground,” said Amy Castaneda of the Environmental Health Coalition, which submitted petitions and technical letters arguing the EIR understates cumulative and localized health risks. Multiple residents described asthma, cancer, and daily diesel exposure in the area and urged the council to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial.

Public safety officials said they had not approved the project but that the fire department had worked with the applicant to identify site‑specific firefighting needs, including specialized foam suppression capabilities and training. “We are ensuring the project, should it be permitted, includes the necessary fire‑protection systems and training,” Division Chief Robert Hernandez said.

Council members debated two approaches: denying the appeal and sustaining the Planning Commission’s decision, or continuing the item to negotiate stronger conditions that would reduce or eliminate local net pollution. After deliberation, council voted 4–1 to continue Item 10.2 to Nov. 4 and directed staff to work with the applicant to develop enforceable conditions — including a phased path toward zero‑emission delivery vehicles, stronger truck‑route enforcement, additional air monitoring, community mitigation funding, and tightened operational limits — to address the localized pollution burden and safety concerns.

Vice Mayor Bush, who seconded the motion to continue, said staff and the applicant should return with concrete, enforceable measures. “We need to explore what it would take to get to net‑zero local emissions,” she said. Councilmember Rodriguez voted no on the continuance, saying he preferred denying the appeal outright and upholding the Planning Commission’s finding.

Next steps: staff will coordinate with the applicant to craft specific, enforceable conditions for council review on Nov. 4. The council separately may consider certification of the EIR as a factual document before the subsequent action on permits; certification does not itself authorize project construction.