Written Public Comment — National City City Council, October 7, 2025

From: Bianca Cotero
To: Public Comment
Subject: General Public Comment: Running path in National City Date: Sunday, October 5, 2025 1:31:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear City Council,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing on behalf of residents in the National City area to request the development of a safe and well-lit running path in our community.

At present, our area lacks a designated space for walking, jogging, or running—particularly one that remains safe and accessible during early morning or evening hours. As a result, many residents are either discouraged from exercising outdoors or are forced to use streets and unlit areas, which pose significant safety risks due to poor visibility and traffic concerns.

A dedicated running path with proper lighting would encourage more people to stay active and improve their overall health and well-being. It would also promote a greater sense of community, as neighbors come together in a shared space designed for fitness and recreation.

We believe this investment would be widely appreciated and well-used by individuals and families alike.

We appreciate the city’s ongoing efforts to improve public spaces.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Warm regards,
Bianca Cotero
National City resident for 30 years
*HQHUDO&RPPHQW
From: David Garcia
To: Public Comment
Subject: URGENT: Persistent Blight and Safety Hazard at 2316 Highland Ave Date: Saturday, September 20, 2025 8:58:04 AM
Attachments: IMG_0293.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.

My name is David, and I live in National City. I am here tonight to speak about a critical issue that has been ignored for far too long: the abandoned property at 2316 Highland Avenue.

For over twenty years, this building has been a symbol of urban decay in our community. It is a public nuisance, a safety hazard, and a visual blight that stands in stark contrast to the small businesses it sits across from. This isn't just an aesthetic problem; it's a drag on our property values and a missed opportunity for economic development.

I have submitted a formal complaint to city staff, but I am now appealing directly to you, our city leaders. We must hold the property owner accountable. This building needs to be fixed or sold so that it can once again contribute to our city's prosperity.

I urge you to take immediate action. The residents and business owners of National City deserve better than this.

David Garcia Ozua
From: Marissa Cuevas
To: Public Comment; Clerk; [email protected]
Cc: Michael Aguirre; Maria Severson; Alexander Gutterud Subject: Written Comment - Regular City Council Meeting 10/7/2025 Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 10:35:15 AM
Attachments: 2025-10-6 Letter to Mr. Foley via email.pdf Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Greetings,
Please find attached Public Written Comment for October 7, 2025, Regular City Council Meeting. Please confirm receipt of documents. If you have any trouble accessing the pdf attached, please let me know. Thank you.

Best regards,
Marissa E. Cuevas
Paralegal

AGUIRRE & SEVERSON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Ste. 1050
San Diego, CA 92101
Office 619.876.5364
[email protected]

AGUIRRE & SEVERSON, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Michael J. Aguirre, Esq.
[email protected]
Maria C. Severson, Esq.
[email protected]
Alexander M. Gutterud, Esq.
[email protected]
501 West Broadway, Suite 1050
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone (619) 876-5364
Facsimile (619) 876-5368
Via Email
October 6, 2025
Morgan L. Foley, Esq.
[email protected]
McDougal Boehmer Foley Lyon et al,
8100 La Mesa Blvd. Ste. 200,
La Mesa, CA 91942-6476
Re: Micaela Polanco v. The City of National City;
San Diego Superior Court Case No. 25CU022948C
Dear Mr. Foley:

BACKGROUND
In 2019, the City of National City changed the land use designations of five properties at Sweetwater Road and Orange, approximately 34,000 square feet, from RS-2 Low-Medium Density to MXD-2 Major Mixed Use identified in the table below:

The general plan amendment and zoning changes were made June 18, 2019. Ms. Polanco contends the land use changes applied only to these properties and thereby disturbed the tenor of the adjoining residential neighborhood.

October 6, 2025

Page 2 ends

There is no current discretionary permit in effect (e.g., conditional use permit) as all have been allowed to lapse and thereby expire. In April 2023, the developer renewed permits to construct a 5,500 square-foot commercial center and to operate with a drive-through business, with renderings for the project showing a Starbucks coffee shop.

On December 5, 2024, the developer sent a text, provided in pertinent part below, to the National City Manager (Benjamin Martinez) admitting that the decision to allow the permits to expire was based on the City’s support of a new, five-times larger project to be built on the same parcel. The new project consists of a conditional use permit and three variances for the construction of a (1) 12-pump service station, (2) convenience store with off-sale alcohol, (3) drive-through car wash, (4) drive-through eating place, and (5) five residential units with retail use. When the National City Planning Commission disapproved of the new project on December 2, 2024, finding it to be a public health nuisance (“Public Health Nuisance Project”), the developer texted the National City Manager on December 5, 2024:

Ben, How are you? Can you please contact me back. We need to speak about the existing CUP for Sweetwater & Orange. We need to do whatever we can to renew it. We allowed it to expire because we thought our proposed project was going to replace it because we put so much work and had support from the City but now we are in a battle that we didn't expect. We need to make sure we can at least at the minimum build what was approved before.

The Mayor and his assistant guided the Public Health Nuisance Project to obtain a false and misleading staff report recommending the National City Planning Commission approve the project, as shown in the table below:

No. Date Description Source
1 1/22/2024
Mayor, Assistant, City Manager
Meet Brikho Service Station Attachments:
2305 BRIKHO CUP SUBMITTAL SET 4-19-24.pdf
PTL Highlands FS-1.0 EQUIP 12Oct2023.pdf
Clark 99:11-
20 2 4/22/2024
From: Joseph Brikho
To: [email protected];
[email protected] ; Josie Flores-Clark - NC
Mayors Office
Cc: Eddy Brikho
PRA 24-688
3 5/30/2024 From: Eddy Brikho to [email protected] ; PRA 24-688 October 6, 2025

Page 3 ends

Cc: Joseph Brikho
Fw: 2024-08 CUP Incomplete Letter
4 5/31/2024
From: [email protected]
To [email protected]
FW: 2024-08 CUP Incomplete Letter Attachments:

Sweetwater Authority Comments CUP 2024-08.pdf
PRA 24-688
5 6/3/2024 Meeting w/Mr. Brikho City Hall, 2nd Floor, Mayor's Office Josie Flores Clark Ben Martinez 7:30 a.m.

City Calendar
Entry
6 7/17/2024 Community Information Meeting - Sweetwater Road & Orange Street Project NC Chamber of Commerce - 901
National City Blvd., National City
PRA-24-032
7 8/15/2024
From: [email protected] To
[email protected] ;
FW: 2024-08 CUP - Response Letter and Updated
Drawings 2024-08 CUP Incomplete Letter RESPONSE
8-15-24.pdf, BRIKHO progress set 8-15-24.pdf
PRA 24-688
8 10/9/2024
From: Joseph Brikho To: Josie Flores-Clark - NC
Mayors Office;
Subject 2311 Sweetwater Road CUP Applications
Date: Wednesday, October 9 2024 8:57:17 AM
Attachments: image001,
24-688
9 10/9/2024
From: Joseph Brikho To: Josie Flores-Clark - NC
Mayors Office
Subject: Fw: 2311 Sweetwater Road CUP Applications
Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 2:21:31 PM
24-688
10 10/10/2024 From Eddy Brikho to Josie Flores-Clark - NC Mayors Office; Joseph Brikho
Fw: 2311 Sweetwater Road CUP Applications
24-688
11 10/16/2024 Meeting w/The Brikho's Mayor's office Josie Flores Clark
PRA 24-032
12 10/21/2024 Hi Eddy and Joey. Please come this Wednesday at 2:00 pm to city hall. Thanks. Ben
24-688
13 10/21/2024 Brikho’s Projects Ben, Carlos & Martin Ben's Office Ben Martinez Large Conference Room Ben Martinez
PRA 24-032
14 10/23/2024 Brikho's Project Large Conference Room Ben Martinez PRA 24-032 15 10/24/2024
From: Joseph Brikho to Josie Flores-Clark - NC Mayors
Office;
Cc: Eddy Brikho
FW: Brikho Sweetwater Site Plan Update
24-688
16 10/29/2024 From Joseph Brikho to Josie Flores-Clark - NC Mayors Office; CC Eddy Brikho FW: CUP/Variance
24-688
October 6, 2025

Page 4 ends

Applications for Highland Avenue Property
Investments - 2311 Sweetwater Road
17 11/7/2024
From Joseph Brikho to Josie Flores-Clark - NC Mayors
Office; CC Eddy Brikho
FW: CUP/Variance Applications for Highland Avenue
Property Investments - 2311 Sweetwater Road
24-688
18 11/21/2024
Alicia Morrison Alerts Mica Polanco About Nuisance
Project. (La Vista Calendar entry and Ms. Morrison's
packet)
La Vista
Calendar
19 11/21/2024 Mayor tells Assistant to meet with Ms. Polanco, Brikho to get Nuisance Project approved by end of 2024
MP Phone
Log
20 11/25/2024 Eddy Brikho meets with Ms. Polanco and Luisa McCarthy, Starbucks: discuss gas, signage, liquor for
Ms. Polanco Support for Nuisance Project
MP Text
21 11/26/2024 Ms. Polanco text messages with Brikhos about project MP Text 22 11/28/2024 Brikho text messages to Ms. Polanco with offers to win her support for the Nuisance Project
MP Text
23 12/2/2024 National City Planning Commission vote against Nuisance Project
NC Agenda
24 12/5/2024
Ben, How are you? Can you please contact me back.

ANALYSIS
National City has the legal authority to restore the land use designations to RS-2 Low-Medium Density. Indeed, public entities are not bound to reimburse individuals for losses due to changes in zoning, for “within the limits of the police powers some hardships must be borne by individuals as the price of living in a modern, enlightened and progressive community.” (Rancho La Costa v. County of San Diego (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 54, 60.) Landowners have no vested right in existing or anticipated zoning ordinances. (Id.; See also 16 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Social Justice 95, 139-140 (providing overview of the takings clause applied to zoning ordinances).) October 6, 2025

Page 5 ends

Generally, just compensation by the zoning authority is only due in rare cases where there are “extraordinary circumstances when no productive or economically beneficial use of the land is permitted.” (See Id.) When, as here, there is still an economically beneficial use available after the authority’s zoning decision, the inquiry is limited to determining the “(1) economic impact of the regulation; (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment backed expectation; and (3) the character of the government action.” (Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 124.)
The three-factor Penn Central test is the fulcrum on which alleged non-physical regulatory takings are adjudicated. (See e.g. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, (2021) 594 U.S. 139, 149 (discussing whether Penn Central applies to a regulation allowing labor representatives to access employer property).) In fact, the Ninth Circuit has used the Penn Central test to find no actionable government taking where a property owner sold his land for 15% of its original value in response to the State of Hawaii rezoning his 1,060 acres of mixed residential property back to its original agricultural designation. (See Bridge Aina Le’a LLC v. State Land Use Comm’n, (9th Cir. 2020) 950 F.3d 610, 630-32.)
Applying the Penn Central factors here would result in the same outcome. The economic impact of the zoning change to residential would still allow the 0.8 acres to be developed as a residential project from which a profit could be obtained. The zoning and land use change would not interfere with any legitimate, distinct investment-backed expectation. Finally, the land use and zoning change would simply restore the parcels to their historic use of residential character.

Indeed, changing the zoning to commercial and the land use designation to high mixed use was inconsistent with the residential component of the community’s comprehensive plan governing the neighborhood in which the parcels are located. Those changes uniquely benefited the owner of the land over the general welfare of the public.

National City officials used spot zoning and land use changes to transform the .80-acre parcel from residential low density to commercial high density. The developers, with the support of the Mayor and his assistant, attempted to take unconscionable advantage of the changed zoning in proposing the Public Health Nuisance Project. Equity and justice compel the .80-acre parcel to be restored to its original residential zoning.

CONCLUSION
National City is free to restore the .80-acre parcel to its original residential low-density zoning and land use designation. This was the historic underlying zoning.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Michael J. Aguirre
Michael J. Aguirre, Esq.

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
2 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SECTION 3 AND CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAWS

2. On or about August 28, 2025, the Mayor’s Assistant caused a false writing (False Writing) to be appended to Item 5.3 of the National City Council Special Meeting for September 2, 2025. The False Writing falsely stated Ms. Polanco was part of a wider pattern of retaliation and hostile behavior from city employees allied with Ms. Polanco. The Mayor’s Assistant mischaracterized the False Writing as a “claim” against the City when, in fact, it was a contrived defamation shield the Mayor’s Assistant used to protect herself from defamation liability.

3. Ms. Polanco has petitioned National City officials to produce all public records relating to the special treatment the Mayor and his Assistant gave to influence the National City Planning staff to approve a development project located on the corner of Sweetwater and Orange streets in National City, which the National City Planning Commission found to be a public health nuisance (“Public Health Nuisance Project”).

4. The project in question started as a 5,500 square foot drive-through business and was issued a permit by the National City Planning Commission on June 3, 2019. The developer, by his inaction, allowed the permit to expire, but the Planning Commission renewed it on April 17, 2023. However, in January 2024, the Mayor and his Assistant met with the project’s developer to consider a radical expansion of the development to include a 12-pump gas station, a liquor convenient store, a drive-through car wash, 5 retail units, and a 5,000 square foot basement.

5. In response to Petitioner’s attempts to obtain public records related to the communications amongst and between National City’s officials and proponents of the Public Health Nuisance Project,2
the City, through its officials and staff, have retaliated against Petitioner. The latest includes a highly atypical rush scheduling of a closed session, and a published document with hyperlinks aimed to attack Petitioner and her spouse.

6. As set forth herein, when records were requested that would demonstrate how that attack was orchestrated behind closed doors, the City failed to comply with the law requiring disclosure, going so far as to abruptly change its processes to hide these facts. 2 The Project is located and is identified at Sweetwater Road between Olive Street and Orange Street. Case File No.: 2024-08 CUP. APNS: 563-252-12-00, 563-252-13-00, 563-252-14-00, 5633-252-23-00.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
3 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SECTION 3 AND CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAWS

PARTIES AND PLAYERS

7. Petitioner and Plaintiff Micaela Polanco is a National City, California property owner who requested the City of National City produce the public records sought in this proceeding under Art. I, Sec. 3 of the California State Constitution and the California Public Records Act.

8. Respondent and Defendant National City is a local public agency within the meaning of Government Code sections 7920.510 and 7920.525(a).

9. The true names and capacities of those Respondents/Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, are unknown to Petitioner, who sue those Respondents/Defendants by such fictitious names. When the DOE parties’ true names and capacities and their actual involvement in the matters alleged herein are ascertained, Petitioner will amend this complaint to accurately reflect the same.

10. Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously named respondents/defendants designated hereunder as a DOE is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein, and that Petitioner’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused or contributed to by their conduct.

11. Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times herein, each of the Respondents/Defendants was the agent, employee, partners, joint venture, alter ego, and/or co-conspirator of one or more of the remaining Respondents/Defendants and in doing the acts alleged herein, was acting within the purpose, course and scope of such agency, employment joint venture or conspiracy, and with the consent, permission or ratification of one or more remaining Petitioner.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. Jurisdiction is pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 and Cal. Const. Art. VI, § 10, which confers upon superior courts original jurisdiction over applications for mandamus, injunctive, and declaratory relief.

13. Venue in San Diego is proper under Gov. Code, § 6259, subd. (a). because some or all the public records are sought in San Diego County. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
4 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SECTION 3 AND CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAWS

THE RIGHT TO PUBLIC RECORDS

14. The California Constitution and the PRA create a presumptive right of access to public records and identify that right as fundamental.

15. The California Constitution provides that “[t]he people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” (Cal. Const., art. 1, § 3, subd. (b), par. (1).) The Constitution requires that any “statute, court rule, or other authority,” such as the PRA, “be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” (Id., § 3, subd. (b), par. (2).)

16. Under the PRA, “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business”—business conducted by public agencies on behalf of the people—is a “fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (Gov. Code § 7921.000. [formerly Gov. Code § 6250])

17. The PRA requires that, in response to records requests from members of the public, public agencies “make the records promptly available,” so long as the records are not expressly exempt. (Gov. Code, § 7922.530, subd. (a).) The PRA defines a record to include “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” (Id., § 7920.520.) A “writing,” under the PRA, encompasses any “means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation . . . .” (Id., § 7920.545.)

18. The PRA facilitates this transfer of information by codifying specific requirements and deadlines that agencies must observe upon receipt of a public records request. (Gov. Code, § 7920.000 et seq.) Specifically, an agency has 10 days to respond to a PRA request. Within those 10 days, the agency must determine whether the request seeks disclosable public records in its possession, custody, or control, and promptly notify the requestor of its determination and reasoning. (Gov. Code § 7922.535.)

19. It is an agency’s obligation to conduct record searches based on the criteria identified in a specific request. (Gov. Code, §§ 7922.500-7922.545, 7922.600-7922.605.) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
5 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SECTION 3 AND CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAWS Officials responding to a PRA request must also: (1) offer assistance in identifying responsive records and information; (2) describe “the information technology and physical location in which the records exist”; and (3) provide “suggestions for overcoming any practical basis” that might be asserted as a reason to delay or deny access to the records or information sought. (Id., § 79200.600.) Information produced as an electronic record should be produced “in the format requested if the requested format is one that has been used by the agency to create copies for its own use or for provision to other agencies.” (Id., § 7922.570.)

20. If an agency denies a request for records in whole or in part, it must issue a denial in writing. (Gov. Code, § 7922.540, subd. (a).) In that correspondence, the agency must “demonstrat[e] that the record in question is exempt under [the PRA’s] express provisions . . . or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” (Id., § 7922.000. [formerly Gov. Code § 6255]) The agency must also identify both the name and title of the person or persons responsible for the determination not to disclose requested records. (Id., §§ 7922.540, subd. (b), 7922.540, subd. (a).)

21. “Any person” may institute proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief or for a writ of mandate to enforce the right to inspect or receive a copy of any nonexempt public record. (Gov. Code, § 7923.000; see also id., §§ 7923.005, 7923.100-7923.500 [formerly Gov. Code § 6259(a)]; Code Civ. Proc., § 1060, 1085; Civ. Code, § 3422.) The PRA further provides that a “court shall order the officer or person charged with withholding the records to disclose the public record or show cause why the officer or person should not do so” where “it is made to appear by verified petition to the superior court of the county where the records or some part thereof are situated that certain public records are being improperly withheld from a member of the public.” (Gov. Code §§ 7923.100-7923.105 [formerly Gov. Code § 6259(a)],)

22. To ensure that the public’s access to information is not delayed or obstructed, the PRA requires that “[t]he times for responsive pleadings and for hearings in these proceedings shall be set by the judge of the court with the object of securing a decision as to these matters at the earliest possible time.” (Gov. Code, §§ 7923.000-7923.005.) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
6 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SECTION 3 AND CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAWS

23. A requestor who prevails in litigating a PRA request for disclosure of specific records is entitled to “court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.” (Gov. Code, § 7923.115(a).)

24. The unilateral and unlawful acts of the National City Mayor and his assistant, acquiesced in by two other council members, have eroded the internal controls of the National City Municipal Code, and violated Article 1, Section 3 of the California State Constitution and the California Public Records Act.

25. The foursome (Mayor Ron Morrison, Assistant Josie Flores Clark, and Councilmembers Marcus Bush and Luz Molina) have acted to block Petitioner’s effort to obtain National City public records. Despite widespread public interest in uncovering the role the Mayor and his Assistant played in orchestrating first the Public Health Nuisance Project, and then the retaliation against Petitioner and her spouse for their invocation of their rights under PRA, the foursome have obstructed production of the public records and the First Amendment rights of those who dare question their actions. The public interest in uncovering the written record of the role the Mayor and his Assistant played in producing planning staff approval of the Public Health Nuisance Project, and now contriving a claim, is persistent and growing.

26. As to the former, the National City Mayor, Assistant and Business Manager had repeated contacts with the Nuisance Project’s proponents, moving it through the Planning staff to a recommendation of approval, as shown here:

NO. Date Description Source
1 1/22/2024
Mayor, Assistant, City Manager
Meet Brikho Service Station Attachments:
2305 BRIKHO CUP SUBMITTAL SET 4-19-24.pdf
PTL Highlands FS-1.0 EQUIP 12Oct2023.pdf Clark 99:11-20 2 4/22/2024
From: Joseph Brikho
To: [email protected];
[email protected] ; Josie Flores-Clark -
NC Mayors Office
Cc: Eddy Brikho PRA 24-688
3 5/30/2024
From: Eddy Brikho to [email protected] ;
Cc: Joseph Brikho
Fw: 2024-08 CUP Incomplete Letter PRA 24-688
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
7 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SECTION 3 AND CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAWS NO. Date Description Source
4 5/31/2024
From: [email protected]
To [email protected]
FW: 2024-08 CUP Incomplete Letter Attachments:

Sweetwater Authority Comments CUP 2024-08.pdf PRA 24-688 5 6/3/2024 Meeting w/Mr. Brikho City Hall, 2nd Floor, Mayor's Office Josie Flores Clark Ben Martinez 7:30 a.m.

City Calendar
Entry
6 7/17/2024
Community Information Meeting - Sweetwater Road
& Orange Street Project NC Chamber of Commerce -
901 National City Blvd., National City PRA-24-032
7 8/15/2024
From: [email protected] To
[email protected] ;
FW: 2024-08 CUP - Response Letter and Updated
Drawings 2024-08 CUP Incomplete Letter
RESPONSE 8-15-24.pdf, BRIKHO progress set 8-
15-24.pdf PRA 24-688
8 10/9/2024
From: josephbrikho To: Josie Flores-Clark - NC
Mayors Office;
Subject 2311 Sweetwater Road CUP Applications
Date: Wednesday, October 9 2024 8:57:17 AM
Attachments: image001, 24-688
9 10/9/2024
From: Joseph Brikho To: Josie Flores-Clark - NC
Mayors Office
Subject: Fw: 2311 Sweetwater Road CUP
Applications
Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 2:21:31 PM 24-688
10 10/10/2024
From Eddy Brikho to Josie Flores-Clark - NC
Mayors Office; Joseph Brikho
Fw: 2311 Sweetwater Road CUP Applications 24-688
11 10/16/2024 Meeting w/The Brikho's Mayor's office Josie Flores Clark PRA 24-032
12 10/21/2024 Hi Eddy and Joey. Please come this Wednesday at 2:00 pm to city hall. Thanks. Ben 24-688
13 10/21/2024 Brikho’s Projects Ben, Carlos & Martin Ben's Office Ben Martinez Large Conference Room Ben Martinez PRA 24-032 14 10/23/2024 Brikho's Project Large Conference Room Ben Martinez PRA 24-032
15 10/24/2024
From: Joseph Brikho to Josie Flores-Clark - NC
Mayors Office;
Cc: Eddy Brikho
FW: Brikho Sweetwater Site Plan Update 24-688
16 10/29/2024
From Joseph Brikho to Josie Flores-Clark - NC
Mayors Office; CC Eddy Brikho FW: CUP/Variance
Applications for Highland Avenue Property
Investments - 2311 Sweetwater Road 24-688
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SECTION 3 AND CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAWS

27. The obstruction has included giving false deposition testimony, erasing written records, concealing City cell phones, verbal abuse of Petitioner in social media and using pretexts for not producing records, such as complaining too many requests have been made, or more than two months is needed to respond.

