National City delays vote on controversial fuel transfer station amid environmental concerns

The National City Council voted Tuesday to postpone a decision on a proposed fuel transfer station after hours of public testimony and debate over environmental and health impacts.

Councilmembers voted 4-1 to continue the item until Nov. 4, directing staff to work with the developer on potential revisions that could make the project net-zero emissions, said Councilmember Jose Rodriguez, who opposed both the continuation and the project.

“The council voted to carry over the item to November and work with the developer to see if there’s a proposal for a zero-emissions or emissions-neutral project,” Rodriguez said Wednesday after the vote. “But to me, it doesn’t matter how they phrase it — this is just another bad deal for National City.”

The proposal by San Diego Clean Fuels LLC, a subsidiary of USD Clean Fuels, would build a 24-hour facility on 7.5 acres of BNSF Railway land west of Interstate 5 to transfer renewable fuels from rail cars to trucks for regional distribution.

Mayor Ron Morrison, who supported continuing the item, said he entered the discussion without a predetermined stance and wanted to ensure the project is evaluated objectively.

“The facts may show that this is a terrible project,” Morrison said Wednesday. “But at least you need to look at it from the facts, not just from the emotions.”

City staff said the industrial site, previously cleaned under the state’s Toxic Substances Control program, would see about 72 truck trips a day moving 13,800 barrels of fuel, with spill containment and firefighting systems in place.

Although the fuels meet California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, staff said diesel emissions from truck traffic would still affect nearby areas, with homes about 380 feet east and schools roughly a half-mile away across the freeway.

In September, the Planning Commission voted to deny the project, finding it was not “essential or desirable” to the public welfare, could adversely affect nearby properties, and was inconsistent with both the Health & Environmental Justice Element and the city’s Local Coastal Program.

City staff acknowledged the project aligns with some General Plan goals, such as reusing contaminated industrial land, but also noted tensions with policies aimed at reducing hazardous uses near residential areas.

An Environmental Impact Report found health risks “less than significant” and projected 1,633 metric tons of CO₂ annually, below city thresholds, though staff noted the project conflicts with the AB 617 Portside Emissions Reduction Plan calling for major diesel cuts and zero-emission trucks.

The applicant offered to contribute $200,000 annually toward local air-quality projects if the development is approved.

Public testimony reflected sharp divisions between residents and organized labor.

Resident Angelica Estrada, speaking through tears, urged the council to reject the project, citing the health impacts of diesel pollution on families.

“No amount of jobs make up for my children breathing diesel pollution,” Estrada said. “Our kids breathe 79% more diesel pollution than all of the state… $200,000 [is a] slap in the face.”

She called on council members to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and stand with the more than 1,000 community members who signed a petition opposing the project.

Meanwhile, Al Sanchez of Laborers Local 89 spoke in strong support, emphasizing the project’s regulatory review and local job benefits under a Project Labor Agreement.

“We need to base our decisions on facts, not fear,” Sanchez said. “This project was fully reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act. The environmental impact report found no significant environmental impacts that couldn’t be addressed… Clean Fuel SD isn’t perfect, but it’s responsible, regulated, and ready.”

Sanchez said the facility would provide union construction jobs built to “high standards and safety and quality.”

Rodriguez said the proposal reflects a broader pattern of industrial projects being located in National City’s west side, where decades of heavy industry have contributed to elevated asthma and cancer rates.

“It’s the concern of bringing in gas on rail lines, the fact that rail lines derail once in a while,” he said. “Bringing in an additional 70 trucks that burn diesel fuel through National City is the concern. We’re already one of the most polluted cities in the state… This would inevitably increase that.”

Morrison said the continuation allows time for the city, developer, and BNSF Railway to discuss additional emission-reduction measures, including the possible use of cleaner fuels for both locomotives and trucks.

“If we can get BNSF to use this type of cleaner fuel in their engines, that could drastically cut emissions in our area,” he said. “If we can knock off the diesel trucks and the rail yard emissions, it could be a possible winner — but we don’t know until we sit down and talk it through.”