28. In retaliation against Petitioner, the Mayor and his Assistant, supported by Councilmembers Bush and Molina, retaliated against Petitioner and her spouse by permitting a false and bogus document dated August 26, 2025, purporting to be a “claim” with false and defamatory statements therein, to be included in the official Agenda of the City’s public meeting.

They conspired by setting a Special Meeting and publishing the purported claim online with NO. Date Description Source
17 11/7/2024
From Joseph Brikho to Josie Flores-Clark - NC
Mayors Office; CC Eddy Brikho
FW: CUP/Variance Applications for Highland
Avenue Property Investments - 2311 Sweetwater
Road 24-688
18 11/21/2024
Alicia Morrison Alerts Mica Polanco About
Nuisance Project. (La Vista Calendar entry and Ms.

Morrison's packet)
La Vista
Calendar
19 11/21/2024
Mayor tells Assistant to meet with Ms. Polanco,
Brikho to get Nuisance Project approved by end of
2024 MP Phone Log
20 11/25/2024
Eddy Brikho meets with Ms. Polanco and Luisa
McCarthy, Starbucks: discuss gas, signage, liquor for
Ms. Polanco Support for Nuisance Project MP Text
21 11/26/2024 Ms. Polanco text messages with Brikhos about project MP Text 22 11/28/2024 Brikho text messages to Ms. Polanco with offers to win her support for the Nuisance Project MP Text
23 12/2/2024 National City Planning Commission vote against Nuisance Project NC Agenda
24 12/5/2024
Ben, How are you? Can you please contact me back.

We need to speak about the existing CUP for
Sweetwater & Orange. We need to do whatever we
can to renew it. We allowed it to expire because we
thought our proposed project was going to replace it
because we put so much work and had support from
the City but now we are in a battle that we didn't
expect. We need to make sure we can at least at the
minimum build what was approved before. 24-688
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
9 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SECTION 3 AND CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAWS lightning speed; the Special Meeting Agenda was published three days after the letter on August 29, 2025. The August 26 letter was published on the City website with hyperlinks – an extreme and idiosyncratic departure from the City’s protocols when setting discussion of anticipated litigation in closed session.

29. When these officials’ misconduct was exposed, they denied knowing how the “claim” came to be included in the City Council’s August 29 publication of Closed Session Agenda Item 5.3, September 2, 2025.

30. The Mayor and his Assistant have usurped the authority and power of the City Manager in violation of the National City Municipal Code 2.01.02 with the permission of the other two Councilmembers, keeping the City Manager from performing the duty to be responsible for the efficient administration of all the affairs of the City, to see that all laws and ordinances are duly enforced, and to employ, discipline or remove all heads of departments and all subordinate officers and employees of the city.

31. This complaint seeks an order requiring National City officials to produce records Petitioner requested in PRA 25-658 related to the acts of retaliation the Quadruplets imposed upon Petitioner. On September 2, 2025, Petitioner requested (PRA 25-658) the following public records from the National City:

Under the Public Records Act and the California Constitution, relating to the claim of Josie Flores Clark that appeared as Item 5.3 on the September 2, 2025 special meeting agenda, writings showing:
x how the August 26, 2025 letter from [claimant’s attorney] was provided to the City, including to whom it was provided, the date, the manner provided (whether hand-carried, by mail (and if by mail, whether by USPS, Fedex, UPS and the postmark date on the envelope if mailed). please also produce any envelope in which the letter was enclosed x the name of the staff member who documented the claim x communications within the City staff or officials on the one hand and Dan Gilleon or persons from Gilleon Law Firm, regarding the August 26 letter 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
10 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SECTION 3 AND CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAWS x communications within the City, including but not limited to the Mayor, Mayor’s assistant, City Clerk, City Manager, Councilmembers Molina and Bush, IT personnel or others regarding (1) setting a special meeting for Sept 2, 2025, (2) uploading the August letter and its hyperlinks, (3) City Clerk communications regarding the same.
x This request includes writings in the form of emails and text messages from the work or personal phone of the Mayor, Josie Flores Clark, the City Clerk, the City Manager, IT personnel and councilmembers Molina and Bush. This request is made on behalf of Micaela Polanco.

32. On September 11, 2025, an unknown National City official failed to provide the requested records, and instead, notified Ms. Polanco through her requesting counsel:

Message to requester
In response to your request for public records within the City of National City. Records are being located, and reviewed for this request. To search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records demanded in a single request of which you have submitted multiple separate requests for voluminous records taking multiple staff members time to pull and then go through a review process. The City Clerk's Office will notify you when the records are available for your review and/or purchase within the next 60 days or sooner when processed. These records may be offered to release on a rolling basis – as records become available and have been reviewed they can then be released. September 11, 2025, 6:18pm by Staff

33. On September 13, 2025, Petitioner responded to National City officials’ failure to provide the documents requested in PRA 25-658, and included the two documents described below and attached as Exhibits 1 and 2:

Message from requester
Greetings:

Your response of September 12, 2025 makes false statements in an attempt to delay the City's response.

First, the City response falsely states I am seeking "a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records". This is false because my request is very narrow both in scope and time (from August 26 letter to the agenda setting and 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
11 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SECTION 3 AND CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAWS publication (Aug. 29) to the meeting of September 2 ). It seeks to learn (1) how and when a specific Aug 26 letter was submitted to and received by the City; (2) how it was determined to publish the letter, and do so with hyperlinks to other documents or websites (an idiosyncratic handling of a claim); and (3) communications regarding these events from a handful of named City officials/personnel.

Second, the City response falsely states I "have submitted multiple separate requests for voluminous records." This is false because this is my only request on this subject and it will take little time: it involves one event that took place over a few days involving a few people. Search terms should be simple as the City's process is to track how and when claims are received and log it for purposes of determining if it complies in timeliness, procedure and substance. Further, the City has the name of the claimant, and claimant's attorney who authored and signed (albeit electronically) the claim.

Notably, since I submitted this PRA request and made public comment on Sept. 2 pointing out what was required on the claim form (original signature, mail to City Clerk, clerk notes how and when received), the City has suddenly removed documents from the City Attorney website and claim form.

On Sept. 2, the claim form was located in the City Attorney section here: https://www.nationalcityca.gov/government/city-attorney and was titled Claim Form with FAQ Sheet REVISED 11192024.pdf The form included some important parts: (1) on page 1, it has a space for the City Clerk to mark date received, staff member who received it, and details about the manner in which it was provided; (2) it must be signed under penalty of perjury; and (3) it included an FAQ that makes clear the City ONLY accepts properly submitted claims personally delivered or mailed to City Clerk with an original signature.

Since my PRA request and Sept. 2 public comment, the City has altered its claim form by (1) removing the part on page 1 for the City Clerk to mark date received, staff member who received it, and details about the manner in which it was provided; and (2) completely removing the FAQ that, among other things, stated the City ONLY accepts properly submitted claims personally delivered or mailed to City Clerk with an original signature. This removal occurred after I asked questions about the highly irregular process used for the August 26, 2025 letter, and asked who was involved in sponsoring her claim, setting it on the agenda with lightning speed and publishing it, and before any PRA response was provided. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
12 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SECTION 3 AND CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAWS Based on the above, the City's excuses are bogus and its delay is in violation of law. Therefore, it is demanded that the City produce the records by the end of day Friday. September 19, 2025. If records are not produced by then, the City will leave the requester with no choice but to file a legal action to enforce the PRA.

It is hoped the City will choose to simply produce the requested information.

Thank you.

September 13, 2025, 9:51am by the requester

34. The September 19, 2025 date passed, and the City did not produce the requested writings in whole or part.

35. There is great public interest in the disclosure of the requested records because the City’s actions could lead a trier of fact to determine the Mayor and/or others in the City are conspiring to both (1) retaliate against Petitioner and her family for their lawful participation in public process to obtain public records that may prove embarrassing to the City, its Mayor and officials; and (2) assist with a claim for money against the City’s own interest.

36. There is also great public interest in the disclosure of the requested records because the City abruptly changed its published claim form and removed its published direction regarding claims procedures immediately after this public records request that drew attention to how the publication of a letter to the Mayor relating to the Mayor’s Assistant came to be, which is a highly irregular if not unprecedented way in which the City of National City handles claims brought against it.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Writ of Mandate (CCP § 1085), Prohibition
or Other Extraordinary Relief

37. Petitioner incorporates allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though fully forth herein.

38. Respondents have a clear, present, and sacrosanct duty to comply with Art. 1, Sec. 3 of the Constitution of the State of California and with the California Public Records Act (Gov.

Code § 7920.000 et seq. [formerly Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.]) Petitioner/Plaintiff has performed 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
13 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SECTION 3 AND CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAWS all conditions precedent to filing this petition. There are no administrative exhaustion requirements under the California Public Records Act.

39. Issuance of a writ of mandate compelling The City of National City to perform its duties under the PRA and the California Constitution is required because there exists no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that would protect Petitioner’s rights and interest to the information sought here.

40. The City of National City has failed to fulfill its obligations under the PRA and the California Constitution to timely and reasonably search for and promptly produce public record response to Petitioner’s request.

41. Petitioner requests a writ of mandate ordering Respondent to disclose all records it withheld and/or redacted in its response to Petitioner’s records request because the public interest in disclosure far outweighs the public interest in concealment.

42. A writ of mandamus compelling disclosure of the requested records is needed.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief and Injunctive (CCP § 1060)

43. Petitioner incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

44. Public entities are obliged to respond to requests for public records and to search for and disclose all nonexempt records, pursuant to the PRA (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.) and the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 3.

45. The City of National City has failed to fulfill its obligations under the PRA and the California Constitution to timely and reasonably search for and promptly produce public records responsive to Petitioner’s PRA request.

46. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Petitioner and Respondent concerning their respective rights and duties as to Petitioner's right to receive records.

47. Petitioner requests the court issue a declaration affirming Petitioner's right to provide the documents requested, and an injunction should be issued compelling National City to immediately search for and produce all responsive records. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
14 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION ART. 1, SECTION 3 AND CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORD LAWS PRAYER
Wherefore, Petitioner prays as follows:

1. For a declaration that the records requested are required to be produced under the Public Records Act, and Art. 1, Sec. 3 of the California State Constitution.

2. For the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate disclosing writings pursuant to Petitioner’s records request; in the alternative, for the issuance of an order to Respondent to show cause why the Court should not issue such a writ.

3. For a declaration that, to the extent exemptions are asserted, the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in concealment.

4. For attorney's fees and costs; and

5. For all other relief the Court determines is warranted.

Dated: October 3, 2025 /s/Michael J. Aguirre
Michael J. Aguirre, Esq.

Counsel for Petitioner and Plaintiff

EXHIBIT 1

Page 1 of 2 ends

mpa/2018
City Of National City

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

TO PERSON OR PROPERTY

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Read entire claim form beforefiling.

2. This claim form must be signed atbottom.

3. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details. SIGN EACH SHEET.

4. Claims must be filed with the City Clerk, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, CA 91950 (619) 336-4228.

5. Inquiries regarding status of filed claims should be directed to the Risk Manager at (619) 336-4370.

Attention: City Clerk
The undersigned hereby presents the following claim to the City of National City, in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

1. Name of Claimant:

2. Home Address of Claimant:

Home Telephone Number: /Cell:

Email:

3. Give address to which you desire notices or communications to be sent regarding this claim:

4. How did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars:

5. When did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give the date and time ofday:

6. Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Describe fully, and attach diagram where appropriate. Give street names and addresses and measurements from landmarks:
'DWH5HFHLYHG

6WDII

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBB+DQG&DUU\
BBB0DLOYLD
BB8636
BB)('(;
BB836
BBBBBB3RVW0DUN'DWHRQ
(QYHORSHLI0DLOHG

Page 2 of 2 ends

mpa/2018

7. What particular ACT or OMISSION do you claim caused the injury or damage? Give names of City employees causing the injury or damage, ifknown:

8. What DAMAGE or INJURIES do you claim resulted? Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed:

9. NAMES of physicians, hospitals,etc.:

10. What AMOUNT do you claim on account of each item of injury or damage as of date of presentation of this claim? Explain how you calculated thisamount.

Give ESTIMATED AMOUNT as far as known you claim on account of each item of future injury or damage, giving basis of computation:

11. What INSURANCE PAYMENTS did you receive, if any, and what were the names of any Insurance Company(ies):

12. What EXPENDITURES did you make on account of accident or injury: (Date-Item) (Amount):

13. Give NAMES AND ADDRESSES of Witnesses, Doctors and Hospitals:

Attach COPIES of any photos, documents or receipts you wish considered.

I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing claim and the papers attached thereto, and that the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

DATE:

Claimant or Agent
Address of Above
Telephone No. of Above
City Of National City

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING

THE CLAIMS PROCESS
x Where do I get a Government Tort Claim form?
Download Claim for Damages to Person or Property Form at www.nationalcityca.gov or you may pick up a claim form at the Office of the City Clerk, located at 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, CA 91950.

The City Clerk’s telephone number is (619) 336-4228. Also, you can request a claim form be mailed to you via telephone at (619) 336-4300.
x Does it cost me anything to file a claim?
No. The City does not charge a fee to file a claim.
x How long do I have to file a claim?
Most claims must be submitted to the City Clerk within 6 months of the time the event or incident giving rise to the injury, loss or damage occurred. However, certain types of claims may be filed within 1 year of the date of the event or incident. Additionally, the Government Code provides for other exceptions to the general 6 month period.

If you aren’t sure whether or not you fall within one of the exceptions, you should contact an attorney. City staff members are prohibited from providing legal advice.
x What information may I send with my claimform?
You may provide any information you believe will support your claim. For example, claims are often submitted along with photographs, receipts, estimates or diagrams. Please keep copies of any documents you submit because the City will not return any documents to you.
x Can I fax or email the completed claim form to the City Clerk, instead of mailing or dropping it off" The City only accepts properly completed claims that are either (1) personally delivered to the City Clerk’s office, or (2) mailed to the City Clerk’s office. The claimant’s original signature must appear on the claim form.

The City does not accept claims submitted by email or facsimile. x What happens to the claim after I submitit?
The City Clerk forwarded to the Risk Manager for review and further investigation. Depending on the facts or nature of the incident, most claims are processed within 45 days pursuant to the Government Code. You will be contacted if the Risk Manager has questions regarding your claim. If not, the Risk Manager will determine whether to approve, compromise, or deny the claim. The City’s final decision will be mailed to the address listed on the claim submitted to the City.
x What happens if my claim is denied?
As required by the Government Code, the City provides all claimants (whose claims have been denied) a standard, written response outlining a claimant’s legal remedies. x Is the City responsible for claims that happen while riding a public trolley or bus? Both the San Diego Trolley and San Diego Transit (public buses) are under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transit System (“MTS”). To file a claim against MTS, contact Public Transit Customer Service at (619) 238-0100.

MG/2018
EXHIBIT 2

Page 1 of 2 ends

mpa/2018
City Of National City

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

TO PERSON OR PROPERTY

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Read entire claim form beforefiling.

2. This claim form must be signed atbottom.

3. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details. SIGN EACH SHEET.

4. Claims must be filed with the City Clerk, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, CA 91950 (619) 336-4228.

5. Inquiries regarding status of filed claims should be directed to the Risk Manager at (619) 336-4370.

Attention: City Clerk
The undersigned hereby presents the following claim to the City of National City, in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

1. Name of Claimant:

2. Home Address of Claimant:

Home Telephone Number: /Cell:

Email:

3. Give address to which you desire notices or communications to be sent regarding this claim:

4. How did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars:

5. When did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give the date and time ofday:

6. Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Describe fully, and attach diagram where appropriate. Give street names and addresses and measurements from landmarks:

Page 2 of 2 ends

mpa/2018

7. What particular ACT or OMISSION do you claim caused the injury or damage? Give names of City employees causing the injury or damage, ifknown:

8. What DAMAGE or INJURIES do you claim resulted? Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed:

9. NAMES of physicians, hospitals,etc.:

10. What AMOUNT do you claim on account of each item of injury or damage as of date of presentation of this claim? Explain how you calculated thisamount.

Give ESTIMATED AMOUNT as far as known you claim on account of each item of future injury or damage, giving basis of computation:

11. What INSURANCE PAYMENTS did you receive, if any, and what were the names of any Insurance Company(ies):

12. What EXPENDITURES did you make on account of accident or injury: (Date-Item) (Amount):

13. Give NAMES AND ADDRESSES of Witnesses, Doctors and Hospitals:

Attach COPIES of any photos, documents or receipts you wish considered.

I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing claim and the papers attached thereto, and that the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

DATE:

Claimant or Agent
Address of Above
Telephone No. of Above
From: Cynthia Knapp
To: Public Comment
Subject: General Public Comment - 10/07/2025
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 12:36:19 PM
Attachments: Outlook-4wo0v441.png
Matrix of Tobacco Retailer Density Proximity_October 2024 (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Non-Agena Public Comment
Councilmembers, Mayor Morrison, and esteemed City Staff, This comment is with regard to the Tobacco Retal License program adopted 09/16/2025. I would like to reiterate the congratulations and gratitude sent by public health advocates, National City Coalition for Better Health, and especially SUHSD for your careful review, discussion, and adoption of this program. Once implemented, National City will have local control over who has the privilege of selling tobacco and where they are allowed to do so within city limits. This is key to reducing youth access at the point of sale, and enforcing the voter-approved Prop 31, which ended the sale of flavored tobacco in California.

I would like to touch on the value of having a proximity requirement for youth sensitive spaces.

It is understood that retailers currently operating within 1,000 feet of a school will continue to do so, and gradually, through attrition, a buffer zone around schools will manifest. This buffer zone is the best practice as it reduces targeted and passive tobacco marketing to youth, and reduces ease of access. National City will join over 100 other California municipalities in restricting tobacco sales near youth sensitive spaces (matrix attached). It combats Big Tobacco's predatory strategy of addicting teens, a practice acknowledged as one their executives egregiously said, "The base of our business is the high school student."
One of SAY San Diego's youth coalitions was advocating for this very buffer zone in their city, San Diego. CDPH invited them to be part of a campaign elevating Californians working to stop the harm of commercial tobacco. The clip is below (30 seconds) if you're interested.

Meet the San Diego high school activists fighting tobacco sales near schools Warm regards,
Cynthia
Cynthia (Cindy) Knapp, MPH| Senior Program Manager
(she, her, hers)
SAY San Diego | ATOD Community Engagement
4275 El Cajon Blvd. Ste. 101 | San Diego, CA 92105
www.saysandiego.org
Confidentiality Notice: This message and any accompanying documents contain information that is confidential, privileged, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. This information is private and protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information in any manner is strictly prohibited 1 Matrix of Policies Regulating the Density and/or Proximity of Tobacco Retail Sales Venues in California October 2024
California cities and counties are adopting policies to regulate the density and proximity of tobacco retail sales venues in order to reduce the availability of tobacco products and tobacco advertising in an effort to decrease tobacco use and improve health outcomes in our communities.

Jurisdictions on this matrix regulate retailer density or proximity in at least 1 of 6 ways: limiting the number of tobacco retailers based on population, limiting the number of tobacco retailers by setting a cap on the number of licenses, limiting tobacco retailer proximity to residential areas, limiting tobacco retailer proximity to other tobacco retailers, limiting tobacco retailer proximity to youth-populated areas, or limiting tobacco retailer proximity to marijuana retailers.

Note: This matrix includes both policies that are on the PETS website, which is current through March 31, 2021, and more recently enacted and amended policies that have been analyzed but are not yet in the PETS database. Jurisdictions with new policies or updated policy provisions on this matrix that are not yet on PETS are identified with ~.

Currently, 126 California municipalities in 29 counties regulate the density and/or proximity of tobacco retail sales venues in some manner.

Density:
15 jurisdictions limit the number of tobacco retail sales venues (stores and/or lounges) based on population. 12 jurisdictions limit the number of tobacco retail sales venues (stores and/or lounges) by setting a cap on the total number of licenses that can be issued.

Proximity:
20 jurisdictions restrict the proximity of tobacco retail sales venues’ locations to residential areas. 67 jurisdictions restrict the proximity of tobacco retail sales venues’ locations to other tobacco retailers. 107 jurisdictions restrict the proximity of tobacco retail sales venues’ locations to youth-populated areas, which may include schools, parks, and/or childcare.
7 jurisdictions restrict the proximity of tobacco retail sales venues’ locations to marijuana retailers. 2 See Definitions and Explanatory Notes starting on page 13.

Policy Provisions
Municipality County
Most
Recent

1. Alameda~ Alameda 11/27/2018 77,565
Yes, all types
(1 per 2,500
residents)
Yes, all types Yes, less
than 1000’

2. Alameda County~ Alameda 1/14/2020 150,015
Yes, all types
(1 per 2,500
residents)
Yes, all types
(500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

3. Albany~ Alameda 2/2/2009 20,027 Yes, all types
(75’)
Yes, all types
(500’)
Yes, less
than 1000’
(500’)

4. Anaheim Orange 4/16/2019 347,111 Yes, less than
all types
Yes, 1000’
or more

5. Antioch~ Contra Costa 3/8/2022 115,016 Yes, all types (500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

6. Apple Valley San Bernardino 5/11/2010 75,603 Yes, less than all types

7. Arcadia~ Los Angeles 11/15/2016 56,181
Yes, less than
all types
(200’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

8. Auburn~ Placer 9/23/2019 13,773 Yes, all types
(500')
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

9. Benicia~ Solano 12/3/2019 27,040
Yes, all types
(1 per 1,750
residents)
Yes, all types Yes, 1000’
or more Yes, all types

10. Berkeley~ Alameda 9/29/2015 121,385
Yes, less
than 1000’
(600’)
3 Policy Provisions
Municipality County
Most
Recent

11. Bishop Inyo 4/11/2016 3,802 Yes, 1000’
or more

12. Buena Park~ Orange 7/27/2021 83,542
Yes, less
than 1000’
(500’)

13. Calabasas~ Los Angeles 4/28/2010 23,106
Yes, less
than 1000’
(500')

14. Capitola Santa Cruz 7/25/2019 9,921 Yes, 1000’
or more

15. Carpinteria Santa Barbara 5/13/2013 13,187 Yes, 1000’ or more

16. Cloverdale Sonoma 9/10/2014 8,964 Yes, less
than 1000’

17. Colton San Bernardino 11/5/2019 53,959 Yes, 1000’
or more

18. Contra Costa
County~ Contra Costa 7/11/2017 176,166 Yes, all types (90 licenses) Yes, all types
(500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

19. Costa Mesa Orange 9/15/2015 111,490 Yes, less than
all types
Yes, 1000’
or more

20. Covina Los Angeles 3/4/2014 50,717 Yes, less than
all types
Yes, less
than 1000’

21. Cudahy~ Los Angeles 7/17/2018 22,657
Yes, less than
all types
(500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

22. Cupertino~ Santa Clara 2/28/2020 59,763 Yes, all types (500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)
4 Policy Provisions
Municipality County
Most
Recent

23. Daly City~ San Mateo 4/25/2022 103,648 Yes, all types (1000’)

24. Danville~ Contra Costa 10/16/2018 43,449 Yes, all types (500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

25. Duarte~ Los Angeles 8/26/2014 21,686
Yes, less than
all types
(1 per 3,500
residents)
Yes, less than
all types
Yes, less
than 1000’

26. Dublin Alameda 7/15/2014 71,068 Yes, all types Yes, less than 1000’

27. El Cajon~ San Diego 8/12/2014 105,721 Yes, all types (500’)
Yes, all types
(1000’)
Yes, less
than 1000’
(600’)

28. El Cerrito Contra Costa 10/6/2015 25,869 Yes, all types Yes, less than 1000’

29. Emeryville Alameda 9/17/2018 12,840 Yes, 1000’
or more

30. Encinitas~ San Diego 1/17/2001 61,942
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

31. Fairfield Solano 10/17/2017 119,420 Yes, less than
all types
Yes, 1000’
or more

32. Fontana San Bernardino 1/27/2015 209,279 Yes, 1000’ or more

33. Garden Grove Orange 3/27/2012 171,637 Yes, less than all types
Yes, 1000’
or more
5 Policy Provisions
Municipality County
Most
Recent

34. Gilroy~ Santa Clara 11/3/2014 58,696
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

35. Goleta~ Santa Barbara 10/5/2021 32,640
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

36. Grand Terrace San Bernardino 1/10/2017 13,104 Yes, all types Yes, 1000’ or more

37. Guadalupe~ Santa Barbara 7/28/2020 8,272
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

38. Hayward Alameda 7/21/2020 160,602 Yes, less than
all types
Yes, less than
all types
Yes, 1000’
or more

39. Hemet Riverside 9/25/2012 89,651 Yes, all types Yes, 1000’ or more

40. Hercules~ Contra Costa 5/8/2018 26,041
Yes, less than
all types
(500’)
Yes, less
than 1000’
(300’)

41. Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 1/8/2019 19,551 Yes, less than 1000’

42. Huntington Park~ Los Angeles 11/21/2011 54,547
Yes, all types
(1 per 1,000
residents)
Yes, all types Yes, less
than 1000’

43. La Habra Orange 10/4/2010 62,904 Yes, less than
all types
Yes, 1000’
or more

44. La Habra Heights Los Angeles 4/9/2018 5,599 Yes, less than all types
6 Policy Provisions
Municipality County
Most
Recent

45. La Mirada~ Los Angeles 2/13/2007 47,644
Yes, less than
all types
(100’)
Yes, less than
all types
(500’)
Yes, less
than 1000’
(600’)

46. La Puente Los Angeles 1/27/2015 37,835 Yes, less than all types

47. La Verne~ Los Angeles 9/7/2021 31,239 Yes, all types (1000’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

48. Lafayette~ Contra Costa 5/28/2019 25,310
Yes, all types
(1 per 2,500
residents)
Yes, all types
(11 licenses)

49. Lakewood Los Angeles 12/10/2013 81,499 Yes, 1000’
or more
Yes, less than
all types

50. Livermore Alameda 7/8/2019 87,154 Yes, 1000’
or more

51. Livingston Merced 1/20/2015 14,344 Yes, less than
all types
Yes, less
than 1000’

52. Loomis~ Placer 2/11/2020 6,831
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

53. Los Altos Santa Clara 2/11/2020 31,133 Yes, all types Yes, 1000’ or more

54. Los Gatos Santa Clara 5/17/2017 33,093 Yes, all types Yes, 1000’ or more

55. Lynwood~ Los Angeles 10/16/2012 66,346
Yes, all types
(1 per 1,000
residents)
Yes, all types Yes, all types Yes, less
than 1000’

56. Manteca San Joaquin 9/21/2021 83,897 Yes, less
than 1000’
7 Policy Provisions
Municipality County
Most
Recent

57. Marin County~ Marin 4/2/2002 67,676
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

58. McFarland Kern 12/14/2017 13,971 Yes, less than
all types
Yes, less
than 1000’

59. Mendota Fresno 2/11/2014 12,603 Yes, less
than 1000’

60. Merced Merced 9/19/2016 87,686 Yes, 1000’
or more

61. Merced County Merced 10/22/2019 90,982 Yes, less than all types
Yes, 1000’
or more

62. Montclair San Bernardino 6/17/2013 37,842 Yes, less than all types
Yes, 1000’
or more

63. Montebello Los Angeles 9/23/2009 62,056 Yes, less than all types
Yes, less than
all types
Yes, 1000’
or more

64. Moreno Valley Riverside 11/15/2016 209,578 Yes, all types Yes, less than all types

65. National City San Diego 11/20/2018 56,345 Yes, 1000’ or more

66. Nevada City Nevada 7/6/2016 3,142 Yes, all types

67. Newark Alameda 1/25/2018 47,470 Yes, less than
all types
Yes, less than
all types
Yes, less
than 1000’

68. Norwalk Los Angeles 7/21/2015 101,893 Yes, less
than 1000’

69. Novato~ Marin 1/9/2018 53,055
Yes, less than
all types
(500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

70. Oakland Alameda 2/8/2000 437,825 Yes, all types Yes, 1000’ or more
8 Policy Provisions
Municipality County
Most
Recent

71. Oakley~ Contra Costa 12/11/2018 43,525 Yes, all types (25 licenses)
Yes, all types
(500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

72. Oroville~ Butte 3/19/2013 20,283
Yes, less than
all types
(1 per 4,000
residents)

73. Palmdale Los Angeles 4/2/2019 166,895 Yes, less
than 1000’

74. Palo Alto~ Santa Clara 10/2/2017 67,901 Yes, all types (500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

75. Pasadena~ Los Angeles 1/24/2005 137,554
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

76. Petaluma~ Sonoma 12/6/2021 59,682
Yes, all types
(1 per 2,000
residents)
Yes, all types
(500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

77. Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo 10/15/2019 8,050 Yes, less than all types

78. Pittsburg Contra Costa 11/21/2016 76,419 Yes, less than all types

79. Pleasanton~ Alameda 8/18/2020 78,691
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

80. Pomona Los Angeles 5/16/2005 149,831 Yes, all types Yes, all types Yes, 1000’ or more
9 Policy Provisions
Municipality County
Most
Recent

81. Rancho Cordova~ Sacramento 6/2/2014 79,128
Yes, less than
all types
(500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

82. Richmond Contra Costa 7/17/2018 115,619 Yes, all types Yes, 1000’ or more

83. Riverbank Stanislaus 11/24/2015 24,803 Yes, less
than 1000’

84. Rocklin~ Placer 9/8/2015 71,676
Yes, less than
all types
(1000’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

85. Rohnert Park Sonoma 4/28/2009 44,461 Yes, less than all types
Yes, less
than 1000’

86. Sacramento Sacramento 10/27/2020 523,600 Yes, all types

87. Salinas~ Monterey 11/29/2017 162,783
Yes, less than
all types
(1000')

88. San Clemente Orange 10/15/2019 64,232 Yes, less than all types
Yes, less than
all types
Yes, less
than 1000’

89. San Diego County~ San Diego 12/8/2020 514,736 Yes, all types (330 licenses) Yes, all types

90. San Francisco~ San Francisco 12/19/2014 851,036
Yes, all types
(45 licenses
per district)
Yes, all types Yes, less
than 1000’

91. San Jose~ Santa Clara 10/19/2021 1,001,176 Yes, all types (500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)
10 Policy Provisions
Municipality County
Most
Recent

92. San Leandro~ Alameda 4/7/2003 89,723
Yes, less than
all types
(1500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1500’)

93. San Mateo County~ San Mateo 5/23/2023 62,509 Yes, all types (500’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

94. San Pablo~ Contra Costa 5/18/2015 31,907
Yes, less than
all types
(6 licenses)
Yes, less than
all types
Yes, less
than 1000’
Yes, less than
all types

95. San Rafael~ Marin 2/18/2003 60,891
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)

96. Santa Barbara
County Santa Barbara 12/17/2019 137,659 Yes, 1000’
or more

97. Santa Clara Santa Clara 3/10/2015 128,058 Yes, less than all types
Yes, less than
all types
Yes, less
than 1000’

98. Santa Clara County~ Santa Clara 6/24/2014 89,803
Yes, less than
all types
(500’)

99. Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 4/8/2014 61,367 Yes, less than all types
Yes, 1000’
or more
100. Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz 10/11/2016 132,587 Yes, less than 1000’
101. Santa Maria~ Santa Barbara 12/3/2019 109,543
Yes, all types
(1 per 1,500
residents)
Yes, all types Yes, less
than 1000’
11 Policy Provisions
Municipality County
Most
Recent

Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)
105. Selma~ Fresno 3/7/2016 24,576 Yes, all types
(600’)
Yes, less
than 1000’
(600’)
106. Sonoma~ Sonoma 6/1/2015 10,702 Yes, all types
(15 licenses)
107. Sonoma County~ Sonoma 4/19/2016 133,557
Yes, all types
(1 per 2,000
residents)
Yes, 1000’
or more
108. South Gate Los Angeles 2/10/2015 92,381 Yes, less than all types
Yes, 1000’
or more
109. South Pasadena Los Angeles 11/3/2010 26,583 Yes, less than 1000’
110. South San Francisco San Mateo 10/9/2019 65,596 Yes, less than all types
111. Stanton~ Orange 11/26/2019 38,271
Yes, less
than 1000’
(500’)
112. Taft Kern 8/16/2016 7,414 Yes, all types Yes, less than 1000’
113. Temecula~ Riverside 9/12/2023 110,114
Yes, all types
(1 per 10,000
residents)

12 Policy Provisions
Municipality County
Most
Recent

Enactment
Date
Population
Number of
Retailers
Limited by
Population
Number of
Retailers
Limited by
Cap on
Licenses
Limits
Proximity to
Residential
Areas*
Limits
Proximity to
Other
Tobacco
Retailers*
Limits
Proximity to
YouthPopulated
Areas*
Limits
Proximity to
Marijuana
Retailers*
114. Temple City Los Angeles 12/3/2019 36,165 Yes, less than all types
Yes, 1000’
or more
115. Tracy San Joaquin 11/17/2020 94,027 Yes, less than all types
Yes, less
than 1000’
116. Union City Alameda 1/26/2010 69,502 Yes, less than all types
Yes, less than
all types Yes, all types Yes, 1000’ or more
117. Vallejo~ Solano 12/8/2009 125,132
Yes, less than
all types
(1000’)
Yes, less than
all types
(1000’)
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)
118. Ventura~ Ventura 1/13/2020 110,358
Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)
119. Vista~ San Diego 6/10/1997 98,392
Yes, less than
all types
(70 licenses)

Yes, 1000’
or more
(1000’)
120. Wasco~ Kern 6/7/2016 26,317
Yes, less than
all types
(1 per 30,000
residents)

121. West Hollywood~ Los Angeles 10/17/2016 35,358
Yes, less
than 1000’
(600’)
122. Westminster Orange 9/10/2014 90,638 Yes, less than all types
Yes, less
than 1000’
123. Whittier Los Angeles 8/25/2009 86,459 Yes, less than all types
Yes, less
than 1000’
Yes, less than
all types
124. Wildomar Riverside 10/9/2019 36,822 Yes, less
than 1000’
125. Windsor~ Sonoma 8/18/2021 26,320 Yes, all types
(1 per 2,000 Yes, 1000’ or more
13 Explanatory Notes:

The population data in this matrix is from the U.S. Census Bureau 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. ~ Not in PETS: Jurisdictions marked with ~ have new or updated policy provisions that are not yet reflected in the PETS database. * The specific distance for the proximity provisions is currently available only for the sub-set of jurisdictions whose policies have completed full analysis.

The specific density and proximity limitations (i.e. number of licenses or specific distance) are listed in parentheses for jurisdictions that have completed long-form analysis, with some limited exceptions.

Policies commonly exempt existing tobacco retail sales businesses from the six types of proximity and density provisions.

Definitions:

Most Recent Enactment Date: Jurisdictions may have enacted multiple policies regulating the sale of tobacco, such as amending prior policy provisions. The matrix lists the most recent date that a policy addressing the sale of tobacco for the topics covered by this matrix was enacted or amended.

Number of Retailers Limited by Population
Yes, all types = The ordinance establishes a maximum number of retail licenses per stated population for all types of establishments (stores and/or lounges) selling regulated tobacco products.

Yes, less than all types = The ordinance establishes a maximum number of retail licenses per stated population for some types of establishments (stores and/or lounges) selling regulated tobacco products, such as only limiting specialty tobacco retailer or vape shops.

Number of Retailers Limited by Cap on Licenses
Policy Provisions
Municipality County
Most
Recent

Yes, less than all types = The ordinance establishes a cap on the total number of retail licenses for some types of establishments (stores and/or lounges) selling regulated tobacco products, such as only limiting specialty tobacco retailer or vape shops.

Limits Proximity to Residential Areas
Yes, all types = The ordinance limits the sale of regulated tobacco products in all types of retail venues near residential areas.

Yes, less than all types = The ordinance limits the sale of regulated tobacco products in some types of retail venues near residential areas.

Limits Proximity to Other Tobacco Retailers
Yes, all types = The ordinance limits the sale of regulated tobacco products in all types of tobacco retail venues near other tobacco retailers.

Yes, less than all types = The ordinance limits sales of regulated tobacco products in some types of tobacco retail venues near other tobacco retailers, such as limiting proximity only to specialty tobacco retailers.

Limits Proximity to Youth-Populated Areas
Yes, 1,000’ or more = The ordinance limits the sale of regulated tobacco products within 1,000 feet or more of youth-populated areas, such as schools, parks, and/or childcare.

Yes, less than 1,000’ = The ordinance limits the sale of regulated tobacco products within a distance of less than 1,000 feet of youthpopulated areas, such as schools, parks, and/or childcare.

Limits Proximity to Marijuana Retailers
Yes, all types = The ordinance limits the sale of regulated tobacco products in all types of tobacco retail venues near marijuana retail sales venues.

Yes, less than all types = The ordinance limits the sale of regulated tobacco products in some types of tobacco retail venues near marijuana retail sales venues, such as limiting proximity only to specialty tobacco retailers.

ANR Foundation is actively collecting policies for the PETS Database. If you know of local laws that you think should be included in this matrix, or want to inquire about additional information on particular laws, please contact the ANR Foundation at [email protected]. © 2024, California Department of Public Health. This material may not be reproduced or disseminated without prior written permission from the California Department of Public Health.

From: Ditas Yamane
To: Shelley Chapel
Cc: Tonya Hussain; Steve Manganiello
Subject: Fw: East 16th Street re-zoning and 5-unit multi-family residential building permit proposal Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 2:16:56 PM
Attachments: OutlookEmoji-17583275458662a9dd7ce-5249-4c08-9d8f-41f94fce6dad.png Hi! Ms. Shelley,
Please include this in the public comment for this item./ thank you.
ditas
=====
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. Thank You.

From: Ema Letuli
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 5:51 PM
To: Ditas Yamane
Subject: East 16th Street re-zoning and 5-unit multi-family residential building permit proposal ,WHP

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hello Miss Yamane,
I reside at at the We already have a parking
problem on this street because of the condo and apartment building next to the liquor store. If you add another multi unit for 5 families and don’t have at least 10 parking spots included with these units, it is a mistake. We in single family homes already cannot have our family visit and park next to our homes.

Each unit should have at least 2 parking spots and that has not happened. Our house was bought in 1969 and there has never been a parking problem until the last few years. I have called already 3 times in the last couple years to report stolen vehicles left parked outside our house. We don’t recognize all the vehicles anymore and they end up being left for a few days before they are reported.

We cannot let this building get approved and make it worse to live here.

Appreciate all you do.

Ema Letuli
From: Ditas Yamane
To: Shelley Chapel
Cc: Tonya Hussain; Steve Manganiello
Subject: Fw: 3040 E 16th Street
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 2:18:04 PM
Attachments: OutlookEmoji-17583275458661dba924a-4abc-4acf-8ba0-4313ad09bc85.png Hello! Ms. Shelley - this one too please? thank you.
=====
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

From: Beverly C Bingham
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2025 10:39 AM
To: Ditas Yamane
Subject: 3040 E 16th Street
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Good morning councilwoman Yamane,
I wanted to take this time to ask a few questions considering the next city council meeting discussing this issue will happen in a couple weeks.

I am a property owner in the direct vicinity of the vacant lot at 3040 E 16th Street. I know there has been a request to re-zone this property along with a few others in the area. One question I have is if the property owners of 3042-3046, 3102-3104 and 3106-3108 E 16th St and the property on So Harbison wanted a re-zone of those properties why have they not requested it until now? Those properties have been zoned that way since 2011.

I am very concerned about any re-zone in the area due to the existing footprint of the neighborhood. I believe the current request to re-zone the property at 3040 is not needed because the current zoning allows for 3-4 units at that property thereby creating additional housing in the city. And frankly that's enough for the neighborhood. Anything more than that will only add to an already densely populated area.

I have spoken with a few of the neighbors and they feel the same.

Thank you for your time!
Regards
Beverly C Bingham
From: Patricia <
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 3:17 PM
To: Ditas Yamane
Subject: Re: REZONING OF E 16TH STREET / HARBISON
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

I would like to go on record stating that I am NOT in favor of the rezoning of East 16th Street / Harbison.

Patricia Mendez
On Tuesday, October 7, 2025 at 02:32:02 PM PDT, Ditas Yamane <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Jake Zindulka
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item 10.2 (USD Fuel Transfer Station) Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 8:22:41 AM
Attachments: EPA still cleaning up gas spill in El Cajon 2 months after crash – San Diego Union-Tribune 2.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear Mayor and Council Members:

I regrettably cannot attend the meeting tonight. Here’s my written comment on the proposed fuel transfer station:

I’ve lived in National City for over 3 years. I’m fortunate to live here. It’s a wonderful community. Without any doubt, the best part about our City is the people. Tonight, vote to protect them from outsiders seeking to pollute our community for profit. Do not allow past wrongs to continue compounding.

National City is sandwiched between San Diego and Chula Vista, two booming economies.

Everyone knows the best part of a sandwich are the innards. So tonight take action that allows our City to reach its true potential. Let’s create a safe, healthy, vibrant economy that benefits its people.

The applicant is seeking to pollute our City as the federal government is cutting environmental protection and health care. This is a dangerous combination that you should protect against by denying the application.

In addition to above, I strongly encourage you to deny the application for the following reasons:

The project would result in 72 fuel trucks (or more) driving on our City's streets every day. Each truck would carry ~ 8,000 gallons of fuel, totaling ~579,000 gallons per day. Although the applicant calls it "clean" fuel, it is still combustible/highly dangerous.

It puts our environment at risk due to truck accidents (as well as train derailments). Last year, a fuel truck crashed in El Cajon at an intersection near Grossmont College, resulting in 8,600 gallons of fuel spilling into the soil and storm drains. It also led to evacuations of nearby residents. (See EPA still cleaning up gas spill in El Cajon 2 months after crash, San Diego Union Tribune, December 4, 2024, attached). If you approve the project, the community will be at risk of a similar accident multiplied by 72 trucks by 365 days by 30+ years.

When the community asked the applicant about the risks associated with the trucks on the road, they stated the trucks will be operated by third-parties.

AKA, not their problem. The applicant will likely do everything possible to minimize their liability for accidents occurring off the facility.

Per the Environmental Impact Report, the project will be required to use the City's primary and alternate truck routes. I encourage you to review the truck route in the EIR (Figure C-8).The primary truck route includes traveling up 24th St, ,WHP
down National City Blvd, up 30th St, down Euclid Ave, then on Plaza Blvd.

The alternate route includes trucks driving up National City Blvd past City Hall and Kimball Park. The applicant may say they only intend to drive onto Highway 5, but nothing will prevent them from driving throughout our City per the City's primary truck route.

The City should promote a safe, healthy, vibrant economy. There is ample opportunity for growth that would help raise revenue for the City, like new hotels or restaurants.

Increased revenue would allow the City to provide more services to community members (e.g., affordable housing). However, the fuel transfer station (i.e., 72 fuel trucks driving past businesses including Kimball's Eatery and Sessions at the Bay every day) will deter companies or individuals seeking to invest and revitalize the Westside, especially near the marina.

Contrast this with the Chula Vista Bayfront. They recently opened a large resort that will generate millions in tax revenue. National City is taking steps to improve our port area. City leaders have discussed encouraging hotels and restaurants to open on the Westside. Having a fuel transfer station and 72 trucks on the streets every day will deter more healthy, positive development in the area.

Promoting safer, healthier developments in the area will also create more jobs than the proposed fuel transfer station.

I also encourage you to ask City staff about the applicant's $200,000 economic benefit agreement. In June, I submitted a PRA requesting all records related to the economic benefit agreement (PRA Request No. 25-401). The City only provided me with a 15 page packet prepared by the applicant that states they will pay $200,000 per year of the project. It is miniscule compared to how much the applicant will make from the project.

Even worse, it doesn’t take into account inflation. $200,000 in 1 year, and every year after, is significantly less than the value today. It will not cover the impact to the community or allow for any meaningful development. It is unfortunate City staff haven’t addressed the impact of inflation. USD Clean Fuels is a subsidiary of a company (USDG Fuels) owned by Goldman Sachs and another investment firm. They know about inflation.

They must assume our City leaders are ignorant.

You should reject the applicant’s statements that if the project is denied, something worse will come in its place. It’s a classic fear tactic. Instead, let’s get creative about how we can improve the area surrounding the project site and limit future projects that harm our community.

Similarly, the applicant made several comments during the Commission meeting that the same amount of trucks will be on the road whether the project is approved or denied, referring to the current truck routes from the LA area to San Diego. However, this is misleading because the project will service stations within a 30 mile radius (e.g., Escondido, Santee). That is, many of the current truck routes never get anywhere near National City. In contrast, if you approve the project, every truck will be on our streets.

If you intend to approve the project, I encourage you to place strong conditions on the permit, including:

Trucks can only leave the facility and go directly onto Highway 5 to avoid any trucks driving on the other parts of the primary truck route. The same restriction should apply to trucks driving to the facility.

Limit the hours from 12 am to 6 am to minimize the project’s impact to traffic and pedestrians. Don’t accept the applicant’s statements that “most” trucks trips will occur during any period. Put it as a condition.

Limit the amount of trucks per day. The applicant states they do not anticipate using more than 72 trucks per day, but we cannot accept that as a guarantee without a corresponding condition. In addition, you should consider allowing fewer than 72 trucks. Although the applicant “cut” the amount from ~140 to 72 per day, that’s simply a classic negotiation tactic (anchoring). You should independently consider how many trucks should be on our streets everyday.

Limit the life of the permit to a shorter period. Do not let it continue for 30+ years without any opportunity for reassessment. The Westside will be a very different place over the life of this project. We need to focus on long term growth.

Limit the type of fuel that is allowed to be brought to the transfer station. Without an express condition, the applicant may allow more dangerous/toxic fuels to arrive at the facility.

You should require the applicant to install cameras, monitors, and other devices near the project site that will help City staff confirm compliance with the conditions (e.g., operating hours, number of trucks) and city ordinances (e.g., idling limits). It is very difficult for City staff (and residents) to monitor and investigate non-compliant businesses. Let’s make it easier to ensure compliance and protect our community.

Thank you for your consideration and public service.

Best,
Jake Zindulka
Westside Resident
By GARY WARTH | The San Diego Union-Tribune
UPDATED: December 4, 2024 at 11:05 AM PST
A work wets fresh dirt that was used to backfill an ahead where contaminated soil was removed at Fletcher Parkway and Navajo Road in El Cajon on Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2024 in El Cajon, California. (Ana Ramirez / The San Diego Union-Tribune)

LOCAL NEWS
EPA still cleaning up gas spill in g pg p
El Cajon 2 months after crash
Agency says they keep finding more g yy y p g
contaminated dirt that needs to be hauled
from site
EPA still cleaning up gas spill in El Cajon 2 months after crash – S... https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2024/12/03/epa-still-cleani... 1 of 8 9/15/25, 11:50 AM
There appears to be no end in sight for a cleanup effort in El Cajon almost two months after a fuel truck spilled about 8,600 gallons of gasoline at a busy intersection.
“We’re still removing contaminated soil,” said Robert Wise, on-scene coordinator with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Wise said crews are hoping to be finished by the end of the week, but they have had their expectations dashed before.
“I can’t give you an end date because every time we put a shovel in the ground, we find more contaminated soil,” he said. “To be honest with you, I was hoping it would be done three weeks ago, but we found a lot more contaminated soil than we were expecting.”
The accident occurred around 9:30 a.m. Oct. 9 at Fletcher Parkway and Navajo Road. The truck was carrying 8,800 gallons of gasoline when it tipped over, spilling most of its fuel into nearby storm drains, onto the road and elsewhere.
“When the truck flipped over, gasoline got underneath the street, it got underneath the sidewalk, it got in the soil under Fletcher Parkway, and the soil was all sand and gravel,” Wise said. “It went straight down.” Crews of 25 have been working on the site since the spill. Fletcher Parkway is lined with large, metal bins that will be filled with contaminated soil and hauled to various landfills, mostly out of state, where it will be treated.

Read More
00:00 02:00
EPA still cleaning up gas spill in El Cajon 2 months after crash – S... https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2024/12/03/epa-still-cleani... 2 of 8 9/15/25, 11:50 AM
Metal bins on Fletcher Parkway will be filled with contaminated soil and hauled y away to be treated at landfills on Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2024 in El Cajon, California. y y, (Ana Ramirez / The San Diego Union-Tribune)
On the morning of the crash, residents within a 300-foot radius of the site were evacuated from their homes and some people living farther away were advised to remain inside.

Power also was cut off that morning for fear of fuel leading into underground power equipment.

On Monday, some employees of businesses at the mall on the corner of Navajo Road and Fletcher Parkway said they could smell gasoline on the day of the crash. Merchants also said customers complain about traffic at the intersection, where a northbound lane of Fletcher Parkway has been closed for weeks.
“It’s an inconvenience,” said Jason Neely, owner of Jason’s Water Store. “I’ve heard my customers talking about it, how it’s still closed. It’s just an eyesore being down there for me. I don’t notice any other effects.” Neely said the morning of the accident, he and other businesses were told power would be out until around 4 p.m. Instead, it didn’t come back until 7:30 p.m.
“We were all closed and lost business for a day,” he said. “So it affected us in that regard.”
EPA still cleaning up gas spill in El Cajon 2 months after crash – S... https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2024/12/03/epa-still-cleani... 3 of 8 9/15/25, 11:50 AM
Originally Published: December 3, 2024 at 4:31 PM PST
Other businesses had it worse, he said, recalling that he heard of restaurants throwing out food and Smart & Final using a refrigerator truck to save its inventory.

While the clean-up is taking longer than expected, Wise said the EPA considers it a medium-size spill. The cleanup cost will be paid by the insurance coverage of the trucking company, Coastal Transport Company, he said.

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and to receive emails from The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Essential San Diego: Get the top headlines from the Union-Tribune every weekday morning.

SIGN UP
Around the Web
Originally Published:December 3, 2024 at 4:31 PM PST D
By signing up, you agree to ou g r Terms of Use, Privacyy Polic, and to receive emails from The San Diego Union-Tribun il f Th S Di U i T ib e.

Essential San Diego: Get the top headlines from the Union-Tribune G p every weekday morning.

Email address SIGN UP
Around the Web
EPA still cleaning up gas spill in El Cajon 2 months after crash – S... https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2024/12/03/epa-still-cleani... 4 of 8 9/15/25, 11:50 AM
From: Pauline Faciolince
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda item 10.2 public comment
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 8:05:03 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Re: USD Clean Fuels Project
I think you should DENY the application because the health risks associated with the project greatly outweigh any potential benefit. The project will bring 72 fuel trucks carrying about 8,000 gallons of fuel each to National City every day. Not only will this cause air pollution in our community regularly, but any type of accident at the site (spills, explosions, etc.) will have major repercussions and impact to the surrounding areas.

Additionally, this project would significantly hinder any type of revitalization and growth to National City, the west side/marina area in particular. As we see neighboring cities push forward with growth and innovation to bring more into their community (for example, Chula Vista’s new hotel and convention center), we would be taking a step back and deterring potential investors and businesspeople from coming to National City.

At this point, I only see negatives and absolutely no positives (I do not see the minimal $200,000 yearly payout as a positive, and it doesn’t even account for inflation). For this reason, I hope you DENY the application.

Thank you for your time.

From: Renee Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: General Public Comment - Proposed Fuel Transfer Station Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 12:20:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

The proposed Fuel Transfer Station on West 18th is not a good idea. We already have too much diesel pollution from the portside trucks. Adding an extra 70 diesel trucks into our city 24/7 is very bad and a step in the wrong direction in providing a safe, healthy city. This project will not bring jobs to our city only problems.

I live about seven streets from I-5, but close enough to experience diesel pollution from the port. My front windows have a constant breeze from the bay, which is a blessing except that the diesel smell fills my house around 3:00 pm (if the windows are open).

Our community has been designated a Portside Environmental Justice neighborhood because of the poor air quality. I'm very much against adding a facility that will increase air pollution.

I am a homeowner and very concerned about our city.

Sincerely,
Mr & Mrs. Rodriguez
From: Rita De la Fuente
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 10.2 Public Hearing to Consider a Final EIR to Assess Project Impacts & Appeal a Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit & Coastal Development Permit for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility Within BNSF Railroad Right-of-Way on BNSF Pr...

Date: Saturday, October 4, 2025 10:35:50 AM
Attachments: Opposition to Item 10.2 – Fuel Transfer Facility Appeal.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear City Clerk,
Please find the attached written public comment on Agenda Item 10.2 Public Hearing to Consider a Final EIR to Assess Project Impacts & Appeal a Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit & Coastal Development Permit for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility Within BNSF Railroad Right-of-Way on BNSF Property.

Thank you,
Rita de la Fuente
On behalf of Olivewood Gardens & Learning Center
October 4, 2025
National City Council
1243 National City Blvd.

National City, CA 91950
Re: Opposition to Agenda Item 10.2 – Fuel Transfer Facility Appeal Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Olivewood Gardens & Learning Center, I write to express our strong opposition to Agenda Item 10.2: Public Hearing to Consider a Final EIR to Assess Project Impacts & Appeal a Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit & Coastal Development Permit for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility Within BNSF Railroad Right-of-Way on BNSF Property.

We commend the Planning Commission for denying this project and urge the City Council to uphold that decision.

Olivewood Gardens works every day with children and families in National City to build healthier futures through hands-on education in gardening, nutrition, and environmental stewardship. Part of our mission is collective advocacy—standing up when projects may put community health at risk.

Our concern with this proposal is that it would bring hundreds of diesel trucks and rail cars into a city that already suffers from some of the worst air quality in California. Our community already experiences elevated rates of asthma and respiratory illness, and this project would only make those burdens worse.

Equally troubling, the fuel being transferred is not intended to benefit National City residents. The pollution and health impacts would stay here, while other communities reap the benefits. This is a clear example of environmental injustice, where an already overburdened community is asked to bear more harm for someone else’s gain.

We respectfully urge you to reject this project and instead prioritize investments that align with National City’s vision for health, sustainability, and equity. National City’s children and families deserve a future with clean, healthy air.

Rita de la Fuente, Board Chair
On behalf of the Board of Directors
Olivewood Gardens & Learning Center
From: Therese
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item 10.2
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 12:12:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Listen to the Residents of National City, protect our children, and vote to reject USDG’s proposed fuel transfer system!
From: [email protected] on behalf of Adrienne Fusek To: Clerk
Subject: Please prioritize our community over the USDG transfer station! Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 8:20:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear National City Council,
Your constituents are counting on you to safeguard our communities. Please reject USDG's proposed fuel transfer station, which would further pollute our already compromised communities by spewing more particulate matter into our air and ultimately our lungs. Please send a powerful message by helping to prevent yet another environmental injustice.

Please vote to reject the USDG Fuels, LLC project.

Respectfully,
Adrienne Fusek
This message was sent by Adrienne Fusek via ActionButton, on behalf of Environmental Health Coalition. Please reply to Adrienne Fusek at
From: [email protected] on behalf of Inemesit Williams To: Clerk
Subject: REJECT USDG FUEL TRANSFER STATION
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 8:38:57 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear National City Council,
Polluting industries don’t belong next to our homes, schools, and churches. That is why I am asking you to REJECT USDG’s proposed fuel transfer station. This station would be on West 18th St, ~550 ft. from the closest residential home, and less than 1/2 mile from Kimball Elementary School and St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church.

The station would require about 72 heavy-duty diesel-polluting trucks (oil tankers) per day.

Residents in Westside National City already breathe more diesel pollution than 90% of communities in CA. Breathing diesel exhaust is known to damage lungs and cause cancer.

Making matters worse, trains and oil tankers would be moving large amounts of hazardous chemicals through our communities increasing the risk of a catastrophic emergency – like in Palestine, Ohio.

This project would increase truck traffic, lung-damaging pollution, create a hazard risk, and derail local clean air goals. Please protect our health and safety by voting to reject the USDG Fuels, LLC project.

I’ve watched too many communities suffer from the effects of adjacent industry. I watched my own grandmother suffer from the impacts of poor air quality due to neighboring industrial activity in Los Angeles County which contributed to her lost battle with cancer.

Please consider the health & safety of the community and our planet and say so to this project.

To learn more, visit //bit.ly/USDGFuel25.

Thank you,
Inemesit Williams
This message was sent by Inemesit Williams via ActionButton, on behalf of Environmental Health Coalition. Please reply to Inemesit Williams at
From: Jayson Schmidt
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item 10.2
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 10:35:14 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

I do not want to put a fuel station near Kimball Elementary. I hope that you'll do the right thing and not let this happen.

Jayson Schmidt
This email was not written using AI.

From: Kelsey Pennington
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider of a Final EIR to Assess Project Impacts & Appeal a Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit & Coastal Development Permit for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility Within BNSF Railroad Right-of-Way on BNSF Property
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 11:31:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hello,
I am writing in regards to the proposed fuel transfer station. I work in National City at Olivewood Gardens & Learning Center where our focus is on nutrition and gardening education, food access, and health equity advocacy. I have worked here for 4 years and have had the honor of connecting with Young People who call this city home. On behalf of staff and all of the children, youth, and families of National City, I urge you to vote no on the proposed project.

Part of my role involves empowering high school interns to become leaders and changemakers in their communities through skill development internships. During a community listening forum led by high school students from SweetWater HighSchool, a common theme that arose in the topic of what challenges face the community was air quality and related health complications. Many of the youth reported enduring asthma from a young age, and expressed deep concern for the quality of the air they breathe. These students are experiencing the effects of environmental racism. Their health is disproportionally put at risk based on the abundance of pollution that has been allowed to exist near their schools, homes, and parks. They are acutely aware of this fact, and will be watching as their city leaders choose whether or not to fight for their right to cleaner air and better health.

Vote no so that new generations of National City residents may begin to feel relief from the harmful pollutants being pumped into their home.

Sincerely,
Kelsey Pennington
Kelsey Pennington (she/her)
Youth Program Manager
Olivewood Gardens and Learning Center
www.olivewoodgardens.org
Office: (619) 434 4281
Acknowledging, honoring, and extending gratitude to the Kumeyaay peoples whose land we occupy.

The mission of Olivewood Gardens and Learning Center is to nourish communities and cultivate a deep connection to the environment through nutrition education, sustainable urban agriculture, collective advocacy, and intergenerational leadership.

From: LaVelle, Kyle
To: Ron Morrison; Marcus Bush; Luz Molina; Jose Rodriguez; Ditas Yamane Cc: Clerk
Subject: Upholding the Planning Commission’s Denial of the USDG Fuels Terminal Facility Project Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 11:19:40 AM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Upholding the Planning Commission’s Denial of the USDG Fuels Terminal Facility Project _10.7.25.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

October 7, 2025
Mayor Ron Morrison and
Members of the National City Council
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Re: Upholding the Planning Commission’s Denial of the USDG Fuels Terminal Facility Project
Dear Mayor Morrison and Councilmembers,
I am writing to urge the National City Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s recent 4–1 decision to deny the proposed USDG Fuels biofuel transfer facility. While I recognize and commend the project’s stated goals to advance cleaner energy distribution and regional decarbonization, these potential benefits cannot outweigh the disproportionate and compounding environmental health burdens that this project would impose on the National City community. Clean energy cannot come at the cost of clean air, especially for the communities that have already sacrificed significantly for San Diego’s growth.

The proposed facility, a 7.5-acre biofuel transfer station operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, would bring at least 72 additional diesel truck trips daily through a neighborhood already among the most pollution-burdened in California. Residents of West National City currently breathe air more polluted than 90% of the state, with children twice as likely to visit the emergency room for asthma-related illnesses. The Diesel Particulate Matter emissions are responsible for 84% of the cancer risk associated with air pollution in Barrio Logan and National City. Locating yet another industrial operation within 600 feet of homes and less than half a mile from Kimball Elementary would undermine years of progress made through the Portside Community Emissions Reduction Plan and the city’s own Health and Environmental Justice Element.

Projects of this scale must be evaluated not only for their technological or economic efficiency, but for their human and environmental justice impacts. National City has borne the weight of industrial land uses and cumulative pollution for decades. The addition of a biofuel transfer facility, even one aligned with regional clean energy targets, perpetuates the same inequitable planning patterns that residents, advocates, and local leaders have worked tirelessly to correct. This is about protecting people, not just permitting projects.

I stand with the residents, environmental health advocates, and the Portside Community Steering Committee in calling for a more just approach to sustainable infrastructure. Local voices are not obstacles to progress; they are the foundation of equitable development. When considering development, we must prioritize health, equity, and quality of life alongside climate goals. Upholding the Planning Commission’s denial sends a clear message that the future of clean energy must not come at the expense of already overburdened communities.

Thank you for your leadership and consideration on this critical matter.

Paloma Aguirre
Supervisor, District 1
County of San Diego
Kyle LaVelle
Policy Advisor – Land Use and Environment Group (LUEG)
Office of Supervisor Paloma Aguirre | District 1
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335, San Diego, CA 92101
O: 619 531-5666 |
October 7, 2025
Mayor Ron Morrison and
Members of the National City Council
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Re: Upholding the Planning Commission’s Denial of the USDG Fuels Terminal Facility Project Dear Mayor Morrison and Councilmembers,
I am writing to urge the National City Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s recent 4–1 decision to deny the proposed USDG Fuels biofuel transfer facility. While I recognize and commend the project’s stated goals to advance cleaner energy distribution and regional decarbonization, these potential benefits cannot outweigh the disproportionate and compounding environmental health burdens that this project would impose on the National City community.

Clean energy cannot come at the cost of clean air, especially for the communities that have already sacrificed significantly for San Diego’s growth.

patterns that residents, advocates, and local leaders have worked tirelessly to correct. This is about protecting people, not just permitting projects.

Upholding the Planning Commission’s denial sends a clear message that the future of clean energy must not come at the expense of already overburdened communities.

Thank you for your leadership and consideration on this critical matter.

Respectfully,
Paloma Aguirre
Supervisor, District 1
County of San Diego
From: M. Dan McKirnan
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item 10.2, USDG
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 10:34:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear National City Council Members:

National City has suffered from Environmental Injustice for decades!! Children and families have suffered from the air quality impacts of diesel exhaust and emissions from neighborhood auto body shops as well as shipyards. Asthma rates rank among the highest in the county. Approval of the project before you will only worsen air quality and the health of the community you are elected to serve.

Reverse the Environmental Injustice history in National City and reject this project! Thank you,
M. Dan McKirnan, Ph.D.

From: M S
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda item 10.2
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 12:02:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hello, as a resident of National City, a mother, and tax paying citizen, I am asking you please reject the proposed fuel station near Kimball Elementary. National City is a jewel and a treasure. We need to promote services that are going to benefit the healthy, quality of life for our residents. We need to have a long-term vision for the health and safety of National City, to grow this community for another hundred-plus years. Rather than looking at short-term "gains," which would damage critical properties and infrastructure, National City needs to focus on long-term wins.

We currently have poor health outcomes, low income, and low educational status as a whole community. We need to lift each other up with better quality air, improved access to education, access to healthy living and clean community spaces. Keep the dirt and grime out of National City.

Thank you.

Mariel Schmidt
From: Sara Ochoa
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 10.2: Oppose Approval of BNSF Transfer Facility in Impacted Community Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 12:18:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear Mayor Morrison and Honorable National City Councilmembers, I write to you to oppose the approval of the appeal before you tonight. While good jobs and a regional benefit of cleaner fuels are supportable, the tremendous negative impact to air quality for National City residents who already suffer some of the worst air quality in San Diego County is much too high a cost. The health and quality of these residents' lives is not a fair tradeoff to benefit other areas of the county. National City has borne the negative health impacts of the broader community's prosperity for far too long.

The Planning Commission got it right and boldly acted within their discretion to deny this proposal. Please uphold their decision and reject the appeal before you tonight.

Thank you,
Sara Ochoa
From: SCOTT SCHMIDT
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fuel Station.

Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 11:34:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear City Council,
National City does not need another fuel station, especially by an elementary school.

Please vote no.

Thank you,
Scott and Elaine Schmidt
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Ted Godshalk
To: Clerk
Subject: Public Comment for Item 10.2 from Mr. Ted Godshalk Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 11:40:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Comment for Item #10.2 for the City Council meeting of October 7, 2025 from Mr. Ted Godshalk:

Councilors,
Today you will hear and read testimony from both sides of a very contentious issue facing residents of National City. It is clear that there is no desire to have a fuel transfer station in National City. The facts are clear. The residents do not think conditions of approval will be enforced. The residents do not feel they will be protected from noise, fumes, train and diesel emissions or possible fire events, regardless of conditions of approval. There is a powerful land owner involved. The BNSF Railroad, that is owned by a billionaire Warren Buffett's firm, wants to make money at our expense. National City has dealt with negative effects of the railroad and similar industries for a very long time. $200,000 does not change this.

This is the same story that is facing the people in L.A. County who live near landfills that are accepting ash and fire debris from the Palisades and Altadena fires.

Tonight’s issue is the same story as the Native American people who have fought pipelines running through their homelands.

The story is the same as the people in Barrio Logan who fight against Biofuels in their neighborhood..https://www.kpbs.org/news/environment/2023/10/04/san-diego-biodiesel-plantstill-stirring-up-opposition-from-barrio-logan-neighbors We will not make progress as a community if we have leaders who make deals and accept projects like we have suffered with for the last 100 years.

Affirm the Planning Commission’s denial, reject the staff’s findings for approval of this project and demand a cleaner future in National City.

Ted Godshalk and Family
Resident within 1/4 mile.

News reports for your consideration:
https://www.clf.org/blog/the-truth-about-biofuels/
https://environmentalintegrity.org/news/biofuels-manufacturing-releases-large-amounts-ofhazardous-air-pollutants/ From: [email protected] on behalf of eSCRIBE.Admin To: Tonya Hussain
Subject: Public Comment Received
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 11:42:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

User Ted Godshalk has enter the following comment(s):

Today you will hear and read testimony from both sides of a very contentious issue facing residents of National City. It is clear that there is no desire to have a fuel transfer station in National City. The facts are clear. The residents do not think conditions of approval will be enforced. The residents do not feel they will be protected from noise, fumes, train and diesel emissions or possible fire events, regardless of conditions of approval. Affirm the Planning Commission's denial.
for Public Hearing to Consider of a Final EIR to Assess Project Impacts & Appeal a Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit & Coastal Development Permit for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility Within BNSF Railroad Right-of-Way on BNSF Property. in Regular City Council Meeting 10/7/2025 6:00:00 PM
Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s).

From: Maya Markillie
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda item 10.2 comment
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 12:33:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hello,
My name is Maya Markillie and I work with Olivewood Gardens & Learning Center located on N avenue in National City. I am an educator who teaches at five of the different elementary schools in National City - including Kimball elementary.

By approving this fuel station to be built in this location you would be putting thousands of real people’s health at risk. Especially the teachers and over 300 small elementary school students at Kimball elementary school that play outside and learn in their outdoor school garden every day.

There’s also the fact that Kimball elementary school is the only remaining dual language Spanish and English elementary school in National city. By approving of and recommending this station it would be actively polluting the air that these people breathe… and that is the definition of environmental racism.

This community has already been affected by our human driven climate crisis. The whole bottom half of kimball elementary was underwater with the large scale flooding that took place last year in January. And the classrooms that were impacted by that flooding along with the entire lower playground that younger students utilized were inaccessible for the entirety of 2024 while repairs and rebuilds were going on.

Needless to say - this community is already used to their health and wellness being an afterthought.

SO
If you are comfortable supporting environmental racism and the declining long term health of children in our community then please go ahead and approve of this fueling station.

Also to USDG - how dare you with your “evidence over perception” point. The evidence you are forgetting is that there will be up to 72 DIESEL POLLUTING TRUCKS running through this community EVERY day. You are lying by saying that won’t have ANY significant impact on the health of our community members. It may not be immediate… but there WILL be long term health conditions that this fuel station causes and contributes to. Shame on you for skewing truth for your monetary benefit.

If you are interested in squashing environmental racism and polluting of our shared environment- Listen to what your community you represent is saying. Do not recommend the USDG fuel transfer station.

Say NO to dirty money.

Thank you,
Maya Markillie
From: Julia Groebner
To: Public Comment
Subject: agenda item 10.2
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 1:42:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

To the National City CouncilI am writing to encourage you to vote NO on the USD Group's proposed fuel transfer station that would be located on West 18th St. The proposed location is approx. 500 feet from the closest residence and less than 1/2 mile from Kimball Elementary School and St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church. Polluting industries don’t belong next to our homes, schools, and churches.

The station would be serviced by approx. 72 heavy-duty diesel-polluting trucks (oil tankers) per day. Residents in west National City already breathe more diesel pollution than 90% of communities in California. Breathing diesel exhaust is known to damage lungs and cause cancer. Locating such a facility near an elementary school would be incredibly harmful to the children who attend the school and live in the community. In addition, the proposed facility would be located in San Diego’s Portside Environmental Justice Community (AB 617) area, which the State selected to monitor and reduce air pollution. Approving the proposed facility would result in a very large step backward in the clean air, health, and environmental justice goals for this community.

Making matters worse, trains and oil tankers would be moving large amounts of hazardous chemicals through our communities, increasing the risk of a catastrophic emergency – like in Palestine, Ohio.

This project would increase truck traffic, lung-damaging pollution, create a hazard risk, and derail local clean air goals. The National City Planning Commission already voted to reject this proposal, as the residents of National City have made it very clear that they do NOT want this facility in their neighborhood. Please protect our health and safety by voting to reject the USDG Fuels, LLC project.

Thank you,
Julia Groebner
From: Scott Schmidt
To: Public Comment
Subject: Please don"t do it.

Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 1:42:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

As a longtime resident, I feel this is a bad idea, the proximity to Kimble Elementary sounds unsafe both for the school and the surrounding residences.

Please protect our city from becoming a place to avoid.

Regards,
Scott Schmidt
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
From: Knight, Brock
To: Public Comment
Cc: Meza, Melina
Subject: Agenda Item 10.2: Public Hearing to Consider of a Final EIR to Assess Project Impacts & Appeal a Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit & Coastal Development Permit for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 1:49:52 PM
Attachments: SDAPCD USDG Project Comment Letter 10-7-25.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear City Clerk, Mayor, and City Council Members,
On behalf of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD), we would like to submit a comment on Agenda Item [#10.2]: Public Hearing to Consider of a Final EIR to Assess Project Impacts & Appeal a Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit & Coastal Development Permit for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility Within BNSF Railroad Right-of-Way on BNSF Property.

Please accept the attached letter as SDAPCD’s comment for the Public Hearing.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Brock Knight
Legislative Fellow
[email protected]
10124 Old Grove Rd. San Diego California 92131-1649
(858) 586-2600 Fax (858) 586-2601
www.sdapcd.org
October 7, 2025
City of National City
Attn: Mayor and City Council Members
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Subject: Consideration of Air Quality Impacts in Overburdened Communities and Portside CERP Goals – San Diego Clean Fuels Terminal LLC Project
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the consideration of the San Diego Clean Fuels Terminal LLC Project (Project) proposed within West National City, located in the Portside Environmental Justice Community (Portside Community). This community—which includes Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, Sherman Heights, and West National City—was identified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) under Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) as one of California’s most overburdened areas for air pollution exposure and related health impacts.

In 2018, the Portside Community was selected by CARB and SDAPCD as a community air monitoring area, and in 2019, it was designated for the development of a Community Emissions Reduction Program (CERP)—a community-driven roadmap to reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) and other toxic air pollutants. Adopted by SDAPCD and CARB in 2021, the CERP outlines targeted strategies to protect public health and improve air quality in this vulnerable region.1 The CERP includes several emission reduction strategies for mobile sources of air pollution (which include diesel trucks) as they are the driver for diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, a known carcinogen, in the community. Eleven (11) of the twelve (12) census tracts in the Portside Community (over 45,000 people) have an exposure risk to DPM greater than 95 percent of census tracts statewide (i.e., the 95th percentile) according to CalEnviroScreen.

Four (4) of the census tracts (over 15,000 people) are in the 99th percentile for DPM. In addition to these environmental burdens, residents of the Portside Community also face significant health and socioeconomic challenges.

As you consider the proposed Project, we urge you to consider the goals and strategies identified in the Portside CERP to help reduce diesel emissions in the Portside Community. Specifically, the Portside CERP calls for aggressive emission reductions from diesel sources through Action E1, which advances the deployment of zero-emission (ZEV) heavy-duty trucks to reduce emissions in disadvantaged communities.

Additionally, CERP Goal 1 calls to reduce diesel particulate matter by 80% by 2031. Other CERP actions call for reducing community exposure to pollution, such as supporting a dedicated truck route and avoid truck impacts to local community (Action E3), reducing exposure for sensitive receptors within 500ft of Port, freeway, and industries (Action F2), and reducing exposure for public schools (Action F4).

As the Portside Community continues to make progress in implementing the CERP, it is important to protect the years of work to reduce emissions and to prevent exacerbating existing pollution burdens in a 1 ou|vb7;ollmb|
lbvvbomv!;71ঞom
uo]u-l
community already facing disproportionate health and environmental impacts. We ask that you carefully consider and address any potential impacts from this Project that would conflict with the CERP goals.

Sincerely,
Paula Forbis
Air Pollution Control Officer
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
Further References
x SDAPCD USDG Fuels Project Comment Letter 6.28.23
x SDAPCD USDG Fuels Project Comment Letter 6.06.24
x SDAPCD USDG Fuels Project Comment Letter 01.23.25
x CARB USDG Fuels Project Comment Letter 7.20.23
x CARB USDG Fuels Project Comment Letter 6.07.24
x Portside Community Emissions Reduction Program
x Portside Project and Lease Expectations
From: Livia Borak Beaudin
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 10.2: Oppose Approval of BNSF Transfer Facility in Impacted Community Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 1:58:17 PM
Attachments: image001.png
DEIR USD Fuel Transfer Facility.EHC Comments.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear Mayor Morrison and Honorable National City Councilmembers, On behalf of Environmental Health Coalition and Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, I urge you to deny the appeal of the proposed fuel transfer facility and to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision. As reflected in Coast Law Group’s DEIR comments, multiple issues remain related to the Facility’s CEQA review and analysis.

Most importantly, the City Council has the discretion to set the CEQA thresholds, determine General Plan consistency, and assess whether the Facility comports with Municipal Code Section 18.12.110’s discretionary standards for a CUP. CEQA Guideline Section 15064. A lead agency “has considerable discretion to decide the manner of the discussion of potentially significant impacts in an EIR.” League to Save Lake Tahoe Mtn. etc. v. Cnty. of Placer, 75 Cal. App. 5th 63, 139–40 (2022). “This would include determinations regarding the methodology for studying an impact, whether a particular method of analysis is reasonably feasible, and whether it would yield information that would be both reliable and informative.” Id.

As with determining impacts generally, the discretion to choose thresholds of significance is “substantial.” King & Gardiner Farms, LLC. v. Cnty. of Kern, 45 Cal.

App. 5th 814, 893 (2020). “The lead agency has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact.” Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa, 23 Cal. App. 5th 877, 885 (2018). This is because “[a]n ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting.” King & Gardiner Farms, LLC, 45 Cal. App. 5th at 884 (citing Guideline 15064(b)(1)). In exercising their discretion, lead agencies must necessarily be allowed to make policy decisions in distinguishing between substantial and insubstantial environmental impacts. N. Coast Rivers All. v.

Marin Mun. Water Dist. Bd. of Dirs., 216 Cal. App. 4th 614, 625 (2013).

As APCD previously noted, the one-in-one-million cancer risk threshold is more appropriate here. The City has discretionary authority over the entire Facility, not just the stationary toxic air contaminant or DPM sources. The mobile sources are part of the City’s analysis and the whole of the project. Therefore, limiting TBACT (and the technology forcing component of the APCD Rule) is inappropriate in this setting. The City has discretion to require ZEVs or more sustainable fuels for the Facility.

Therefore, TBACT should apply to the source of the DPM – the trucks. Without TBACT applied to the source of the DPM, use of the higher threshold is inappropriate.

CEQA Guideline Section 15064.7(b) and (d).

In addition, the CUP is a discretionary permit and is subject to site and use specific conditions. In California, municipalities have significant discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits (CUPs). This discretion is rooted in the quasi-judicial nature of the CUP process, which allows municipalities to evaluate whether a proposed use aligns with the public welfare, zoning ordinances, and other applicable criteria. Courts generally defer to the decisions of municipalities unless there is a clear and convincing showing of fraud, illegality, or abuse of discretion. Wheeler v.

Gregg, 90 Cal. App. 2d 348, Gong v. Fremont, 250 Cal. App. 2d 568. In particular, the City must determine (among other things):

Such findings cannot be made here – where the Project would introduce an additional 169 daily truck trips and a significant increase cancer burden to an already overburdened community. Please exercise your discretion to protect the community.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Livia Borak Beaudin (she/her)
Coast Law Group LLP
1140 South Coast Highway 101
Encinitas, California 92024
telephone: 760.942.8505
direct dial: 760-514-0165
“Like music and art, love of nature is a common language that can transcend political or social boundaries.” ȸ Jimmy Carter
1140 South Coast Hwy. 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
Tel 760-942-8505
Fax 760-942-8515
www.coastlawgroup.com
January 29, 2025
David Welch, Associate Planner
Planning Department, National City
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Via Electronic Mail
[email protected]

RE: USD Fuel Transfer Facility Draft EIR
EHC CEQA Comments

Dear Mr. Welch:

Please accept the following comments regarding the USD Fuel Transfer Facility (Project) on behalf of our client, Environmental Health Coalition (EHC). For over 40 years, EHC has been dedicated to achieving environmental and social justice by empowering San Diego communities.

EHC advocates for Portside communities most directly impacted by industrial operations at the Port and surrounding communities and is particularly worried about the proposed Project’s impacts on the residents of National City. As detailed below, the Draft Environmental Impact Reports (DEIR) fails to adequately characterize and mitigate the significant impacts to water quality, air quality, human beings, hazardous impacts, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), and transportation impacts. As a result, the DEIR must be revised.

A. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Water Quality Impacts, Biological, and Land Use Impacts

a. Impacts to Wetlands and Potential ESHA Are Significant and Unmitigated
The Project will result in significant unmitigated impacts to water quality and biological resources. Though the DEIR fails to analyze in any detail the Coastal Act wetlands onsite, it acknowledges that .144 acres of the Project area contain Coastal Act wetland features.

Instead of adequately disclosing and assessing the Project’s impacts on these Coastal wetlands (which will be significant), the DEIR mischaracterizes the wetland as a “feature” “puddle” and “depression” to mislead the public and decisionmakers regarding the Project’s intent to fill and degrade a wetland.1
The DEIR cryptically admits the wetland will be destroyed in the Land Use analysis: “The Proposed Project would eliminate this puddle…”2 1 DEIR, pp. 3.2-14 to 3.2-16.
2 DEIR, p. 3.6-8.

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 2 of 18 ends

____________________
Notwithstanding the DEIR’s contrary finding, the Project is not allowed pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30233(a)(1).3 First, it is not coastal dependent as a transloading facility can be located outside of the coast. Indeed, most of the BNSF rail network is outside the Coastal Zone. Further, the proposed Project is not the least environmentally damaging alternative as alternative locations outside of the Coastal Zone exist. Lastly, because the DEIR fails to analyze the Project’s impacts on the wetland (improperly deferring such analysis), it certainly does not minimize such impacts or propose any mitigation measures.4

In that regard, the DEIR fails to disclose the extent of the Project’s impacts on the Coastal Act wetland. Rather, it improperly defers such analysis, simply stating “[f]ill within jurisdictional features to the CCA would require City concurrence pursuant to the LCP.”5 This
is woefully inadequate. The DEIR must inform the City’s assessment of the Project’s conformance with the LCP. The Coastal Commission has already advised the City of its requirement to do so.6
Indeed, the City’s LCP requires open space easements be executed over any identified wetland resources and that adequate 100-foot buffers be provided.7 Diking, dredging, and
filling of wetlands shall be permitted only:
i. where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and ii. where feasible mitigation measures are provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and
iii. where limited to incidental public service purposes, restoration purposes, and nature study, and
iv. where a marsh restoration program has been approved by the California Coastal Commission.8
The DEIR makes no mention of this policy and fails to analyze the Project’s consistency therewith, likely because the Project is inconsistent with the LCP. Instead, the DEIR dismisses Alternative 3 based on its impacts to wetlands pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30233 – failing to mention the Project’s own similar impact.9

However, the Project will result in impacts to .144 acres of California Coastal Commission wetland but nonetheless concludes it will not result in a significant impact. The Project will build “tracks 8 and 9, mechanical skids, pumps and piping, and mechanical track 3 DEIR, p. 3.2-15.
4 See Coastal Commission Comments, June 30, 2023.
5 DEIR, ES-16 to ES-17.
6 Coastal Commission Comments, June 30, 2023, pp. 2-3.
7 LCP, Section X.B.4.
8 Id., Section X.B.4.e., emphasis added.
9 DEIR, p. 5-21.

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 3 of 18 ends

____________________
bumpers” within the wetland – these are significant impacts that will result in the unlawful fill and degradation of the wetland.10 Counterfactually, the DEIR nonetheless concludes the onsite drainage improvements would “result in an overall improvement in water quality for the region, a less than significant impact was identified for impacts to the [wetland].”11 The DEIR also fails to disclose whether any Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) occur onsite – despite the fact that wetlands may constitute ESHA.12 This is contrary to CEQA. In a similar context, an EIR was defective where a lead agency failed to analyze and disclose potential impacts to ESHA:

Here the principal issue is whether the Banning Ranch EIR was required to identify potential ESHA and analyze the impacts of the project on those areas. CEQA requires every EIR to identify “[a]ll significant effects on the environment of the proposed project,” which would generally include effects on sensitive habitat areas. (§ 21100, subd. (b)(1); see Guidelines, § 15126.2.)
The City argues that CEQA imposes no duty to consider the Coastal Act’s ESHA requirements. It claims it was sufficient for the Banning Ranch EIR to analyze the impacts of the NBR project, including those on sensitive habitat areas, without accounting for potential ESHA. Essentially, the City claims it was entitled to ignore the fact that Banning Ranch is in the coastal zone. The City's position is untenable.

CEQA sets out a fundamental policy requiring local agencies to “integrate the requirements of this division with planning and environmental review procedures otherwise required by law or by local practice so that all those procedures, to the maximum feasible extent, run concurrently, rather than consecutively.” (§ 21003, subd. (a).) The CEQA Guidelines similarly specify that “[t]o the extent possible, the EIR process should be combined with the existing planning, review, and project approval process used by each public agency.” (Guidelines, § 15080)13 Because the Project is inconsistent with the City’s LCP and will result in significant impacts to wetland resources and potential EHSA not disclosed in the DEIR, the document fails to serve its informational purpose.
10 DEIR, p. 3.2-15.
11 DEIR, p. 3.2-16.
12 Public Resources Code Section 30107.5 [“ ‘Environmentally sensitive area’ means any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.”] 13 Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, 936, emphasis added.

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 4 of 18 ends

____________________
b. The DEIR Fails to Analyze the Project’s Inconsistency with the LCP As noted above, the DEIR fails to analyze the Project’s consistency with the LCP for impacts to Coastal Act wetlands. However, the DEIR fails wholesale to analyze the Project’s consistency with the LCP. Though the DEIR acknowledges the Project requires a Coastal Development Permit from the City, and that the City has a certified LCP, it analyzes the Project’s consistency with the Coastal Act – not the LCP.14

B. Air Quality Impacts Are Significant and Unmitigated
a. Health Risk From Particulate Matter
The Project will also result in significant air quality impacts that have not been adequately analyzed in the DEIR, despite comments from APCD and EHC noting the inadequacy during the comment period on the MND. Once again, the DEIR underestimates the Project’s cancer risk impacts. As noted by the APCD, the EIR incorrectly concludes the Project will not result in a significant air quality impact based on its use of an improper and unsupported threshold of significance.15 The DEIR incorrectly states the San Diego APCD cancer risk threshold is ten in one million.16 However, the Rule 1200 threshold is one in one million. APCD previously urged the City apply this threshold and mitigate any resultant impacts:

The City of National City should use a significance threshold of one-in-one million, as established by APCD Rule 1200, for increased incremental cancer risk for this project.

If the revised health risk assessment or the revised significance threshold result in the project potentially requiring mitigation, appropriate measures should be evaluated and proposed.17
“Cancer Burden” means the estimated potential increase in the occurrence of cancer cases in a population subject to an incremental cancer risk of greater than one in one million resulting from exposure to toxic air contaminants.18
If evidence is submitted tending to show that the environmental impact might be significant despite the significance standard used in the EIR, the agency must address that evidence.19 Here, the DEIR not only uses the wrong standard of significance but also reveals the impact to 14 DEIR, p. 3.6-7 to 3.6-9.
15 DEIR, p. 3.1-16.
16 Id. 17 SDAPCD Comments, June 28, 2023, p. 4.
18 Regulation XII, Rule 1200, (c)(2) and (d) available at https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-1200.pdf 19 Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 CA4th 1099, 1111.

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 5 of 18 ends

____________________
the human health will be significant.

The DEIR’s attempt to characterize the Project as a mobile source (and therefore undermine the application of the threshold) is disingenuous at best.20 As noted by APCD, “[s]ince truck trips are directly related to the operation of the terminal, their emissions and associated health impacts should be included in the analysis of operational emissions from the project.”21 Notably, the DEIR applies APCD’s stationary source rules elsewhere.22 Similarly, the DEIR’s reliance on “couplers that connect tanker trucks, spill containment drain valves, overfill prevention devices, and vent pressure/vacuum valves” as toxics best available control technology (“T-BACT”) is misplaced.23 As the DEIR notes, the TAC’s associated with the Project are primarily from truck traffic, while the aforementioned technology improvements apply to the fuel transfer process – leaving the TACs largely unaddressed. The definition of T-BACT underscores its inapplicability here:
“Toxics Best Available Control Technology (T-BACT)” means the most effective emission limitation or emission control device or control technique which:
(i) has been achieved in practice for that source or category of source; or (ii) is any other emissions limitation or control technique, including process and equipment changes of basic and control equipment and implementation of pollution prevention measures, found by the Air Pollution Control Officer to be technologically feasible for that source or category of source, or for a specific source. If there is an applicable MACT standard, the Air Pollution Control Officer shall evaluate it for equivalency with T-BACT.24
Rule 1200(d)(1) confirms the technology applied must actually address the TACs:
(1) Cancer Risk
(i) T-BACT Not Applied. The increase in maximum incremental cancer risk at every receptor location is equal to or less than one in one million for any project for which new, relocated, or modified emission units that increases maximum incremental cancer risk are not equipped with T-BACT; and
20 DEIR, p. 3.1-16.
21 SDAPCD Comments, June 28, 2023, p. 1.
22 See, e.g. DEIR, p. 3.1-12 [“Specifically Rule 20.2 applies to this Project as it will be likely be considered a Non-Major Stationary Source.”]; p. 3.1-9; 3.1-10. 23 DEIR, p. 3.1-16. 24 APCD Rule 1200(c)(24), underline added.

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 6 of 18 ends

____________________
(ii) T-BACT Applied. Except as provided in (d)(1)(iii), the increase in maximum incremental cancer risk at every receptor location is equal to or less than 10 in one million for any project for which all new, relocated, or modified emission units that increases maximum incremental cancer risk are equipped with T-BACT.

Thus, the emission units that increase cancer risk must be equipped with T-BACT in order to meaningfully reduce cancer risk. The DEIR’s contrary conclusion that the Project has employed T-BACT in an attempt to justify the lower cancer risk threshold is therefore not supported by substantial evidence or the applicable regulations.

In its earlier comments, APCD noted the irony and hypocrisy of subjecting the citizens of National City to health impacts from diesel engine emissions in order to transport alternatives to dirty diesel:

Also, the APCD notes that emission impacts from the project include diesel engine emissions for the purpose of importing alternative fuels that are designed to reduce emissions from this very type of equipment. The APCD suggests that this may create unique opportunities for making this fuel available broadly within the nearby area to reduce emissions from the transportation sector as a whole, potentially resulting in net reductions to emissions (and health risk) within the community.25 A recent study26 found that PM2.5 exposure is associated with increases in risk for illness-related work absences, and exposure to wildfire smoke amplifies this impact.

According to the findings in the study, every one unit increase in PM2.5 exposure could result in more than 1 million days of work loss due to sickness and a quarter-billion dollars of economic loss annually in California.27 Thus, the Project’s particulate matter emissions will result in negative health and economic impacts. These substantial negative impacts on human beings result in a mandatory finding of significance. 28 Further, nothing in the DEIR supports the notion that the project deliveries will be confined to a 35-mile radius. The DEIR fails to identify its retail customers or their locations.

Thus, it is likely the Project will result in greater emissions and longer trips than disclosed. 25 SDAPCD Comments, June 28, 2023, p. 5.
26 Ying-Ying Meng, Yu Yu, Mohammad Z. Al-Hamdan, Miriam E. Marlier, Joseph L. Wilkins, Diane GarciaGonzales, Xiao Chen, Michael Jerrett, Short-Term total and wildfire fine particulate matter exposure and work loss in California, Environment International, Volume 178, 2023, 108045, ISSN 0160-4120, available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412023003185 27 https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CARB/bulletins/35efe6f 28 See, Pub. Res. Code §21083(b)(3) [mandatory finding of significance where “[t]he environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.”]; CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(4)).

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 7 of 18 ends

____________________
b. Inconsistency With the CERP
In response to Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (C. Garcia, 2017), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) established the Community Air Protection Program (Program). The Program’s mission is to reduce pollution exposure in communities based on environmental, health and socioeconomic information. San Diego’s Portside Environmental Justice Community encompasses parts of Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, Sherman Heights, and National City. In 2018 the Portside Community was selected as a monitoring community and in 2019 was selected to develop a Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP).29 Since 2018, the Air District has been working with the Portside Steering Committee made up of local businesses, community groups, and residents of the community and the City of National City to develop strategies to improve the air quality for all in the community. The CERP was adopted by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District Board in July 2021 and approved by the California Air Resources Board in October 2021.30 As noted in the DEIR, the CERP is “designed to guide the community and businesses to achieve emissions beyond regulatory standards.”31
The CERP contains several different goals to reduce air pollution. The Project conflicts with these goals in numerous ways, each resulting in increased impacts to nearby residents in the Portside Environmental Justice Community.

Goal 1 – “By 2031, reduce Diesel PM from 2018 levels by 80% in ambient air at all Portside Community locations”
Once complete, the Project is expected to receive approximately 144 heavy-duty truck trips per day via W. 18th Street and exiting the facility on W. 19th Street. In comparison, the Port of San Diego’s two cargo terminals (Tenth Avenue and National City) attract about 118 trucks per day – or about 237 truck trips (to and from).32 Thus, the traffic produced by this one fuel transfer facility will potentially produce more than half the heavy-duty truck traffic as San Diego’s port cargo terminals, resulting in a commensurate increase in diesel particulate matter.

Goal 2 - Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty trucks servicing Portside Community to be 100% ZEV 5 years ahead of the California state requirements 29 https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/community/community-air-protection-program/portsidecommunity/portside-cerp.html 30 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/community-air-protection-program/communities/portsideenvironmental-justice 31 DEIR, p. 3.1-13.
32 https://pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows.net/environment/2022-POSD-Health-Risk-Assessment-Fact-SheetApril-2023_English.pdf USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 8 of 18 ends

____________________
The Port’s Maritime Clean Air Strategy has a goal of 100 percent electrification of trucks servicing Port of San Diego cargo terminals by 2030.33 The State of California’s Advanced Clean Fleet Rule sets a timeline for a full ZEV transition of trucks that travel across the state by 2045 (drayage trucks by 2035). This project conflicts with these stated goals because it does not include any required ZEV technology for delivery of fuel to retailers or for construction vehicles.

Further, investing in infrastructure that will transport fossil fuels for a transportation sector that is to be fully electric in 15 years is counterproductive and shortsighted - especially when the purportedly “clean” fuel results in more truck trips powered by “dirty fuel” in the Portside Environmental Justice Community.

Goal 4 - Reduce emissions from HD/MD trucks servicing indirect sources by 100% 5 years in advance of regulatory requirements
Indirect sources of air emissions are stationary sources that create air pollution by attracting mobile sources (e.g., warehouses, marine ports, railyards, airports – or in this case a fueling transfer station). San Diego’s Portside Community has approximately 524 warehouse and distribution facilities within its borders. Approximately 24 warehouses already exist within 1000 feet of the proposed Project. Thus, the instant Project will only add to this cumulative impact, frustrating the region’s ability to meet its CERP goals.

The DEIR’s opposite conclusion is a disservice to the community. The emission reductions noted in the DEIR will be realized by other projects and other fleets – not those servicing the Project and not those traveling through the streets of National City, resulting in a significantly higher cancer burden. The DEIR’s shameful attempt to equate selling “cleaner” fuels with using them is disingenuous. The Project will result in a substantial health risk and is inconsistent with the CERP – underscoring the Project’s substantial adverse effects on human beings.34
C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Will Be Significant
As the MND did, the DEIR trivializes GHG emissions and ignores the City’s ability to mitigate emissions from new development projects. As noted by the California Supreme Court, new development projects will likely require greater reductions than existing development:

Plaintiffs put forward one ready reason to suspect…that in fact a greater degree of reduction may be needed from new land use projects than from the economy as a whole:

Designing new buildings and infrastructure for maximum energy efficiency and 33 https://pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows.net/environment/20211214-Final-MCAS.pdf 34 Pub. Res. Code §21083(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(4).

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 9 of 18 ends

____________________
renewable energy use is likely to be easier, and is more likely to occur, than achieving the same savings by retrofitting of older structures and systems. 35 In contrast, the DEIR’s GHG analysis presumes projects above the SCAQMD screening threshold are not worth the City’s time.
36 The DEIR further posits that the small project threshold represents less than one percent of the future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target.37 This turns the cumulative impacts analysis on its head.38
The DEIR notes the lead agency has discretion to establish the appropriate methodology and threshold of significance for each impact area, including GHG emissions. The City – its elected decision-making body – holds such discretion: the Project applicant’s consultant does not. EHC urges the City to reject the DEIR’s dubious and self-serving analysis and threshold and instead rely on the science-based, widely used CAPCOA threshold described below.

Though most lead agencies rely on the 900 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent as a screening threshold, the Project does not because it will result in 1,633 MTCO2 per year when operational. When construction emissions are added to this total, it clearly exceeds the CAPCOA threshold.39 The DEIR relies instead on the SCAQMD (interim) threshold, which only applies where SCAQMD is the lead agency and where “stationary source equipment associated with these projects are either at BACT or must comply with source-specific rules that reduce criteria pollutants and/or air toxics.”40 Moreover, the SCAQMD screening threshold captures 90 percent of reported annual natural gas consumption of stationary sources from 2006 to 2007. 41 This
outdated metric does not account for 90 percent of projects (as the DEIR suggests) but 90 percent of projects over which SCAQMD had jurisdiction as the lead agency.42 35 Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 226, emphasis added. 36 DEIR, p. 3.4-8 to 3.4-9. 37 Id. at p. 3.4-9.
38 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 718 [“The relevant question to be addressed in the EIR is not the relative amount of precursors emitted by the project when compared with preexisting emissions, but whether any additional amount of precursor emissions should be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the ozone problems in this air basin”]; see also, Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 117 [126 Cal.Rptr.2d 441], as modified (Nov. 21, 2002) disapproved of by Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086 [rejecting CEQA Guideline that would define a de minimis contribution insignificant where that the “environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented.”] 39 https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/CAPCOA-CEQA-and-Climate-Change.pdf 40 SCAQMD, Interim GHG CEQA Thresholds, p. 5, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2 41 Id. at p. 6. 42 DEIR, p. 3.4-8.

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 10 of 18 ends

____________________
Land use projects above the 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year level would fall within the percentage of largest projects that are worth mitigating without wasting scarce financial, governmental, physical, and social resources.43 This is nonsensical – especially where the purpose of CEQA review is to analyze, minimize, mitigate and disclose the Project’s impacts. This is especially true when the vast majority of municipalities use the 900 metric ton CAPCOA threshold and the City’s land use jurisdiction covers a greater diversity of projects with a different emissions profile than that of SCAQMD.

When the more appropriate CAPCOA threshold is applied, it is clear the Project will have a significant impact. The latest CARB Scoping Plan concludes a more aggressive approach to GHG reductions is necessary.44 “Despite much progress, California still has some of the worst air pollution in the nation, especially in the San Joaquin Valley and the Los Angeles Basin, which is driven by the continued use of fossil fuel-powered trucks and cars.”45 The Project’s significant use of fossil-fuel powered trucks is even more troubling now as the City has updated in CAP. The City’s focus on transportation as the most significant source of community-wide emissions reductions is at odds with the Project’s significant increase in transportation-related GHG emissions.46 Though the Project will haul “cleaner” fuels, it will directly result in the burning of dirty fossil fuels.

In that regard, the DEIR selectively analyzes the Project’s consistency with a handful of self-selected CAP measures – completely ignoring the VMT reduction measures with which it clearly does not align.47 This statement in the CAP is especially poignant in light of the DEIR’s flagrant disregard of its GHG impacts:

Broadly speaking, the use of fossil fuels for energy (including electricity, heating, transportation, and other uses) is the single largest contributor to GHG emissions and climate change. Fossil fuels still supply a considerable share of energy for electricity, heating, transportation, and other energy-producing uses.48 CARB and SDAPCD have encourage the Project to implement ZEV and Tier IV onsite equipment to reduce the Project’s cumulative GHG impacts and direct air quality and health 43 DEIR, p. 3.4-8.
44 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, p. 1, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf 45 Id., p. 11. 46 National City CAP, Table CAP-5, and p. 25.
47 CAP Table CAP-9; DEIR, p. 3.4-11.
48 CAP, p. 29, emphasis added.

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 11 of 18 ends

____________________
impacts to the community.49 Despite these agency comments, the DEIR includes none of these, as SDAPCD recently noted in its most recent comment letter.50 In light of the significant climate crisis, the Project’s GHG emissions are significant and must be mitigated. The DEIR should include an accurate assessment of the Project’s emissions and implement the proposed mitigation measures (ZEV and Tier IV equipment).

Lastly, the DEIR’s GHG analysis relies on suspect modeling assumptions. The model relied on an average one way trip of 12.32 miles, underestimating the distance between the Project and its customers.51 The DEIR’s presumption that Project deliveries would be restricted to a 35-mile radius is itself unsupported – no customer data is presented and no Project conditions restricting the delivery area are proposed. Thus, the average trip length of 12.32 miles is even more specious. As a result, the CalEEMod emissions underestimate the Project’s impacts.

D. VMT Impacts Will Be Significant and Unmitigated
The Project will also result in significant traffic impacts. First, the Project does not consider the cumulative impact of creating additional capacity – by freeing up capacity at the BNSF facility in San Diego. Further, the DEIR does not explain the substantial Project capacity reduction from the MND to the DEIR. The MND Traffic Study reflected 605 passenger car equivalent daily trips associated with the Project.52 The DEIR Traffic Study reflects an almost 50 percent reduction in fuel capacity and 385 passenger car equivalent daily trips.53 This reduction is not explained in the DEIR or appendices and is therefore suspect.

Further, in lieu of using the OPR Technical Advisory, the DEIR continues to rely on the San Diego ITE Guidelines.54 The OPR Technical Advisory suggests projects with fewer than 110 trips per day can be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.55 The Project’s VMT Analysis instead references the San Diego Region ITE/Stantec Guidelines, which provide no justification for their thresholds except the ITE/Stantec Guidelines from 2000 – which predate SB 743. Indeed, the 2000 ITE/STANTEC Guidelines are primarily focused on circulation and congestion – the opposite of SB 743’s focus.56 49 See SDAPCD June 28, 2023 Comment Letter, pp. 4-5; SDAPCD June 6, 2024 Comment Letter, p. 2; CARB June 7, 2024 Comment Letter, p. 4.
50 SDAPCD January 23, 2025 Comment Letter, p. 2.
51 Appendix B, p. 37.
52 MND Traffic Impact Study, p. 1.
53 DEIR, Appendix H, p. 1.
54 Id.
55 OPR SB 743 Technical Advisory, p. 12, available at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf 56 Indeed, the City relied on the OPR Technical Advisory to prepare the CEQA document for the recently approved CARMAX project. The City’s deviation therefrom here is therefore suspect. See, https://www.nationalcityca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/27309/637679129231930000 USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 12 of 18 ends

____________________
Further, a determination that an environmental impact complies with a threshold of significance does not relieve a lead agency of its obligation to consider evidence that indicates the impact may be significant despite compliance with the threshold.57 If evidence is submitted tending to show that the environmental impact might be significant despite the significance standard used in the DEIR, the agency must address it.58 Because the Project will generate the equivalent of 385 passenger car equivalent trips, well above the OPR Technical Advisory threshold, it will result in a significant transportation impact.

E. The Alternatives Analysis is Inadequate
“The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.”59 The “core of an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections.”60 An agency may not approve a project that will have significant environmental impacts if there are feasible alternatives that would substantially lessen those effects.61
The purpose of an EIR’s discussion of alternatives and mitigation measures is to identify ways to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects.62 An EIR must focus on alternatives that can avoid or substantially lessen a project’s significant environmental effects.63 The alternatives discussed in an EIR should be ones that offer substantial environmental advantages over the proposed project.64 Because the DEIR incorrectly concludes none of the Project impacts are significant, the alternatives analysis is fundamentally flawed.65 In fact, the DEIR includes a detailed analysis of Alternative 3 as a feasible alternative, but the Project use is prohibited in the ML Light Industrial zone in which 57 14 Cal Code Regs §15064(b)(2).
58 Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1111. 59 Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 503 [cleaned up and citations omitted]
60 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. 61 Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Guidelines, §§ 15002, subd. (a)(3), 15021, subd. (a)(2); Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 546. 62 Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal. 3d. 376, 403 63 Pub. Res. Code §21002; 14 Cal Code Regs §15126.6(a)–(b). 64 Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d. 553, 566. See Cleveland Nat’l Forest Found. v San Diego Ass’n of Gov’ts (2017) 17 Cal. App. 5th 413, 436 (rejecting transportation plan EIR that did not consider alternatives that would reduce vehicle miles travelled); Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (2d ed. Cal. CEB 2024) §15.7
65 See, DEIR p. 5-7 (“Alternative locations considered were either unavailable for development, would not feasibly accommodate a project such as the Proposed Project, or would not reduce the significant impacts because none are identified.”), emphasis added.

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 13 of 18 ends

____________________
Alternative 3 is located. Thus, the DEIR’s rejection of alternative locations outside National City based on purported zoning/use restrictions is incongruous.66 In addition, the DEIR’s alternative location (Alternative 3) does not reflect inclusion of reasonable range of alternatives.67 Alternative 3 does not alleviate the health and safety concerns as it is still within National City and, as APCD notes, still within the Portside Community (notwithstanding the DEIR’s conclusion to the contrary).68 Alternative locations outside of National City are available. Indeed, Plastic Express has a transloading facility in Miramar at 7001 Miramar Road, San Diego, CA 92121.69 Expansion at this location – far removed from residents and Portside Communities – would have a reduced impact and likely serve as a more central hub to fuel customers. Plastic Express already lists a bult terminal in National City at 840 West 19th Street, National City, CA 91950,70 adding to the cumulative impacts and health, environmental, and safety burden of the Portside Community. Additional locations along the 78 corridor and BNSF’s rail network between Oceanside and Escondido also exist. They could meet most of the Project objectives without additionally burdening National City.
66 See DEIR, p. 5-28 (Alternative 3 analysis incorrectly stating (ML) Light Manufacturing zoning designation would accommodate the Project with a CUP.
67 14 Cal Code Regs §15126.6(a).
68 APCD January 23, 2025 comments, p. 1; DEIR, 5-28.
69 https://www.plasticexpress.com/operations/bulk-terminals/ 70 Id.

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 14 of 18 ends

____________________
Figure 1 Excerpt of BNSF Network Map available at https://www.bnsf.com/bnsf-resources/pdf/ship-with-bnsf/maps-andshipping-locations/bnsf-network-map.pdf F. Hazardous Impacts
The DTSC Interim Measure Workplan (IMW) for the cleanup of the property (the remediation area) was approved in May 2022, along with a CEQA exemption. However, the cumulative impact of the cleanup and the instant project has not been studied. Likewise, the remediation effort did not consider the intended use of the property as the Notice of Exemption for the IMW states incorrectly that “the property owner [had] no plans for future redevelopment at the Site.”71 In addition, the neighboring PSI property has not been remediated, contrary to the DEIR’s conclusion.72 The DTSC sent Pacific Steel a demand letter in October 2024 demanding substantial revisions to the Corrective Measures Study for the 1700 Cleveland Ave site – including a requirement that the remediated BNSF parcels remain 71 https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/279106-1/attachment/pQg5f99Hp4r0jwUeM2jL0-wYkGqcFlS2cUhwFP63nvI9WjLjKIt2JAcLAE-AW4lQInVAlkxnI-0eqYZ0 72 DEIR, p. 2-3.

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 15 of 18 ends

____________________
as part of the facility.73 Therefore, the concurrent remediation of the PSI property and construction of the Project must be analyzed.

G. Environmental Justice – General Plan Inconsistency
Residents in Southeastern San Diego die ten years younger than their counterparts in Central San Diego.74 National City residents’ life expectancy is only 7 months longer than Southeastern San Diegans.75 Geography plays a crucial role in this metric:

While life expectancy is increasing across the board, there is variation in estimates by communities within the San Diego County region. People are less likely to live longer if they are economically disadvantaged, get little exercise and lack access to health care, but according to many studies, even accounting for these factors, geography matters. A baby born in San Diego County in 2021, has a life expectancy of 80.6 years, but within the county, there is currently a 15.6 year gap in life expectancy between some communities.76
In light of this disparity, the National City General Plan includes a Health and Environmental Justice component. Therein, the City acknowledges:

On-going and planned uses west of I-5; therefore, pose undesirable impacts on nonindustrial and sensitive land uses throughout the planning area. Industrial uses are responsible for the generation of point and non-point source emissions. Distribution activities generate a substantial amount truck traffic that contribute to high levels of diesel emissions and air quality concerns in other areas of the city.77 The DEIR’s failure to accurately and adequately analyze the Project’s impacts precludes an informed analysis of the Project’s inconsistency with the General Plan or the Health and Environmental Justice element. Because the Project will significantly increase truck trips, diesel particulate matter emissions, community cancer burden above the SDAPCD threshold, and GHG emissions, it is inconsistent with all of the enumerated policies:
73 See Enclosure.
74 https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2023/06/26/people-in-southeast-san-diego-die-10-years-younger-on-averagethan-central-san-diegans 75 LIFE EXPECTANCY IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, 2010-2021 San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, p. 13.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/CHS/LifeExpectancyinSanDiegoCounty201 0-2021.pdf 76 Id., p. 1.
77 National City, General Plan, Part Three: General Plan Elements – Health and Environmental Justice, p. 3-222.

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 16 of 18 ends

____________________
Policy HEJ-1.2: Consider environmental justice issues as they are related to potential health impacts associated with land use decisions, including enforcement actions, to reduce the adverse health effects of hazardous materials, industrial activities, and other undesirable land uses, on residents regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location.78
Policy HEJ-1.5: Assure potentially affected community residents that they have opportunities to participate in decisions that affect their environment and health, and that the concerns of all participants involved will be considered in the decision-making process.79 Policy HEJ-2.1: Avoid land use conflicts by ensuring residential, public assembly, and other sensitive land uses are adequately buffered from industrial land uses that may pose a threat to human health, where feasible.80
Policy HEJ-2.6: Consider air quality impacts, including cumulative impacts, from existing and new development when making land use decisions and limit the number of industrial facilities or uses to prevent cumulative air pollution impacts.81
Policy HEJ-2.7: Designate truck routes that avoid sensitive land uses, where feasible.82 Policy HEJ-2.9: Request lead and responsible agency consultation on land use and transportation planning, design, and implementation projects to insure that feasible measures are included to minimize potential impacts on the city from air pollution.83 Related policies with which the Project conflicts include:

LU-3.2: Prevent the intrusion of new incompatible land uses and environmental hazards into existing residential areas and phase out existing non-conforming uses.84 LU-3.6: Prohibit the establishment of new residential and other sensitive land uses near industrial land uses and within the Harbor District (unless proposed as part of a mixed-use development adjacent to the 8th Street Trolley stop) and buffer existing residential uses and other sensitive land uses from industrial uses, while protecting and enhancing visitors-serving, commercial, retail, industrial, working-waterfront, and maritime related job-producing industries.85 78 Id., p. 3-231.
79 Id., p. 3-232.
80 Id., p. 3-234, emphasis added.
81 Id., p. 3-325.
82 Id.
83 Id., emphasis added.
84 Id., p. 3-232.
85 Id., emphasis added.

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 17 of 18 ends

____________________
LU-3.7: Limit impacts from industrial or mixed-uses by establishing performance standards to regulate noise, glare, vibrations, odor, lighting, air pollution, and other potential disturbances.86 S-7.7: Work with property owners and lead agencies to reduce soil contamination from industrial operations and other activities that use, produce, or dispose of hazardous or toxic substances.87 S-8.1: Promote the clean-up and reuse of contaminated sites and prioritize remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites within and adjacent to residential and mixed-use areas.88 CS-7.1: Promote the use of green building practices in new and existing development to maximize energy efficiency and conservation.89
C-2.6: Enhance the quality of life in the City’s neighborhoods and minimize impacts on schools, hospitals, convalescent homes and other sensitive facilities through the implementation of traffic calming measures in these areas to reduce vehicle speeds and discourage cut-through traffic.90 As a result of the Project’s inconsistency with these goals, it will result in significant impacts to nearby residents. Inconsistency with a land use plan or policy intended to mitigate environmental impacts is likely to result in a finding of significant environmental impact.91 The Project’s health impacts (increased cancer risk), air quality impacts (increased particulate emissions), greenhouse gas emissions (above the CAPCOA screening threshold), and truck traffic (above the OPR Technical Advisory VMT threshold) frustrate the City’s ability to meet its Health and Environmental Justice goals. As a result of these impacts, the Project will cause substantial adverse effects on the residents of the National City, triggering a mandatory finding of significance.92
H. Land Use and Zoning
According to the DEIR, the Project requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).93 However, it is unclear whether the Project fits within any of the use categories in Table 86 Id., p. 3-236.
87 Id., p. 3-233.
88 Id.
89 Id., p. 3-237.
90 Id., p. 3-239.
91 See Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 934 [“Because the land use policies at issue were adopted at least in part to avoid or mitigate environmental effects, we consider their applicability under the fair argument test with no presumption in favor of the City.”]. 92 See, Pub. Res. Code §21083(b)(3) [mandatory finding of significance where “[t]he environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.”]; CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(4)).
93 DEIR, p. 3.6-1.

USD Fuel Transfer Facility DEIR
EHC Comments
January 29, 2025

Page 18 of 18 ends

____________________

18.25.020 (Allowable Land Uses Industrial Zones). Indeed, gasoline service stations are not an allowable use in the Heavy Industrial Zone.

Assuming a CUP would be sufficient, the Project would have to meet the conditions of Municipal Code Section 18.12.110. The CUP is a discretionary permit and is subject to site and use specific conditions. In particular, the City must determine (among other things):

Granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located
Such findings cannot be made here – where the Project would introduce an additional 169 daily truck trips and a significant increase cancer burden to an already overburdened community – above the SDAPCD threshold. As noted above, the DEIR also fails to analyze the Project’s consistency with the LCP – a prerequisite to the City’s approval of a CDP. Such analysis would disclose the Project’s inconsistency with the LCP and the Project’s resultant significant impacts to wetlands and biological resources. As a result, the DEIR’s land use analysis must be revised.

I. Conclusion
The DEIR fails to adequately analyze significant environmental impacts and improperly defers analysis of impacts and formulation of mitigation measures. EHC urges the City to exercise its discretion to require significant revisions to the Environmental Impact Report so it may serve its informational purpose and ensure the Project adequately avoids, minimizes, and mitigates its numerous significant impacts.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

COAST LAW GROUP LLP
Livia B. Beaudin
Attorneys for Environmental Health
Coalition
Enclosures: DTSC Demand to Pacific Steel, October 15, 2024 From: Luz Molina
To: Steve Manganiello; Barry Schultz
Cc: Martin Reeder; David Welch; Pedro Garcia; Shelley Chapel; Tonya Hussain Subject: Fw: Fuel Transfer Facility Rail Operation Impacts on Naval Base San Diego Military Readiness Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 3:34:17 PM
Attachments: 5000 - FUEL TRANSFER FACILITY RAIL OPERATION IMPACTS ON NAVAL BASE SAN DIEGO MILITARY READINESS Molina.pdf
Hi Steve and Barry,
Please receive the attached letter from Naval Base San Diego concerning the USD Fuels project.

LUZ MOLINA
Councilmember, District 1
1243 National City Blvd.

National City, CA 91950
[email protected]
From: Ayres, Jasmin Kay D CIV USN (USA) <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 12:59 PM
To: Luz Molina
Cc: Bungay, Brian C CAPT USN NAVBASE SAN DIEGO CA (USA); Burkland, William Robert CDR USN NAVBASE SAN DIEGO CA (USA); Mcallister, Karen E CDR USN COMNAVFACSYSCOM (USA); Rodi, Caroline G CIV USN COMNAVREG SW SAN CA (USA); Mugg, James P CIV USN NAVFAC SW SAN CA (USA); NBSD PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Subject: Fuel Transfer Facility Rail Operation Impacts on Naval Base San Diego Military Readiness CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Councilmember Molina,
Attached is a letter from Commanding Officer, Naval Base San Diego, regarding Fuel Transfer Facility Rail Operation Impacts on Naval Base San Diego Military Readiness.

We value our partnership with the City of National City and appreciate your consideration of this information.

Very Respectfully,
Jasmin Ayres
Community Planning & Liaison Officer
Naval Base San Diego
3455 Senn Rd. Bldg. 72
San Diego, CA 92136
O: (619) 556-8183 |
[email protected]

From: Kim Tubbleville
To: Clerk
Cc: Cindy Fleming; David Welch; Martin Reeder; Bill Frerking; Kevin Laborne Subject: San Diego Clean Fuels - Council Pre-Read Packet for City Clerk Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 12:35:55 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Pre Read Packet for Council - FINAL.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hello,
Attached is the “pre-read” packet pertaining to our Project.

Please distribute this to the Council Members, prior to the City Council meeting on October 7th.

Thank you,

KIM TUBBLEVILLE

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC SECTOR
811 MAIN, SUITE 2800 HOUSTON, TX 77002
O 832.991.8576
usdcleanfuels.c
,WHP3XEOLF+HDULQJWR&RQVLGHU
'HQLDORID&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLW
DQG&RDVWDO'HYHORSPHQW3HUPLWIRU
3URSRVHG)XHO7UDQVIHU)DFLOLW\

From: Kim Tubbleville
To: Clerk
Cc: Cindy Fleming; David Welch; Martin Reeder; Bill Frerking; Kevin Laborne Subject: RE: San Diego Clean Fuels - Council Pre-Read Packet for City Clerk Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 3:17:17 PM
Attachments: image001.png
National City Energy Transition Project Impact Analysis.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hello Again,
We would also like to provide the attached Impact Analysis Report to the City Council.

Please distribute this to the Council Members (along with the pre-read packet sent to you earlier today) prior to the City Council meeting on October 7th.

Thank you,

KIM TUBBLEVILLE

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC SECTOR
811 MAIN, SUITE 2800 HOUSTON, TX 77002
O 832.991.8576
usdcleanfuels.com
From: Kim Tubbleville
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 2:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; David Welch <[email protected]>; Martin Reeder <[email protected]>; Bill Frerking <[email protected]>; Kevin Laborne <[email protected]>
Subject: San Diego Clean Fuels - Council Pre-Read Packet for City Clerk Hello,
Attached is the “pre-read” packet pertaining to our Project.

Please distribute this to the Council Members, prior to the City Council meeting on October 7th.

Thank you,

KIM TUBBLEVILLE

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC SECTOR
811 MAIN, SUITE 2800 HOUSTON, TX 77002
O 832.991.8576
usdcleanfuels.com
Prepared for:

USD Clean Fuels
811 Main Street, Suite 2800
Houston, TX, 77002
Prepared by:

A REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF

NATIONAL CITY ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT

IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA
June 17, 2024
Study Highlights……………………………………………………………………………………………3
Overview
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………5
Project Plans………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
Economic Impact Methodology……………………………………………………………6
Economic Impact
Temporary Construction Impact……………………………………………………………7
Permanent Annual Impact of Operations………………………………………………8 Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Impact Summary…………………………………………………………………………11
Taxable Spending………………………………………………………………………………… 12
Sales Taxes……………………………………………………………………………………………13
Income Taxes…………………………………………………………………………………………13
Taxable Property……………………………………………………………………………………14
Property Taxes………………………………………………………………………………………14
Methodology
Overview of Methodology ……………………………………………………………………15
About Impact DataSource………………………………………………………………………17

CONTENTS
Impact DataSource | 2
Study Highlights
• This report presents the projected economic impact of USD Clean Fuels' National City Energy Transition Project (the "Project") on the San Diego County area. It also estimates the tax revenues for local taxing districts during the construction phase and on an ongoing basis.
• The National City Energy Transition Project will establish a clean fuels transloading facility at the BNSF Railway property, aiding California's carbon neutrality goal by 2045 and improving air quality. By replacing 2,400,000 truck miles annually with efficient rail transport, the project will reduce emissions and provide renewable diesel, biodiesel, and ethanol to displace conventional fossil fuels.
• The Project is estimated to require a total capital investment of $14.5 million, which will be spent over an 8-month construction period. Once constructed, the facility is expected to require 24 workers and support total payroll of approximately $2.4 million per year.
• The economic impact of the Project was estimated for both the construction period and the ongoing operational phase.

Temporary Construction Impact
• $24.7 million in economic impact in the regional economy. • 100 total construction jobs during construction.
• $6.8 million in salaries and wages paid to construction workers.

Table 1. Temporary Economic Impact of Project-Related Construction Activity Amount
Economic Output:

Direct $14,539,337
Indirect & Induced $10,194,983
Total Economic Output $24,734,320
Value Added:

Total Value Added $13,541,938
Employment:

Direct 51.2
Indirect & Induced 48.3
Total Employment 99.5
Household Earnings:

Direct $3,908,469
Indirect & Induced $2,866,862
Total Household Earnings $6,775,331
Indirect and induced impacts represent the spin-off economic activity resulting from the business-to-business expenditures initiated by the company and the consumer-to-business expenditures initiated by workers spending a portion of their earnings on goods and services in the economy. Economic output is gross output and is the sum of the intermediate inputs and final use. This is a duplicative total in that goods and services will be counted multiple times if they are used in the production of other goods and services. Economic output can be thought of as the value of goods and services sold in the economy or revenues for businesses in the economy. Value added is defined as the value of gross output less intermediate inputs. Household earnings or earnings consist of wages and salaries, employer provided benefits, and proprietors’ income.

Employment consists of a count of jobs that include both full-time and part-time workers.

Impact DataSource | 3
Study Highlights
On-going Operations Impact
• $21.2 million in annual economic impact.
• 65 total jobs including direct, indirect, and induced. • $4.9 million in annual salaries and wages paid to permanent workers.

Table 2. Economic Impact of On-Going Operations
Total Over the
Annually Next 10 Years
Economic Output:

Direct $12,605,124 $144,503,623
Indirect & Induced $8,587,871 $98,450,318
Total Economic Output $21,192,995 $242,953,941
Value Added:

Total Value Added $12,075,709 $138,434,471
Employment:

Direct 24.0 24.0
Indirect & Induced 40.9 40.9
Total Employment 64.9 64.9
Household Earnings:

Direct $2,378,821 $27,270,521
Indirect & Induced $2,525,832 $28,955,839
Total Household Earnings $4,904,654 $56,226,360
• The fiscal impact estimated for the Project includes sales taxes, income taxes, and property taxes. The State of California and local jurisdictions will benefit from these taxes during construction and on an annual basis during operations. More detail on the tax calculations and share received by the state and local jurisdictions can be found later in the report.

Table 3. Projected Tax Revenues
State of
California
City of National
City
San Diego
County Other Districts Total
One-time Construction Sales Tax $667,166 $111,194 $194,590 $0 $972,950 One-time Construction Income Tax $84,255 $0 $0 $0 $84,255 Total One-time Construction Tax $751,421 $111,194 $194,590 $0 $1,057,205 Annual On-going Sales Tax $74,600 $12,433 $21,758 $0 $108,792 Annual On-going Income Tax $69,492 $0 $0 $0 $69,492
Annual On-going Property Tax $0 $0 $109,045 $16,808 $125,853 Total Annual On-going Tax $144,092 $12,433 $130,803 $16,808 $304,137 • During construction and over the first 10 years of operations, the Project is estimated to generate $4.5 million in new tax revenues for the state and local taxing jurisdictions.

Table 4. Projected Tax Revenues over Next 10 Years
State of
California
City of National
City
San Diego
County Other Districts Total
One-time Construction Tax $751,421 $111,194 $194,590 $0 $1,057,205 Operations Tax Revenues $1,651,851 $142,535 $1,499,515 $192,687 $3,486,588 Total Taxes Over First 10 Years $2,403,272 $253,729 $1,694,105 $192,687 $4,543,793 • More detail on the above summary can be found on the following pages.

Impact DataSource | 4
NATIONAL CITY ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT | OVERVIEW
Introduction
This report presents the results of an analysis conducted by Impact DataSource, an economic consulting firm based in Austin, TX. It estimates the economic impact of USD Clean Fuels' National City Energy Transition Project (the "Project") on the San Diego County area and projects the tax revenues for local taxing districts both during the construction phase and on an ongoing basis.

Project Plans
The National City Energy Transition Project will bring a clean fuels transloading facility to the existing BNSF Railway property in National City, helping California achieve its stated goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 and improving air quality.

The National City project will provide clean fuels to reduce emissions in public transportation, off-road equipment, and other applications in and around National City. By replacing approximately 2,400,000 truck miles per year with more efficient rail transportation, the project will reduce carbon and emissions. The facility will transload cleaner, lower-carbon renewable diesel, biodiesel, and ethanol to displace conventional hydrocarbon-based fossil fuels.

According to projections from USD Clean Fuels, it is anticipated to cost $14.5 million to develop the National City Energy Transition Project over an 8-month construction period. Once constructed, the facility is expected to require 24 workers and support total payroll of approximately $2.4 million per year.

Table 5. Project Details
National City
Energy Transition
Project
Hard Construction Costs $13,039,337
Soft Construction Costs $1,500,000
Total Capital Investment $14,539,337
Employment Headcount 24
Average Annual Payroll Per Employee $99,118
Total Payroll $2,378,821
Impact DataSource | 5
NATIONAL CITY ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT | OVERVIEW
Economic Impact Methodology
This analysis estimates both the temporary economic impact during the Project's construction period and the ongoing annual economic impact during operations. This section outlines the metrics measured and the methodology used in the economic impact model.

The economic impacts are measured in terms of employment, household earnings, economic output, and value added:

Employment consists of a count of jobs that include both full-time and part-time workers.

Household earnings or earnings consist of wages and salaries, employer provided benefits, and proprietors’ income.

Economic output is gross output and is the sum of the intermediate inputs and final use. This is a duplicative total in that goods and services will be counted multiple times if they are used in the production of other goods and services. Economic output can be thought of as the value of goods and services sold in the economy or revenues for businesses in the economy.

Value added is defined as the value of gross output less intermediate inputs.

The total economic impact of the Project extends beyond initial construction expenditures and direct operational employment.

Initial spending generates additional economic impacts through indirect and induced effects. Indirect impacts arise from businessto-business expenditures when the company purchases goods and services from other businesses. Induced impacts result from consumer spending by workers in the economy.

Economic Impact Calculations
The economic impact estimates in this report are based on the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), a widely used regional input-output model developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. The RIMS II model used in this analysis is configured for San Diego - Chula Vista - Carlsbad MSA. This region corresponds to the region that will supply most of the inputs and workers.

Industry Classifications
To estimate the economic impact of the Project's activity, industry-specific multipliers are applied to the appropriate expenditure or employment industries. The table below identifies the activity and the corresponding RIMS II industry group.

Table 6. Expenditure Categories and Corresponding RIMS II Industry Group Activity RIMS II Industry Group
Construction Expenditures 2332TH - Transportation structures and highways and streets Operations Employment 482000 - Rail transportation
Impact DataSource | 6
NATIONAL CITY ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT | ECONOMIC IMPACT Temporary Construction Impact
The Project will require a total capital investment of $14.5 million to construct the facilities. The planned expenditure serves as the direct economic output and the total economic impact is estimated using the RIMS II model.

Table 7. Project Investments
Amount
Hard Construction Costs $13,039,337
Soft Construction Costs $1,500,000
Total Capital Investment $14,539,337
The construction costs are expected to support 100 jobs during construction and $6.8 million in household earnings for these workers. Additionally, the activity will support $24.7 million in total spending or economic output, and contribute $13.5 million in value added or gross area product.

The following table presents the temporary economic impacts resulting from the construction.

Table 8. Temporary Economic Impact of Project-Related Construction Activity Amount
Economic Output:

Direct $14,539,337
Indirect & Induced $10,194,983
Total Economic Output $24,734,320
Value Added:

Total Value Added $13,541,938
Employment:

Direct 51.2
Indirect & Induced 48.3
Total Employment 99.5
Household Earnings:

Direct $3,908,469
Indirect & Induced $2,866,862
Total Household Earnings $6,775,331
Taxable sales related to construction activity are presented in the following table. The sales tax revenue generated from construction-period taxable spending is included in the fiscal impact for affected districts during the initial period of construction.

Table 9. Construction-Related Taxable Spending
Amount
Expenditure for Materials $10,630,868
% of Materials subject to local tax 100.0%
Subtotal Taxable Materials $10,630,868
Expenditure for Labor / Paid to construction workers $3,908,469 Taxable Spending as % of Wages 25.0%
% of taxable spending in region 50.0%
Subtotal Taxable Construction Worker Spending $488,559
Total Construction-Related Taxable Spending $11,119,427 Impact DataSource | 7
NATIONAL CITY ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT | ECONOMIC IMPACT Permanent Annual Impact of Operations
The permanent, on-going economic impact of the National City Energy Transition Project is summarized in this section.

In total, the Project is estimated to support 64.9 permanent jobs, $4.9 million in annual household earnings, and $21.2 million in annual economic output in the San Diego MSA. Ultimately, the activity will support contribute $12.1 million in value added or gross area product to the local economy each year.

The following table presents the permanent, on-going economic impacts resulting from the Project.

Table 10. Permanent Annual Economic Impact of the National City Energy Transition Project Amount
Economic Output:

Direct $12,605,124
Indirect & Induced $8,587,871
Total Economic Output $21,192,995
Value Added:

Total Value Added $12,075,709
Employment:

Direct 24.0
Indirect & Induced 40.9
Total Employment 64.9
Household Earnings:

Direct $2,378,821
Indirect & Induced $2,525,832
Total Household Earnings $4,904,654
Impact DataSource | 8
NATIONAL CITY ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT | ECONOMIC IMPACT The economic impact of the Project would affect industries throughout the economy. The following chart presents a graphical illustration of the total economic output by industry. In total, the Project supports $21.2 million in economic output. The sector seeing the largest increase in economic output is the Transportation and warehousing sector. $8,822
$5,041
$36,548
$437,320
$212,989
$270,962
$565,869
$490,252
$12,915,427
$328,935
$1,262,808
$1,760,622
$912,448
$134,851
$429,758
$94,522
$618,801
$92,001
$92,001
$247,016
$276,003
$0
$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Durable goods manufacturing
Nondurable goods manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation and warehousing
Information
Finance and insurance
Real estate and rental and leasing
Professional, scientific, and technical services
Management of companies and enterprises
Administrative and waste management services
Educational services
Health care and social assistance
Arts, entertainment, and recreation
Accommodation
Food services and drinking places
Other services
Households
Annual Local Economic Output by Industry Sector
Impact DataSource | 9
NATIONAL CITY ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT | ECONOMIC IMPACT The table below provides additional detail on the local economic impacts by industry sector.

Table 11. Total Economic Impact by Industry Sector
Household Economic Value
Employment Earnings Output Added
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 0.1 $2,523 $8,822 $5,041 Mining 0.0 $1,261 $5,041 $2,520
Utilities 0.0 $6,307 $36,548 $23,945
Construction 2.5 $172,823 $437,320 $228,105
Durable goods manufacturing 0.7 $52,982 $212,989 $98,299 Nondurable goods manufacturing 0.6 $42,890 $270,962 $105,861 Wholesale trade 1.4 $124,887 $565,869 $323,884
Retail trade 3.7 $146,332 $490,252 $312,542
Transportation and warehousing 26.0 $2,481,341 $12,915,427 $7,174,599 Information 0.6 $63,074 $328,935 $183,996
Finance and insurance 3.5 $292,665 $1,262,808 $680,535
Real estate and rental and leasing 6.1 $314,110 $1,760,622 $1,135,485 Professional, scientific, and technical services 4.3 $426,382 $912,448 $623,823 Management of companies and enterprises 0.5 $64,336 $134,851 $88,217 Administrative and waste management services 3.4 $162,732 $429,758 $239,447 Educational services 1.0 $42,890 $94,522 $64,273
Health care and social assistance 4.4 $269,958 $618,801 $383,116 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 0.8 $31,537 $92,001 $55,451 Accommodation 0.5 $23,968 $92,001 $57,971
Food services and drinking places 2.5 $78,212 $247,016 $133,586 Other services 2.1 $98,396 $276,003 $149,970
Households 0.3 $5,046 $0 $5,041
Total 64.9 $4,904,654 $21,192,995 $12,075,709
Impact DataSource | 10
NATIONAL CITY ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT | FISCAL IMPACT Fiscal Impact Summary
The economic impacts generated by the National City Energy Transition Project will result in tax revenues for the state, city, county, and other local districts. Other nearby cities and counties may benefit from the Project; however, this analysis focuses on the local districts and utilizes the tax rate information where the Project is located.

The construction activity will result in one-time tax revenues for the state and local jurisdictions as summarized below.

Table 12. One-Time Construction-Related Tax Revenue from of the Project Sales Taxes Income Taxes Total
State of California $667,166 $84,255 $751,421
City of National City $111,194 $0 $111,194
San Diego County $194,590 $0 $194,590
Total $972,950 $84,255 $1,057,205
The on-going operations activities will result in annual tax revenues for the state and local jurisdictions as summarized below.

Table 13. Annual On-Going Tax Revenue from the Project
Annual
Annual Property
Sales Taxes Income Taxes Taxes Total
State of California $74,600 $69,492 $0 $144,092
City of National City $12,433 $0 $0 $12,433
San Diego County $21,758 $0 $109,045 $130,803
Other Districts $0 $0 $16,808 $16,808
Total $108,792 $69,492 $125,853 $304,137
The following pages detail the tax calculations.

Impact DataSource | 11
NATIONAL CITY ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT | FISCAL IMPACT Taxable Spending
Construction-Related Taxable Spending
Taxable sales related to construction activity were presented in a previous section and included taxable construction materials and taxable construction worker spending.

Table 14. Construction-Related Taxable Spending
Amount
Taxable Materials $10,630,868
Taxable Construction Worker Spending $488,559
Total Construction-Related Taxable Spending $11,119,427 Taxable Spending by Permanent Workers
The Project is expected to generate taxable spending in the region during operations. An estimate of spending by permanent workers is provided below. The calculations shown below rely on the assumption that workers spend 12.5% of their gross earnings on taxable goods and services.

Table 15. Taxable Spending by Permanent Workers
Amount
Direct Onsite Household Earnings $4,904,654
Taxable Spending as % of Wages 25.0%
% of taxable spending in region 50.0%
Taxable Spending by Workers $613,082
Total General Taxable Spending
The table below summarizes the total general taxable spending during construction and on-going operations.

Table 16. Total General Taxable Spending
Amount
Construction-Related Taxable Spending $11,119,427
Subtotal One-time Spending $11,119,427
Taxable Spending by Workers $613,082
Taxable Spending by Company (5% Direct Spending) $630,256 Subtotal On-going Spending $1,243,338
Grand Total General Taxable Spending $12,362,765
Impact DataSource | 12
NATIONAL CITY ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT | FISCAL IMPACT Sales Taxes
The one-time construction-related taxable spending results in sales tax revenue for the State of California and local jurisdictions as summarized below.

Table 17. One-Time Construction Sales Tax Collections
Amount
State of California Sales Tax Rate: 6.000% $667,166
City of National City Sales Tax Rate: 1.000% $111,194
San Diego County Sales Tax Rate: 1.750% $194,590
One-Time Construction Sales Tax Collections $972,950
The taxable spending supported by the on-going operation of Project will result in sales tax revenue for the State of California and local jurisdictions as summarized below.

Table 18. Annual Sales Tax Collections
Amount
State of California Sales Tax Rate: 6.000% $74,600
City of National City Sales Tax Rate: 1.000% $12,433
San Diego County Sales Tax Rate: 1.750% $21,758
Annual Sales Tax Collections $108,792
Income Taxes
The wages and salaries generated during the construction and ongoing operations of the Project will contribute to income tax revenue for the State of California. This analysis assumes that 75% of the total household earnings impact will be considered taxable income under California's income tax. Additionally, the effective tax rate is determined based on the average taxable income and the state's tax brackets for married individuals filing jointly.

Table 19. One-Time Construction Period Income Tax Collections Average Per Worker Total
Household Earnings $68,073 $6,775,331
Taxable Income (75% of Earnings) $51,055 $5,081,498
Effective Income Tax Rate 1.66% 1.66%
One-Time Construction Income Tax Collections $847 $84,255 Table 20. Annual Income Tax Collections
Average Per Worker Total
Household Earnings $75,524 $4,904,654
Taxable Income (75% of Earnings) $56,643 $3,678,490
Effective Income Tax Rate 1.89% 1.89%
Annual Income Tax Collections $1,070 $69,492
Impact DataSource | 13
Taxable Property
The table below summarizes the estimated increase in taxable property associated with the Project. The taxable value of the increase in buildings and improvements are estimated to be 75% of the capital investment made during construction. No increase in land or business personal property is expected.

Table 21. Total Increase in Taxable Property
Amount
Land $0
Building & Improvements $10,904,503
Business Personal Property $0
Total Increase in Taxable Value $10,904,503
Property Taxes
The capital investments and associated taxable property will result in property tax revenue for the county and other jurisdictions as summarized below. The property tax rates used in this analysis reflect the rates in National City, California. Property taxes in California are calculated per $100 of taxable
Table 22. Annual Property Tax Collections
Amount
City of National City Property Tax Rate: 0.00000 $0
San Diego County Property Tax Rate: 1.00000 $109,045
Other Districts Property Tax Rate: 0.15414 $16,808
Property Tax Collections $125,853
Impact DataSource | 14
NATIONAL CITY ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT | METHODOLOGY
Overview of Methodology
This report presents the results of an analysis undertaken by Impact DataSource, an Austin, TX based economic consulting firm.

Economic impacts can be categorized into two main types of impacts. First, the direct economic impacts are the jobs and payroll directly created by the company's spending. Second, this economic impact analysis calculates the indirect and induced impacts that result from this activity. Indirect jobs and salaries are created in new or existing area firms, such as maintenance companies and service firms, that may supply goods and services. In addition, induced jobs and salaries are created in new or existing local businesses, such as retail stores, gas stations, banks, restaurants, and service companies that may supply goods and services to new workers and their families.

Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II)
The economic impact estimates in this report are based on the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), a widely used regional input-output model developed by the U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. The RIMS II model is a standard tool used to estimate regional economic impacts. The economic impacts estimated using the RIMS II model are generally recognized as reasonable and plausible assuming the data input into the model is accurate or based on reasonable assumptions. The RIMS II model is described in basic detail below.

Generally speaking, input-output modeling attempts to estimate the changes that occur in all industries based on a change in the demand for the output of an industry. An input-output model allows an analyst to identify the subsequent changes occurring in various industries within a regional economy in order to estimate the total impact on the economy. Total economic impact is the sum of three components: (1) direct, (2) indirect, and (3) induced impacts.

If the demand for the output of an industry, measured by industry sales or revenue, increases by $1.0 million, total regional output increases by $1.0 million. This initial change in output is called the change in direct economic output and also referred to as the direct expenditure effect. The change in total economic output in the region resulting from the initial change does not stop with the change in direct economic output. Businesses in a variety of industries within the region will be called upon to increase their production to meet the needs of the industry where the initial increase in demand occurs. Further, other suppliers must also increase production to meet the needs of the group of initial supplier firms to the industry. This increase in expenditures by regional suppliers is considered the indirect economic impact of the initial $1.0 million in sales, and is classified as indirect expenditures of the total economic impact or the change in indirect economic output.

The total economic impact of the $1.0 million in sales includes one more component, the induced impact. All economic activity, whether direct or indirect, that results from the initial increase in demand of $1.0 million, requires workers, and these workers must be paid for their labor. This means that part of the direct and indirect expenditures is actually in the form of wages and salaries paid to workers in the various affected industries. These wages and salaries will in turn be spent in part on goods and services produced locally in the region. This spending is another part of the regional economic impacts referred to as induced impacts and is classified as induced expenditures or the change in induced economic output.

Based on the initial direct impact, the RIMS II model can be used to estimate the direct, indirect and induced impacts on economic output, value added, earnings and employment in a given region. Economic output is gross output and is the sum of the intermediate inputs and final use. This is a duplicative total in that goods and services will be counted multiple times if they are used in the production of other goods and services. Value added is defined as the value of gross output less intermediate inputs.

Workers’ earnings or earnings consist of wages and salaries, employer provided benefits and proprietors’ income. Employment consists of a count of jobs that include both full-time and part-time workers.

The RIMS II model is based on regional multipliers, which are summary measures of economic impacts generated from changes in direct expenditures, earnings, or employment. Multipliers show the overall impact to a regional economy resulting from a change in demand in a particular industry. Multipliers can vary widely by region. Multipliers are higher for regions with a diverse Impact DataSource | 15
NATIONAL CITY ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT | METHODOLOGY
industry mix. Industries that buy most of their materials from outside the state or region tend to have lower multipliers.

Multipliers tend to be higher for industries located in larger areas because more of the spending by the industry stays within the area.

The RIMS II model generates six types of multipliers for approximately 400 industrial sectors for any region in the United States.

The multipliers include four “final-demand” multipliers and two “direct-effect” multipliers. Final demand multipliers indicate the impact of changes in final demand for the output of a particular regional industry on total regional output, earnings, employment and value added. Direct-effect multipliers indicate the impact of changes in regional earnings or employment within a particular industry on total employment or earnings within a region.

Final-demand output multipliers indicate the total regional output (direct, indirect and induced expenditures) that results from an increase in direct expenditures for a good produced by a particular regional industry. For example, if an industry in a particular region is said to have a final demand output multiplier of 2, this tells us that a $1 increase in final demand for the good produced by that industry results in a $2 increase in total output or expenditures within the regional economy. Finaldemand earnings multipliers indicate the impact of an increase in final demand for the good of a particular regional industry on the total earned income of households within the region. Final-demand employment multipliers indicate the increase in total regional employment that results from a $1.0 million increase in final demand for the good produced by a particular regional industry. Final-demand value-added multipliers indicate the increase in total regional value added that results from a $1.0 million increase in final demand for the good produced by a particular regional industry. Direct-effect earnings multipliers indicate the impact of a $1 change in earnings within a particular regional industry on total earnings in all industries within a region. Direct-effect employment multipliers indicate the impact of a change in employment in a particular regional industry on total employment in all industries within a region.

Theoretically, changes in final demand drive the total change in economic output, earnings, and employment. However, these multipliers relationships can be used to estimate impacts in other ways if only limited information is known about a project.

For example, the multiplier relationships can be used to estimate the increase in direct economic output based on a given level of employment in a specific industry.

Additional Notes on RIMS II
RIMS II multipliers are based on the average relationships between the inputs and outputs produced in a local economy. The multipliers are a useful tool for studying the potential impacts of changes in economic activity. However, the relative simplicity of input-output multipliers comes at the cost of several limiting assumptions. ·£££££££ Firms have no supply constraints—Input-output based multipliers assume that industries can increase their demand for inputs and labor as needed to meet additional demand. ·£££££££ Firms have fixed patterns of purchases—Input-output based multipliers assume that an industry must double its inputs to double its output.
·£££££££ Firms use local inputs when they are available—The method used by RIMS II to develop regional multipliers assumes that firms will purchase inputs from firms in the region before using imports.

RIMS II, like all input-output models, is a “static equilibrium” model. This means that there is no specific time dimension associated with the results using the model. For the RIMS II model, it is customary to assume that the impacts occur in one year because the model is based on annual data.

The fiscal impacts calculated in this report are described in the text of the report.

Impact DataSource | 16
NATIONAL CITY ENERGY TRANSITION PROJECT | METHODOLOGY
About Impact DataSource
Impact DataSource is an Austin economic consulting, research, and analysis firm founded in 1993. The firm has conducted over 3,500 economic impact analyses of firms, projects, and activities in most industry groups in Texas and more than 39 other states.

In addition, Impact DataSource has prepared and customized more than 150 economic impact models for its clients to perform their own analyses of economic development projects. These clients include the City of Austin, City of Dallas, City of San Antonio, Orlando Economic Partnership and others.

Impact DataSource | 17
Email attached received from the following individuals:

Elida Kocharian
Nancy Kennedy
Mary Lou Lackey
Susan Burns
Enrique Medina
Joan Helland
Princess Fernandez
Maria Del Rosario Sandoval
Claudia Hernandez
Mcgarrah Wilson
Jeanette Gomez
Jacob Helfman
Ana Zuniga-Juarez
Marianne Gorsich
Susan Yamagata
Rosalba Syala
Linda Pardy
Cheyanne Andaya
Moana Moeller
Robert Gilleskie
Justin Buchanan
Tyler Valdes
Vi Nguyen Md
Angelica Soriano
Izadora Mcgawley
Ashley Ramiriez
Belen Huizar
Sherry Gogue
Liliana Munoz-Benavente
Adriana Castro
Lynn V
Lesley Valencia
Walter Wittel
Jessie Burrola
Amy Mccormack
Karla Nava
Renee Rodriguez
Michael Gilgun
Enrique Medina
Lawrence Emerson
Christopher Perreira
Luis Sainz
Karyssa Domingo
Patricia Sainz
Joy Williams
Fred Lefevre
Dan Mckirnan
Vianey Salgado Cervantes
Micaela Polanco
Rhea Kuhlman
Valerie Kosheleff
Diana Ramirez
Alisha Morrison
Elisa Contreras
Paulina Gutierrez
Irma Barajas
Ashley Morrison
Cesalyn Rusit
Amelia Porras
Muriel Spooner
Rosalba Dominguez
Leah Oviedo
Susan Randerson
Alyce Smith Cooper
Javier Estrada
Vi Nguyen
Evelyn Viora
Salvador Ayala
Elizabeth Coss
Alicia Sanchez
Maricruz Lorenzo
Margarita Morales
Monserrat Hernandez
Aydee Martinez
Ivette Rodriguez
Ricardo Rodriguez
Erika Santiago
Laura Flores
Margarita Moreno
RM Jackson
Maritza Garcia
Diana Ramirez
Ellyse Briand
Kara N,
Saad Asad
Angelica Ramirez
Mcgarrah Wilson
Michael Gilgun
Sarah Boyer
Brian Polejes
Micaela Polanco
Linda Pardy
Cyndi Houck
Z Kripke
Kyle Alderman
Jl Angell
Judith Emerson
Sonny Burton
Mariel Schmidt
Mary Balce
Ann Dorsey
Rafael Torres
Lydia Soto
Margie Carroll
Cesar Morales
Rosie Sanchez Ulloa
Jillian Quint Quint
Mary Ann Fallon
Estrella Ermino
Salvador Ayala
Missael Feliz Martinez
Angelina Lopez
Guadalupe Perez
Brian Iran Cervantes Arellano
Nancy Cruz
Keith Fink
James Deharpporte
Megan Delaney
Judith Emerson
Sofia Alvarez
Liliana Munoz-Benavente
Cesar Morales
Laura Santos-Puga
Carmen Arroyo
Margarita Garcia
Francisco Hernandez
Carmen Gaxiola
Rosalba Ayala
Patricia Rodriguez
Margarita Moreno
Teresa Olivo
Alicia Sanchez
Angelica Ramirez
Victor Valle
Bryan Gonzalez
Christina Fanti
Monserrat Hernandez
Alexandria Abrams
Amy Castaneda
Angelica Estrada
Carlos Nunez
Ivette Rubio
Nadine Scott
Lucio Munoz
Yvonne (Bonnie) Freeman
Martha Peterson
Isabella Martinez
From: [email protected] on behalf of Fred Lefevre To: Clerk
Subject: REJECT USDG FUEL TRANSFER STATION
Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:09:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

The station would require about 72 heavy-duty diesel-polluting trucks (oil tankers) per day.

Residents in Westside National City already breathe more diesel pollution than 90% of communities in CA. Breathing diesel exhaust is known to damage lungs and cause cancer.

Making matters worse, trains and oil tankers would be moving large amounts of hazardous chemicals through our communities increasing the risk of a catastrophic emergency – like in Palestine, Ohio.

To learn more, visit //bit.ly/USDGFuel25.

Thank you,
Fred Lefevre
This message was sent by Fred Lefevre via ActionButton, on behalf of Environmental Health Coalition. Please reply to Fred Lefevre at
From: [email protected] on behalf of Christina Slentz To: Clerk
Subject: REJECT USDG FUEL TRANSFER STATION
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 11:52:14 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear National City Council,
I write you as the director of creation care ministry in the Catholic diocese of San Diego. Our mission is to spread Catholic teaching of creation care concerning our duty to be good stewards of our common home, to include the just use of our environmental resources and the protection of all life.

The USDG Fuel station proposal in its current format significantly adds to the pre-existing environmental vulnerability of Westside National City. The California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool rates this region's environmental vulnerability with a score of 87 on a scale of 0-100, with zero being the best score and 100 the worst. This assessment is based on current pollution burden and population characteristics indicative of capacity to adapt or demonstrate resilience to impacts. The exposures listed in this area include: Ozone,
Particulate Matter 2.5,
Toxic Releases,
Traffic, polluted Drinking Water, Lead from Housing, and MOST NOTABLY with the highest impact listed, Diesel Particulate Matter with a score of 83.

Residents in Westside National City already breathe more diesel pollution than 90% of communities in CA. The station would require about 72 heavy-duty diesel-polluting trucks (oil tankers) per day, and as you likely know, breathing diesel exhaust is known to damage lungs and cause cancer. THIS IS NOT JUST.

Our ministry aims to raise awareness to the “cry of the earth” and the “cry of the poor,” encourage individual and community resilience and empowerment, and advocate for the adoption of sustainable lifestyles. Therefore, I ask you to REJECT placing a polluting industry in such close proximity to our homes, schools, and churches. While St. Mary's and St.

Anthony of Padua are two Catholic Churches in this area, we advocate for ALL life, as we recognize that we are interconnected by the gift of creation, called to love and care for one another.

Please exercise your leadership wisely and with concern for those most vulnerable. Any work opportunity that is projected to come of this project would be very temporary and the payout is minimal. Do not sell out to industry unwilling to seek a cleaner and more sustainable business model for the sake of their own profitability.

In peace and hope,
Christina Slentz
$GGLWLRQDO3XEOLF&RPPHQW

This message was sent by Christina Slentz via ActionButton, on behalf of Environmental Health Coalition. Please reply to Christina Slentz at
From: [email protected] on behalf of Philip Petrie To: Clerk
Subject: REJECT USDG FUEL TRANSFER STATION
Date: Saturday, September 20, 2025 3:40:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear National City Council,
While I do not live in National City (I live in Normal Heights) I deeply support the work that the Environmental Health Coalition is doing to defeat this fuel transfer station. Being a good neighbor means that I need to weigh in too!
Polluting industries don’t belong next to our homes, schools, and churches. That is why I am asking you to REJECT USDG’s proposed fuel transfer station. This station would be on West 18th St, ~550 ft. from the closest residential home, and less than 1/2 mile from Kimball Elementary School and St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church.

The station would require about 72 heavy-duty diesel-polluting trucks (oil tankers) per day.

Residents in Westside National City already breathe more diesel pollution than 90% of communities in CA. Breathing diesel exhaust is known to damage lungs and cause cancer.

Making matters worse, trains and oil tankers would be moving large amounts of hazardous chemicals through our communities increasing the risk of a catastrophic emergency – like in Palestine, Ohio.

To learn more, visit //bit.ly/USDGFuel25.

Thank you,
Philip Petrie
This message was sent by Philip Petrie via ActionButton, on behalf of Environmental Health Coalition. Please reply to Philip Petrie at
From: [email protected] on behalf of Jillian Quint To: Clerk
Subject: REJECT USDG FUEL TRANSFER STATION
Date: Thursday, October 2, 2025 6:51:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear National City Council,
The risk to our homes and school children are not worth the money driven in by USDG Fuels.

It is not a fair compromise to say that putting entire communities and young children at serious health risk is worth it for the jobs and money it would bring in.

Polluting industries don’t belong next to our homes, schools, and churches. That is why I am asking you to REJECT USDG’s proposed fuel transfer station. This station would be on West 18th St, ~550 ft. from the closest residential home, and less than 1/2 mile from Kimball Elementary School and St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church.

The station would require about 72 heavy-duty diesel-polluting trucks (oil tankers) per day.

Residents in Westside National City already breathe more diesel pollution than 90% of communities in CA. Breathing diesel exhaust is known to damage lungs and cause cancer.

Making matters worse, trains and oil tankers would be moving large amounts of hazardous chemicals through our communities increasing the risk of a catastrophic emergency – like in Palestine, Ohio.

To learn more, visit //bit.ly/USDGFuel25.

Thank you,
Jillian Quint
This message was sent by Jillian Quint via ActionButton, on behalf of Environmental Health Coalition. Please reply to Jillian Quint at
From: [email protected] on behalf of Jl Angell To: Clerk
Subject: REJECT USDG FUEL TRANSFER STATION
Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 4:12:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

The station would require about 72 heavy-duty diesel-polluting trucks (oil tankers) per day.

Residents in Westside National City already breathe more diesel pollution than 90% of communities in CA. Breathing diesel exhaust is known to damage lungs and cause cancer.

Making matters worse, trains and oil tankers would be moving large amounts of hazardous chemicals through our communities increasing the risk of a catastrophic emergency – like in Palestine, Ohio.

To learn more, visit //bit.ly/USDGFuel25.

Thank you,
JL Angell
This message was sent by Jl Angell via ActionButton, on behalf of Environmental Health Coalition. Please reply to Jl Angell at
From: [email protected] on behalf of Leah Oviedo To: Clerk
Subject: REJECT USDG FUEL TRANSFER STATION
Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:43:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear National City Council,
I am disturbed that the USDG project is being considered. National Ciyy has some od the worst pollution in San Diego County. We dont need more pollution that harms our community! Polluting industries don’t belong next to our homes, schools, and churches. That is why I am asking you to REJECT USDG’s proposed fuel transfer station. This station would be on West 18th St, ~550 ft. from the closest residential home, and less than 1/2 mile from Kimball Elementary School and St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church.

Thank you!
The station would require about 72 heavy-duty diesel-polluting trucks (oil tankers) per day.

Residents in Westside National City already breathe more diesel pollution than 90% of communities in CA. Breathing diesel exhaust is known to damage lungs and cause cancer.

Making matters worse, trains and oil tankers would be moving large amounts of hazardous chemicals through our communities increasing the risk of a catastrophic emergency – like in Palestine, Ohio.

To learn more, visit //bit.ly/USDGFuel25.

Thank you,
Leah Oviedo
This message was sent by Leah Oviedo via ActionButton, on behalf of Environmental Health Coalition. Please reply to Leah Oviedo at
From: [email protected] on behalf of Rachel Ireland To: Clerk
Subject: REJECT USDG FUEL TRANSFER STATION
Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:43:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear National City Council,
I’m writing as a San Diego Pediatrician who cares about health of all residents, especially those most affected by pollution... children!
Polluting industries don’t belong next to our homes, schools, and churches. That is why I am asking you to REJECT USDG’s proposed fuel transfer station. This station would be on West 18th St, ~550 ft. from the closest residential home, and less than 1/2 mile from Kimball Elementary School and St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church.

The station would require about 72 heavy-duty diesel-polluting trucks (oil tankers) per day.

Residents in Westside National City already breathe more diesel pollution than 90% of communities in CA. Breathing diesel exhaust is known to damage lungs and cause cancer, plus flares up asthma, eczema, and allergies in children who learn, live, and play in the vicinity. Making matters worse, trains and oil tankers would be moving large amounts of hazardous chemicals through our communities increasing the risk of a catastrophic emergency – like in Palestine, Ohio.

To learn more, visit //bit.ly/USDGFuel25.

Thank you,
Rachel Ireland, MD
This message was sent by Rachel Ireland via ActionButton, on behalf of Environmental Health Coalition. Please reply to Rachel Ireland at
From: [email protected] on behalf of Rafael Torres To: Clerk
Subject: REJECT USDG FUEL TRANSFER STATION
Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 8:57:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear National City Council,
I write to you as a professional engineer and environmental expert who operates here in my hometown of San Diego.

You will have no doubt received multiple emails from the Environmental Health Coalition to reject the proposed USDG fuel transfer station. They will use very passionate language and declare without evidence that this project will put lives in direct jeopardy.

They will cite that over 70 trucks per day will be spewing exhaust throughout the community as they carry biodiesel to service stations in the area. They will also cite that national city experiences worse diesel pollution than 90% of the rest of the State.

They will also cite that diesel fuel is extremely dangerous and hazardous- even putting communities at risk like what was seen in East Palestine Ohio in 2023. These are serious accusations that need to be put into context with the reality of the material, the nature of air pollution in San Diego in 2025, and most crucially, the emissions benefits that this project will yield.

As a professional engineer, it is my obligation to provide the following facts to your leadership in the service of human health, our local environment, and our economy. All I ask is that you take my viewpoint into consideration in addition to the other letters you receive. I am more than happy to follow up individually with you to go over any points in my letter in greater detail. I have done so in the past with Vice Mayor Marcus Bush on separate air quality issues and I hope that he can attest to my sincerity and accuracy to State data.

First, the additional truck trips. Currently, the fuel is trucked from further north in the State.

These trucks drive hundreds of miles round trip, emitting diesel exhaust and greenhouse gases to serve San Diego. This transfer station will include more truck trips locally, yes, but the miles they remove from the roads will be immense. Furthermore, thanks to the stringent emissions regulations from the CA Air Resources Board, the diesel trucks that can legally operate in the state run significantly cleaner than even the trucks allowed to run 10 years ago.

These new diesel engines run so clean that they have reduced tailpipe emissions from mobile truck sources by 60-80%. And they will continue to be cleaner over time.

Second, these trucks will be carrying R99 renewable diesel- made from recycled oils and soybeans. CARB studies have shown that regular diesel engines that use this fuel emit 30% less diesel PM than regular diesel. And this fuel also has an 80% smaller greenhouse gas footprint. This fuel can be used in any diesel engine and see these benefits immediately upon use. This is an excellent bridging technology as the state slowly continues to electrify. There’s no need to build out charging stations or buy new trucks. This will work now. In fact, R99 is effective that it is required by the State for use in off-road fleets, and the more accesible the fuel is, the more emissions reductions we will see as a region. 70 trucks per day carry enough fuel to remove up to 500-1000 trucks worth of emissions from the road with each load! Lastly, diesel fuel is no where near as hazardous as the EHC is purporting it to be. It does not spontaneously combust, and any incident, god forbid, would not nearly present the immediate health hazard as the vinyl chloride spill in East Palestine. On that note, the last major fires that occurred in San Diego came from the electric grid battery storage plants in Escondido and Otay Mesa. These fires are extremely dangerous, are prone to starting again after being put out, and emit highly toxic chemicals such as chromium, nickel, and manganese in their smoke.

Diesel does have its risks, but in comparison it is a much more reasonable material for first responders to contain.

In summary, I write in support of the USDG Fuel Station as someone shows life mission is to serve the community. On the contrary to what the EHC declares- the reductions in emissions will be much higher than if the project did not go through. It will also help to keep fuel costs lower in the communities that would be impacted the most, and the project would reduce thousands of truck miles off our interstates and city streets. Please do not solely listen to a loud and vocal minority who will not fairly present the pros and cons of proposed projects like these in full context. The best way to discuss my points above when accused “how much is a life worth” by detractors is to clearly state that it is exactly in the service of human health and emissions reductions that a project like this should be allowed to proceed.

Thank you for you time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any further questions or would like to discuss any of my points above.

Respectfully,
A professional engineer who cares
This message was sent by Rafael Torres via ActionButton, on behalf of Environmental Health Coalition. Please reply to Rafael Torres at
From: [email protected] on behalf of Mariela Gomez To: Clerk
Subject: REJECT USDG FUEL TRANSFER STATION
Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 7:29:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear National City Council,
I am a resident, who has asthma, a child with asthma and I would not appreciate our city adding more pollutants into our air! Polluting industries don’t belong next to our homes, schools, and churches. That is why I am asking you to REJECT USDG’s proposed fuel transfer station. This station would be on West 18th St, ~550 ft. from the closest residential home, and less than 1/2 mile from Kimball Elementary School and St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church.

The station would require about 72 heavy-duty diesel-polluting trucks (oil tankers) per day.

Residents in Westside National City already breathe more diesel pollution than 90% of communities in CA. Breathing diesel exhaust is known to damage lungs and cause cancer.

Making matters worse, trains and oil tankers would be moving large amounts of hazardous chemicals through our communities increasing the risk of a catastrophic emergency – like in Palestine, Ohio.

To learn more, visit //bit.ly/USDGFuel25.

Don’t turn national City into a pulling ground!
Thank you,
Mariela GomezMariela Gomez
This message was sent by Mariela Gomez via ActionButton, on behalf of Environmental Health Coalition. Please reply to Mariela Gomez at
From: [email protected] on behalf of Z Kripke To: Clerk
Subject: REJECT USDG FUEL TRANSFER STATION
Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 3:56:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear National City Council,
KNOWING what we already do about the bad health outcomes in National City, the idea of inviting in a fueling station is incomprehensible. Everything about this plan is a danger to people already burdened with sorrowful health statistics. This would be a mere 550 ft. from the closest residential home, and less than 1/2 mile from Kimball Elementary School and St.

Anthony of Padua Catholic Church.

The station would require about 72 heavy-duty diesel-polluting trucks (oil tankers) per day.

Residents in Westside National City already breathe more diesel pollution than 90% of communities in CA. Breathing diesel exhaust is known to damage lungs and cause cancer.

Making matters worse, trains and oil tankers would be moving large amounts of hazardous chemicals through our communities increasing the risk of a catastrophic emergency – like in Palestine, Ohio.

This must not happen to our San Diego neighbors and children in National City Thank you,
Z Kripke, La Jolla, 92037
This message was sent by Z Kripke via ActionButton, on behalf of Environmental Health Coalition. Please reply to Z Kripke at

National City City CouncilOctober 7, 2025

National City City Council
October 7, 2025